Talk:Anna Anderson/Archive 3

To The Writer Of This Article
You are twisting and distorting information.Your article is full of errors and you are presenting things as settled facts that are still very much disputed

Who are you really?

Theosophica (talk) 06:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Who are YOU, really, and who are you to make these claims? Since Anastasia's claim has been officially proven false, the things you say are 'disputed' are certainly not by anyone other than extremists and conspiracy theorists. The article must tell the truth, and that is that Anna Anderson was not Anastasia.aggiebean —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggiebean (talk • contribs) 16:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC) And as I have already stated, you are a LIAR! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.99.30 (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Lies? How do you know they are lies? I say they aren't, especially since the people against her turned out to be right. A lot of people say a lot of things. How do you know some of her supporters weren't lying? That is much more likely since it turned out she wasn't really Anastasia. No, I do not doubt the DNA at all but I also think it's very important to show that even without the DNA her story is full of holes and inaccuracies. If we don't do this, then AA supporters will continue to say everything went her way except the DNA and that is not the truthsigned aggiebean —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggiebean (talk • contribs) 19:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

\Give it up Chat/PK we've heard all your old rhetoric a million times, and it means nothing. NOBODY CARESaggiebean aggiebean And if it means nothing, why do you get so riled up over it? And for the last time: I am not Peter Kurth. Anyone who states the opposite, is a liar! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.99.30 (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The 'unsigned' comment's IP matches the one you used on my forum exactly so I know it's you. Oh yes, as if you really think that Peter Kurth gives a *&^% about your silly website...... ChatNoir NOBODY cares but you so you have to keep on posting under different names or anonymously. This case is closed. signed aggiebean And YOU are nothing but a LIAR!!! I have never used another name, unlike you who changes signature frequently. And it is very, very clear to us all that you care a whole lot, the way you carry on.ChatNoir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.99.30 (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not a liar, it is you and everyone knows it, especially the people here who have called you on it. Finneganw knows it's you, too. Yes, you do use other names, and yes, you do post anonymously. Yes, I have used different names on different boards, however, I do not lie about who I am, the things I say make it clear who I am, and if asked, I will tell you. I have nothing to hide. No one cares more than you, because you still seem to think all your old snake oil is going to change someone's mind or make them think the DNA is wrong. If you really didn't care, you'd give it up. I don't care about AA, I care about you trying to mislead people.signed aggiebean

While it is my personal belief that the poster using the name ChatNoir is PK, that is not what I meant by 'it's you.' I was saying it was you Chat who was posting Anonymously and you are. We might as well just not come back here, this story is oversigned aggiebean Yes, we all hope you will not come back here. And by publicly addressing me as Chat/PK, it is very clear that you are trying to convince the public that "your personal belief" is the truth. ChatNoir Good Lord Annie! Are you dragging out the ChatNoir=Peter Kurth thing again?? Annie, you know I harrassed you, I vilified you, but I will never, EVER lie to you (that's the Bobsey's job!). I know Chat, I know Peter. I have talked to Peter on the phone more than once. Peter and Chat are NOT the same person. --Russophile —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.224.190.242 (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You know, who cares? Stop squabbling. I suggest ChatNoir get himself or herself an actual registered account and clear up the confusion and that Annie or Aggiebean also use her registered account all the time so we aren't confronted with a long line of numbers. I think Kurth does have one and posted here as himself a year or so ago and does not appear to be the same guy as ChatNoir. The ongoing conversation is rather pointless. Anna Anderson was not Anastasia. They've identified all seven sets of remains from the Imperial family. She was probably Franziska Schanzkowska, but I don't think the DNA evidence in that case is definitive and I still have some doubts based on witness testimony about discrepancies in Franziska's appearance and behavior and Anna Anderson's. The article as it currently exists is pretty horribly POV and, unfortunately, people like Finnegan continue to remove sourced statements that contradict his point of view. The article badly needs to be edited again and examined from the point of view of neutrality. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You know Chat is Kurth better than anyone else, Russo, of course he's your friend so you try to spare him the humiliation. It's like AA herself, after she began to say she was AA and not FS, she could never go back and admit the truth, it would be too embarrassing and too much trouble. Of course Kurth is Chat, you can see that by reading the messages they both post here and elsewhere, but especially here. Finneganw also knows it's him. But that's not the point. The main issue here is, there is no need to argue over what this or that person said decades ago, because it means nothing since AA was not AN. For this reason, though, bookworm, I don't think the article needs to be neutral on her identity. This is an educational site, and we need to educate those who come looking for answers accurately, and that is to state outright that AA was an imposter and has been proven to be so. This is the best, most accurate and honest thing to do with the article. All doubt has now been erased and we needn't tell the 'what if she was' POV just to appease a few diehard supporters who cannot let it go for emotional reasons. signed aggiebean


 * My problem with neutrality isn't so much about whether or not she was Anastasia. It's clear that she was not, though I think there is some question about whether she was Franziska. I do have an issue with the heaping on of innuendo and criticism about supporters, about her own character, etc. and the removal of sourced citations that are contrary to Finnegan's or someone else's preferred point of view. I also think at some point someone should go through the article and trim down the various quotations, etc., that say much the same thing. The article suffers from having too many cooks with conflicting points of view. The article needs to have more flow. Again, please sign your statements with your registered name so the bot doesn't do it for you. It makes it hard to see who's saying what. And who cares if Peter Kurth and ChatNoir are the same person or not when it comes right down to it? I think it's pretty clear that they are different people, but Kurth wrote a well-researched book with a conclusion that turned out to be wrong. It's still the best available reference to Anna Anderson and the various events in her life and he acknowledged and has acknowledged his own bias so readers can take it into account. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There really isn't a question of whether or not she was FS. Her picture is identical to AA, the DNA matches, she vanished, AA appeared, and the detectives found her to be FS. Most of all, there are no other suspects. She was only AN or FS, and she's not AN, so what have we got? FS! It's like OJ and the 'other killer', there is no other killer. AA was FS, and even if she wasn't, who cares if she was some identical long lost cousin? She's still a fraud. On Kurth= Chat, it is very obvious that he is, but it is not the main issue here, the accuracy of the article is. IMO, it needs serious weeding down, mainly deleting the entire Heinrich Kleibetzl story and most of the 'husband and son' chapter since these are now known to be based on completely fictional events. If that version of her 'escape' story is told, we also need to include her other, wilder versions, such as her trek through Paris where she was chased by thugs, or when she claimed she used an apparatus to alter her facial features, to show how many times it changed before it was honed to a more acceptable version by the professional writer Rathlef. We also need to stress that, even besides the DNA, there is a lot of evidence against her and a lot of mile wide holes in her story. We also need to include things that show how they were NOT as 'identical' as AA supporters like to say, and tell the truth about the 'height difference' and how it was not documented but merely guessed at years later, and to show that for everything a supporter claimed, someone else contradicted, such as the language issue. In no way should the article ever, even in the slightest, leave anyone reading it to get the idea she may have been AN.signed aggiebean


 * Sorry, Annie/AggieBean, but I don't and will not agree with removing the Kleinbenzetl story or the escape story or the discussions about the reported differences between Anna Anderson and Franziska Schanzkowska. They're part of the story and they're a big part of why this was accepted by so many people for so many years. They're cited, besides. I agree that she was PROBABLY Franziska Schanzkowska, but it's also a fact that the only existing photograph of Franziska Schanzkowska was retouched multiple times and it's difficult to see what the woman really looked like. Anna Anderson in old age did look quite a bit like one of the pictures I saw of FS's sisters, however. Rathlef was an artist, not a professional writer. In any event, no one is interested in the squabble over who is and who is not Peter Kurth. It's pretty irrelevant at this point if he is or is not. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh Annie *Russo sighes* why don't you ask Oma? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.224.190.242 (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * One of these days I'm going to go through it with a fine tooth comb and attempt to rewrite it so it flows better. I think both sides of the story need to be represented so readers can make up their own minds! But can we please stop the endless squabble over who is and is not Peter Kurth? I doubt anyone reading this cares and it doesn't matter when it comes to editing the article. I just wish people would sign their comments and register if they plan to edit the page. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Chat, did you ever consider that if something doesn't 'jive' or that it's a 'square peg that won't fit into a round hole' it's because, IT DIDN'T REALLY HAPPEN? You're going for the other approach, that because there are 'anomalies' she must still be AN. But no, the answer is that the things said long ago were not accurate. The Kleibetzl story may be 'documented' but that does not in any way make it true. I'm not against a fleeting mention of someone alleging it happened, but the long, detailed report in this article is the same as quoting a fictional movie. As I've said for years, there is a difference between something being a 'fact' someone said something and what they said actually being a 'fact.' Since we know for sure now she wasn't AN and she didn't escape, we must use logic and common sense to figure out which things were not true. As for Rathlef, she was also a writer, she wrote fairy tales.The work of Rathlef and Botkin cannot be taken seriously because they were supporters, and trying to help her case. This is why it's so important to present things like Mountbatten and Prince Christopher to balance out all the nonsense. Again, this article is for educational purposes, and should represent the truth and reality, not odd theories or a few desperate people trying to hang onto a fantasyAggiebean (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither Mountbatten or Prince Christopher ever met Anna Anderson, however, which needs to be mentioned. They may well have interviewed people who had and formed the opinion that she was a fraud, but if someone is familiar with the process of how Christopher wrote his book, that needs to be included in this article as well so people don't come to the conclusion that he was writing it based on first-hand experience with her. The supporters were the ones who were actually familiar with Anna Anderson as a person and since the article is about "Anna Anderson" and not Anastasia, their observations are valuable. Gleb Botkin knew Anastasia AND Anna Anderson. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have with that rationale is that it doesn't go both ways. If I try to add something that is just a note on the situation I feel is important when considering their comments, you guys always delete it and say it's not documented, only personal viewpoint/slant, etc., so it's not right that you should add things like that if you won't let me do it. For example, I tried to add that the Ernie's trip story was not as earthshaking as AA supporters make it out to be because there were books out at the time containing the rumor before AA said it, yet it always gets taken out. Why? Do you want to mislead people into thinking AA had some 'inside information?' I also disagree that we shoud 'let everyone make up their own mind.' If you want to do that, and present both sides, make a website like mine and put the link in the external links. That is your right. However, this story should remain informational based on the fact that AA was not AN. History is not based on opinion. Aggiebean (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I had the name, author and publisher and publishing date of the book, and the word of a person who owns it and has read it. Since you like eyewitness testimony so much you should accept that!Aggiebean (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

On the FS info: I see nothing at all wrong with what we currently have:

Most historians believe that Anderson was actually Franziska Schanzkowska, a Kashubian factory worker.[5][6] A private detective investigation had identified Anderson as Schanzkowska, who was born on December 26, 1896, in Pomerania (then in Prussia but now in Poland) as early as the 1920s.[7] Anderson's mitochondrial DNA is also a match to the Schanzkowski family, which indicates that she was most likely Schanzkowska.[5][8]

This is totally accurate, and the word 'most' shows that a very few still won't accept it, if you feel they must be appeased. This does not at all change the strong likehood that she was FS, and leaves that info available for readers. I also don't think it's right to list the alleged 'differences' between AA and FS without disclaimers- again, if I add them, you'd delete them, yet you want to add them to Christopher's and Mountbatten's comments. Here are some examples of misleading things that shouldn't be in the article:

1. FS was taller than AA- there is no medical or documented proof of FS ever being measured, all we have are literally GUESSES by people who hadn't seen her for more than a decade. Can you accurately guess the height of a neighbor or coworker from that long ago? Who could? So it's not a set in stone fact and shouldn't be presented that way.

As I was saying, guesses by people over a decade later mean nothing. I've seen people guess height wrong the next day after meeting a person. Not accurate at all and should not be presented that wayAggiebean (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Despite what some would say and insinuate, AA and FS were NOT 'accounted for at the same time.' She wasn't reported missing immediately, this is very common today, so imagine how it must have been back then when people were not in close contact via email and cell phones. She jumped on Feb. 20, was officially reported gone March 9, but there is no proof of FS being seen elsewhere during that time and it's wrong to leave that impression to readers.

This still does not prove that FS was seen somewhere besides the hospital between Feb. 20 and March 9. (this is, of course, because she was AA in the hospital)Aggiebean (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

3. Whether or not FS was injured in the grenade factory- those who claim to have medical records to prove this cannot produce them, and become angry when you ask for them. According to Massie, who got his info from Berenberg-Gossler's papers, she was. AA was covered with scars, and we know for sure now she didn't obtain them in Ekaterinburg, so she had to get them somewhere else. Doesn't it make sense that this grenade explosion fits the description of something that would cause such scars and mental trauma? No one stands next to a foreman 'eviscerated before her eyes' and comes away with no wounds at all.

Again, her family had denied her, they couldn't paint a trail to her door. She did suffer those wounds, and scars all over her body, from the munitions factory, but no matter where they came from, it wasn't Ekaterinburg and it's wrong to leave that possibility open to readers now that she's been proven beyond all doubt not to be genuineAggiebean (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

4. Stating as fact that "FS never had a child." There is no record of it, but that does not mean it didn't happen and she dumped it, covered it up, aborted, miscarried, etc. In those days girls were ashamed of unwed pregnancies and hid them. It's also not usual that her family and acquaintances would not be told of it, or admit it, considering what a 'disgrace' it was to the whole family back then. If you put that 'there is no record of her having given birth' you also need to note that there is also no proof of AA's alleged child, or any record of his birth or dumping at any orphanage as she claimed. But it's false to leave the impression that AA definitely had a child and FS definitely did not. Yes AA was found to have had a child in an exam, but since there is no record of the child's birth or death, all we have is her word on the story, which was of course false since she was never in Romania. We will never know what became of the baby of AA/FS.

NO ONE should be speculating, and that is what you are doing in a lot of this, and strongly leaving open ended insinuations meant to persuade a reader into believing your viewpoint. If I can't do it you can't do it. Fact: there is no record of any baby being born to AA or FS, or any proof of what happened to it. This does not prove FS was never pregnant!Aggiebean (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

5. Her family's denial should be noted along with the good reasons they had for denial, such as to help her avoid jail for fraud, mental hospital, death camp and financial retributions for her claim, but of course you'd delete that, as I mentioned before in the double standard that you'd not accept my notes like this but want to add your own such as that Mountbatten didn't meet her.

But she soon ended up shutting up, didn't she? They couldn't claim her, it was too much trouble for all of them, everything to lose and nothing to gain. I'd love to hear the whole true story from this family, I bet it's very interestingAggiebean (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

6. Gertrude not having a birth certificate- according to the research of one person. This doesn't mean she didn't, or even if she didn't it doesn't mean she wasn't a member of the family. I have elderly relatives who don't have them though their siblings do. If this is done to cast doubt on the DNA results with Maucher, it doesn't, since she did match him, and that could only happen if she were maternally related to the family.Aggiebean (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen the others, either. The fact is, you have nothing to document to say she didn't have one as a fact, because we really don't know. Maybe she lost it. Maybe it's in another town. We can't put 'maybes' in this article, mine or yours! The DNA still matches FS's familyAggiebean (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Chat, funny you say 'we should not cherry pick' because that is exactly what you do! You find any reason to discount a source you don't agree with and any grasping at straws reason to accept one that you want to use. You can't have it both ways. Really, this article suffers from too much useless rhetoric. Just give the basic story and if anyone wants more they can read the books on the subject. The main thing is to state that she made a claim and turned out to be an imposter. All we need are historical and scientific fact, not a lot of hearsay, nonsense and he said she said from decades ago that mean nothing now.Aggiebean (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Chat, she was no 'carbon copy', this is an example of you inserting your own fantasy view as fact. No need to list all those outdated 'experts' especially the discredited Nazi fool Reche. For all we know some of them may have been promised money from Grandanor. A person would have to be blind to think AA and AN had the same bone structure, it's very different. And don't forget Oxlee's 1994 tests proving she was FS. You clog everything with your same old list of rhetoric. This isn't a message board thread, it's an educational article!Aggiebean (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No one can know why at this point one way or the other. The mitochondrial DNA is a match to that of the Schanzkowski family. The forensic evidence -- the ears, the handwriting, etc. -- would not be given the weight of DNA in a modern court because it's probably fallible. I will not agree to removing the stories about the forensic evidence, the handwriting, the witness testimony identifying her as the Grand Duchess, etc., because it is part of the story and it explains why so many people have believed in her for decades. She was a highly convincing claimant and there are mysteries that remain. Likewise, the testimony by people who failed to recognize her, the evidence of her mental instability, the various false stories she told, the DNA evidence, etc. needs to be in there as well, along with information qualifying that Prince Christopher and Mountbatten, two of her major detractors, didn't actually KNOW the woman but were relying on second or third hand descriptions of her encounters with other people. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I still think the article needs to be weeded down, such as getting rid of the fictional Heinrich K. story, or at least the gory, obviously false details that take up too much space.If you want to include everything, how about the details of AA's other versions of her 'escape' story? Why not Sophie B's and Irene's complete comments? If you include your own disclaimers that Mountbatten and Christopher never met her just as a personal interjection, I'm going to do the same with the Ernie trip and other issues, because it's the same kind of thing. Besides did you ever think just seeing a picture could prove to them it wasn't AN?Aggiebean (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Find reliable, published references and add what you want, though I think a mention that "So and so also didn't believe her" and "There were other escape stories, including .... " would be sufficient. I think the article as it exists is too long and we don't need to quote absolutely everyone on both sides ad infinitum. I don't have the time or the patience to pare down all the quotes right now. Regarding the "Ernie" trip, we can report that Anderson said he visited them, according to, I think, Rathlef, and someone else denied that did. Personally, I think it's quite possible that Ernie DID make such a trip and it was known in monarchist circles. But whatever. Prince Christopher did not meet Anna Anderson and he didn't know Anastasia that well, either. I don't know if I'd be able to identify some of my cousins who I haven't seen since they were children from photos. People change dramatically in appearance from childhood to adolescence to adulthood. There were other relatives that did think she was Anastasia, so there was a resemblance in appearance and mannerisms. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I will try to do that. The article is already way too long, and it needs to be 'whittled down' to make room for more important things. For example do we really need 3 paragraphs about Heinrich K? So mention him if you must but we don't need that long drawn out story that is obviously fiction. We could mention brief synopsis of each version of her escape story. We need to mention each person who accepted or denied her and their reasons for feeling the way they did- free of added POV by any of us as to what their motives may have been. It should remain as a news article and not a website or a message board thread like it is becoming now. As for those who 'recognized' her, if you notice, almost no one ever claimed her as "Anastasia" but by some imagined resemblance to the Dowager Empress (whom the real AN looked NOTHING like) or the family in general. That is not a very strong endorsement. Remember the Mays/Twigg baby swap several years ago? Mr. Mays was certain, even after informed of the swap, that the baby he had raised was his child because she had the mannerisms and traits of his late wife's family. However, the DNA said no, she was in fact the child of the Twiggs. Aggiebean (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Chat, how do you even know that comment is true? The source is after all Gleb, her biggest supporter. Christopher denied it and his book states otherwise. I don't think that info is valid. As far as Ernie's trip, this is hotly debated and it may or may not have taken place. I don't even think it matters, the only thing that is of importance in the AA story is how did she know this, and it obviously wasn't because she was Anastasia. The fact that the rumor was out there and there were even books on the subject prove AA and/or her supporters had access to this info, so her mention of it in 1925, 3 years after the German book, was no 'bomb' as you have tried to say before. Your view, totally assumed, is that Ernie was out to destroy her because of the comment about the trip. This is silly because you said yourself Darmstadt issued the comment in public first- if he had wanted to shut her up why draw attention to it? Ever consider he wanted to stop a crazy woman from stealing his dead niece's identity and possibly money from the family??!Aggiebean (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Chat, the family's attitude to AA and her supporters was usually not to even dignify them with a response. But they did fight them in court, the AA court case. If they were going to sue it would have been over that awful letter Gleb wrote to Xenia. People were not sue happy like they are now. They were going to let the truth come out on its own. Thankfully it finally has, but sadly not in time for those who are gone. Why do you hate Prince Christopher's denial so much? HOw do you know he didn't tell the author those things? You don't.If you feel you can post garbage like the obviously fictional Heinrich K. story just because it's 'documented' then we can do the same with Prince C. I still think a lot of whittling needs to be done to this article. It's not a book, a website or a message board thread, it's an educational article (or supposed to be) Who DID write the article? I hope they come back and join the discussionsigned aggiebean

Chat, it was not I who added the Prince Christopher stuff. I did not write this article, and I have added very little to it. I just don't like it when you attack comments you don't like while using your own questionable garbage from supporters like it's true. Really, there is a lot of stuff on both sides that is second hand, distorted by this or that person, misinterpreted, misquoted, assumed, read into, etc. Most of what you post as 'proof' AA was AN is really just a lot of hearsay, guesses and half remembered stuff that is likely inaccurate. Having it written down as 'court testimony' does NOT make it any more real or valid than if it wasn't. A lot of people say a lot of things in court, many of them lies or errors. Because of all this inaccuracy in all these old quotes, it's a good thing we have the DNA to prove to us what the real answer turned out to be. But no way do any of the old comments challenge the DNA. The only reason I add other stuff besides the DNA is to show how the stuff you use is really not what it seems once you dig into it. I believe even without the DNA there is enough against her to make her look like the fake she was. We need to show this to the public. Your position is 'she was identical in every way to AN and everyone nice accepted her and those who didn't were greedy liars' and you think if you show this that others will start to wonder about the DNA being wrong. My position is, even without the DNA she was fake, and tell that side of the story and the stuff that contradicts yours. But really, seriously, this article is too long, and the crap put in to appease both sides only makes it harder for the 'layperson' (non-AA interested Joe Public) to understand and see through. We need to tell the basic story and leave out all the long winded stuff, ESPECIALLY fiction like Heinrich K.Aggiebean (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat, YOU are the one spewing the 'usual nonsense.' We need reality here, not your fantasy versionAggiebean (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)03:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But there were 'people who were there on BOTH sides, saying different things. We know now which ones were wrong, thanks to the DNA testing. Aggiebean (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So, to you, everyone but Kurth, Botkin and Rathlef are 'slanting' things? You are the one who wants the censorship, you only want the AA story told by those who supported her. This is wrong, and an injustice to fairness and reality in the article. We need not appease AA supporters past or present. Just tell the truth, and that is that AA was not ANAggiebean (talk) 00:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Aggiebean (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat, everything you do says that you think AA is AN. It's not even a question. You keep saying the story should be told 'truthfully' BUT your version of the 'truth' is not reality. You accuse others of 'hearsay' but the quotes you use are just the same thing, statements from people who may have been wrong or lying. You only want things told that back up AA's story and everything against her is a 'lie' to you. Again, this is not a message board, this is an article that needs to be factual for the purpose of the general public and students. We have to show the truth, that no matter what person X said to person y 70 years ago, it means nothing, AA is not AN and we have proofAggiebean (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I AM discussing the topic, which is that you want to fill the article with overly detailed crap like the Heinrich K. story that has been proven false, and only tell the side as condoned by her supporters, Kurth, Rathlef and Botkin. You attack anything against her case as 'lies' and try to use your POV vandalism to make snide remnarks within the article after other peoples' quotes- what would you do if I did that to your stuff? You'd go postal! We need to rewrite the article being more concise for the average person to understand. It gets too long and it confuses those who don't know a lot about the subject. More is and can be told in books, on websites and on message boards, but this is just an article and let's treat it that wayAggiebean (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Chat Noir, if you're going to add things to the article, please cite your source -- author, title, page number, publication information. I'm assuming you got the latest additions from Kurth's book. If so, cite the page numbers and so on and use formal language: "Anna Anderson, not AA." I note typos and misspellings in some of the recent additions made by you and earlier by Annie/Aggiebean, but I don't have the patience to edit the article myself. The ongoing argument is also tiresome and pointless and it is making the talk page take too long to load. Someone needs to archive it again. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat's continued POV vandalism, especially against the quotes of Dmitri Leuchtenberg and Prince Christopher have become redundant and annoying, on top of being undocumented and downright childish. Look, Chat, you know if I added little quips after your stuff you'd have a fit. Follow your own advice and 'do your homework!' If you want to add something, get a sourced quote, and do not insert it in the middle of the other person's quote! For example if you want to contradict what those guys said, add a paragraph afterward saying 'however, this person said this' and document it.Surely everything you'd ever want to use is in the Kurth book so this shouldn't be too hard! But stop the sneak attacks!

Bookworm, I am sorry if I have made errors, a lot of what I have added was copied/pasted from other writings and I admit not always proofread. I also agree that this talk page is ridiculous and needs to be limited to discussion of the article alone. Chat still does not realize this is not a message board. I know I am guilty as well if I answer back. Perhaps all our redundant comments can be deleted to shorted the page, and from here on out we'll all be more careful. Chat should know by much experience that such bickerings only cause everyone else to leave. I also firmly believe the entire article is a MESS and needs to be rewritten. I have 2 weeks off work and would volunteer to do this though I am sure Chat would not approve. May I give it a try, with your (bookworm's) approval?Aggiebean (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ChatNoir, if it's from Von Rathlef's book, why don't you add the title, page number, publication info, etc., yourself since you have the book and I don't. I think the citations in this article need to be regularized and all done in one style too, but I don't really want to go through it myself. Annie/AggieBean, if you want to edit the article, go to it. The only thing I ask is that where appropriate, you include both sides. After mentioning that Prince Christopher thought she was a liar and a fraud, mention that a minority of the family accepted her as Anastasia. After the mention of Franziska Schanzkowska, mention that one of her siblings denied she was his sister and maybe then include speculation about why that might have been from an appropriate published source. Ideally, we need to include page numbers, authors, book titles, publication information line by line. I WISH I had two weeks off from work. I'm home sick today, so I'm probably crabbier than usual. Sorry if I snapped. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't care who edits this thing as long as it is accurate, well written, and includes appropriate citations letting people know where the information came from and as long as it presents both sides, since there's still disagreement over whether she was Franziska Schanzkowska and about whether her supporters were sincere, etc. If Kurth wants to edit this article, let him come and edit it and provide citations for his own work. So far he doesn't seem inclined to do so. Presumably he's working on things he actually gets paid to write. If you're editing it, cite your sources HERE. Don't tell people that you've written another article elsewhere and they should look for it on some other site. I will object if Annie/Aggie Bean doesn't balance the article appropriately or makes it too one-sided and I'll do the same if you do or if anyone else does. But you're not getting anywhere by sniping at each other. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat, your accusations against both me and those mentioned in the article have become delusional. Sorry. I have read many books on the subject over the last 35 years I have been interested in this subject, and have done more active research in the last 2 years than all those combined. I really feel like I can write a good article. I will leave in much of what supporters feel is important, add some things I have found, and delete much of the clutter from BOTH sides that drags it down. I will condense when possible. I am working on it now and will submit it for bookworm's approval when finished.Aggiebean (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat, all of those are supporters of AA and have been proven wrong. We do have a lot of those things in the article from the Kurth book and as you know it's mainly made up of quotes from supporters. I am not going to delete them but add other things. Mainly I'm not changing as much as I'm organizing it, it's so messy it gives me a headache. I can imagine how your average page visitor must feel to read it.Aggiebean (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Because that's all you want to use is their quotes and you deride the other guys! I'm going to leave both in. I am not going to change the basic article because I do not want to be the 'writer' as I believe this will make it more of a target for vandalism by those who hate me and that is not good for the article. Ever see 1776? "If I'm the one to do it, they'll run their quill pen through it"Aggiebean (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat, please do not go into all your rhetorical quotes on this talk page, it's not a message board and as bookworm said it's getting too long. Let's stick to the article! As for your accusations against my sources, you cannot prove the things the Botkins and Rathlef said are accurate either, and they cannot be verified. It all depends on whom you choose to believe. I am very tired of you implying Olga believed her and turned her back. How do you know she just didn't realize it wasn't her, honestly? Please take a look at the article as it stands now before I change things and you blame me. I'm going to leave most of the stuff there but condense and add, not rewrite it totally. I do not want to be responsible! I have said my peace on my website. I would appreciate it very much if the real writer of this article would come back and discuss this with us and help out. Aggiebean (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat! You are becoming more and more detached from reality! I'm saying DON'T GO INTO ALL THAT HERE ON THE TALK PAGE! It's not a message board and it's only making the page too long! Take a look, once again you have succeeded in running everyone else off! No one else but us is even posting here, except Bookworm who came to tell us to stop it's too long! So stop! This is not a place to rehash the entire case! I think the article is fine the way it is but it needs some organizing. It is no offense to the writer, it's the fault of all those who keep adding and editing until it's become a mess. Aggiebean (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as 'accuracy' it can be debatable.Also some stuff, on either side, just can't be and shouldn't be unloaded here, for the sake of brevity. This is not a book or a website, it's just an article. We have to use highlights and the most important things, not quotes from a lot of also rans most people have never heard of. I am trying to, as bookworm asked, include things that tell the story and why some believed her for so long, but I see no reason to 'appease' the "AA side" because now that she's been proven not to be Anastasia it's important to tell the article from that viewpoint and position, not one from decades ago when her identity was still a 'mystery.' We need not leave anything ambiguous and we should NOT do anything to try to drop hints or encourage the reader to believe she 'still might be AN'. We just need to tell the facts as we know them now, and how things turned out. She had a long claim, but her supporters were wrong. We have to look at it from a different perspective now that she's officially declared a fake.Aggiebean (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat you are one to talk about hearsay! There is no more 'hearsay' than Harried Rathlef! NONE of her mess can be proven, and most of it is what is contradicted by other sources. Most of what you have put is only documented by "Peter Kurth" as if that's all you need, as you once said "I AM the source!" and yes this only makes me more sure you are him. I have gone to a lot of time and trouble to find sources and I don't like that you can just insert anything and say 'kurth' and that makes it acceptable. We'll see what bookworm and the mods say about that. I was just about to compliment you on your fairness before I saw that, and some of your internal vandalism deleting my references and changing the meaning of some of my paragraphs. I have noticed your little sneak attacks in the middle of someone else's quote, this is wrong too and you wouldn't accept it from me. I also saw how you tried to get rid of my Massie quote on the grenade injuries by saying 'it was thought' when the source said it DID happen! It's okay to add your denial afterward but don't change mine! BTW It was never me who included Prince C., I don't know who did, and if you'll notice I have condensed his, and Dmitri L's, for brevity. Let's not make this nasty! It is no service to the site or anyone reading it to get into a dirty edit war. I sure hope the mods come and keep watch soon. We'll both be lucky not to get booted.Please bookworm come help! Also finneganw if you're reading this HELP!Aggiebean (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Look here PK/Chat, YOU are the one only using sources that agree with you, in fact ALL you EVER use is "Kurth" and "Rathlef" and don't even use a page number! I have even used Kurth a few times. I have used a wide variety of sources but not you. Massie's source was Berenberg-Gossler's papers, it says so in the back of the book. The injury is stated as fact in the book, yet you change the article to 'assume.' I could say 'assume' about most of your garbage but I don't so leave mine alone! How dare you delete that and fill the article full of unverifiable he said she saids from Rathlef? Also, Faith Lavington said in her diary she was present, and you say she wasn't because of Rathlef. Just about all my stuff you refute because of Rathlef, and there is no proof of ANYTHING Rathlef ever said! It's a very weak source! The reason it contradicts everything else is because it's wrong! It's not right for the entire article to be filled with questionable contradictions only marked 'Rathlef' when you are even too lazy to look up the page number of all this crap. I don't mind leaving in some of the quotes from supporters to tell the story, but all this Rathlef stuff is really putting doubt on the integrity of the entire article. Please, bookworm and finneganw, come helpAggiebean (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You claim Massie's story of the wounds, which came from Dr. Berenberg-Gossler's papers and had been published in German newspapers, is not valid, yet you cling to the word of the likes of Leuchtenberg, who was contradicted by his OWN SON, and Rathlef, and we have nothing to 'fact check' her with so all of her writings remain suspect. As for the nurse again, there is no proof of when the story happened, if it ever did. She said one thing, the paper said another. Peoples' memories are very faliible, most people can't place the month and year in many things they know happened in their lives. But it's wrong to state it as a fact when it's not. If you are just going to quote people without question, then you have to allow me the same and not come in and say 'Gilliard's stuff can't be verified' well neither can Rathlef's! Really, not much can! This edit war is getting us nowhere. I would like to suggest BOTH of us stop working on this article until some impartial observer/editor comes here to pass judgement on our work.Aggiebean (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat, you still fail to see that you are calling the kettle black. You try to diss all my sources, while assuming yours are golden standards and they aren't! You call me 'opposed to witness testimony' while you call all my 'witnesses' liars! You are such a hypocrite. You can't leave snide little comments about mine being in doubt when yours are too, in some cases even more so! As for her scars, we know she sure didn't get them from Ekaterinburg, so why not consider the grenade story is true? Again, this CANNOT be done by the two of us. We need an impartial, sensible third party to step in and save this article, or our edit wars are going to get it locked.Aggiebean (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't you find it strange Knofp, Berenberg-Gossler, and Wingender turned out to be RIGHT?! We've been through the family stuff before. No, I don't believe they'd go out of their way to claim her after denying her for her own good. Her family had to fear her getting in trouble for a false claim and themselves getting in trouble for lying. Klier and Mingay said to this day they fear somehow being held responsible for her actions. In his last years, BG was writing a book about FS but died before he got it published. He let Massie see his manuscript and sources, that is where he got the FS info. On p. 249 Massie elaborated FS's life: in 1914 she moved to Berlin and became a waitress. She became engaged and her fiance died in the war. She was then working in the grenade factory and let one slip from her hands, blowing up the guy next to her. Sorry but no one can stand next to an exploding man and not suffer serious wounds. She suffered splinter wounds to her head and other body parts and was sent to a sanitorium, where her wounds healed but she remained shocked and with psychological problems.She was relased as 'not cured but not dangerous.'Aggiebean (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sanatorium is for convalscents of all types, injured and ill, sanatariums are for the mentally ill. FS did turn out to be both. The grenade explosion not only damaged her health it seemed to be the beginning of a lifetime of mental issues. How sad. Look Chat there were two suspects for the identity of AA, AN and FS. She's not AN, because we have her body now. She matches FS's relatives. Why would she be anyone else? It doesn't matter what the relatives said, don't bother to make the page longer listing what i've seen you post a thousand times. OF COURSE once they've denied her they're not going to paint a trail to her door by agreeing to traits possessed by FS! I am still waiting for our third party to arrive. I showed this to some people I know personally who don't give a damn about AA and they both said you and I were both guilty of overstuffing this article with quotes by people most people never heard of and don't care about. Really, no one gives a damn about Nurse Thea, Dmitri Leuchtenberg, or Mrs. Grabisch! They said people come here looking for basic info on a person, not a book. There are books and websites on the subject. This is an article. ONe person laughed to say that many more deserving and more famous people have much shorter articles. I am long winded and you are too. We both feel too strongly about trying to prove a point to do this. We don't need to turn it into another message board battle in the middle of an article with 'take that' quote matching. You should know from the bad experiences of all the boards we've been on that our activities and way of doing things turns everyone else off and they leave! Maybe we should let someone else do this. It was better when the article was anonymously written. Please, people if you're reading step in and help.Aggiebean (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

First, YOUR quotes are the ones that are 'silly' such as GARBAGE, yes, worthless TRASH, by Gleb Botkin and Harriet Rathlef. Second, we don't need 'balance' since AA IS NOT AN and there need not be any fairness left to appease her 'side.' Yes tell the basic story and who believed her, but the detail we have gone into is ridiculous. Again, nobody cares about these quotes from EITHER of us. Someone NEUTRAL- certainly NOT YOU- needs to rewrite it for brevity and eliminate most or even all of the quotes. I am still awaiting a third party to intervene and stop this edit war.Aggiebean (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh believe me I'm sorry I ever started. I should have known if you knew it was me you'd do this. Before all you did was do your silly sneak attacks in the middle of Dmitri L. and Olga's quotes. I DO know how, I have given better documentation than you have, and my article as it stood is much better without your nonsense. Yes, Chat, Botkin and Rathlef's crap is GARBAGE. Yes they were 'there' but they were trying to promote her cause and their word is very suspect, especially since it contradicts with so much else. Dmitri L. and Gilliard were there but you call them 'liars'. As for 'fairness' I said I tried to appease you with quotes from supporters, but really, we should not have to be 'fair' since SHE WAS NOT AN and it's over now so we can and should fully represent that fact and not leave anything ambiguous or, as you are trying to do, make people think 'maybe' despite the DNA. Again, neither of us should write this article, waiting for someone elseAggiebean (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I see Chat is up to his ridiculous vandalism again. It's about time he accepted reality and stopped his insane rubbish. Keep up the good work Aggiebean. Everybody knows that Anderson was a total fraud. Anastasia died in Ekaterinburg in 1918 and her remains have been recovered as well. Anderson was an insane nobody. Those who support her still are equally crazy. Peter Kurth's rubbish book has been totally discredited. It was never well researched and it was always completely biased. Anybody with a modicum of knowledge about Russian history could see there were holes in his research large enough to drive a fully laden semi-trailer through. Whenever anybody who knew the real Anastasia comments on Anderson he sets out to destroy them. That is not the sign of an historian. His book does still though have one useful purpose. It is great as a firestarter in winter. His book is available at amazon.com cheaper than firestarters. It is total rubbish. Anastasia was a Grand Duchess who was brutally murdered with her family. It's as simple as that. Get a life Chat as nobody takes you seriously at all. Don't forget to also take your medication. Finneganw 1:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.181.69 (talk)

I have just removed a personal attack from this talk page and considered removing a few more but decided just to make this clear. I was hoping that all of your would have gotten sick of fighting over this subject like... two years ago? But since you haven't we are at least going to do it in a reasonably pleasant fashion - No personal attacks period. I've warned one person already, and I'm sticking around for crowd control because I know what a mess this turned into last time. If you require ideas for dispute resolution, I will be happy to advise... mostly because I don't care at all about the subject and have no opinion one way or another. If every expert on Anna Anderson, self proclaimed or otherwise, took a walk off a cliff tomorrow, I wouldn't consider the world a noticeably poorer place. But here's just one thought... Russian Wiki was able to elevate this article to FA status... has anyone considered translating the article and taking a look at how they have written it? Trusilver 17:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Trusilver for moderating and checking up on this. Yes, it does seem like the fighting should be over but it will never end because Anderson's supporters simply will not bow to reality. All the bodies are found and as of last month the official published scientific results proved all the family are accounted for as dead in 1918, yet Chat continues to tout the 'amazing' feats of AA and contend she was genuine. I don't believe that we have to appease the AA supporters anymore since the facts go against them and we should write it totally from the POV that she was an imposter and show how there were signs of this all along. The problems I have with Chat are that the does sneak attacks, as Finnegan has also noticed, vandalism, in the middle of the article, even in the middle of documented quotes I've posted from the other side. He has erased my sources, and inserted information that cannot be proven. Instead of books and pages, he will use just the name of "Rathlef", who was a supporter writing books to advance AA's cause in the 20's. Now that AA has been proven fake, it seems to me that the questionable stuff Chat quotes by supporters such as Rathlef and Botkin- who also wrote books to promote her cause- are now proven wrong and should not be used to refute stuff I have put from other sources that turned out to be right. Obviously, these supporters were the ones who were wrong (or lying) and it does no service to the article to include them. Sadly, Chat has proven over and over again he doesn't want to work rationally with anyone but to resort to the same hysterical attacks and vandalism and unvalidated postings. He will attack my source of Gilliard because he claims Gilliard burned his papers, yet he will quote a letter from Olga though those letters have long since gone missing and there's no way to prove what was in them other than a newspaper article by a supporter. Gilliard's work was published in his book. I could go on giving examples, but if you are not interested in the case you will just be bored. But please believe us, he's doing this and the article will never be honorable until he stops.

Thank you finneganw for coming back and helping. Please keep it up, we need you! I hope one day we can achieve a reality based AA article free of Chat's attacks. As far as his accusations against finneganw, they are unfounded. You cannot sue for 'libel' for the truth, and Kurth's book is indeed selling for Amazon.com for 2 cents, which is, as finneganw stated, cheaper than a firestarter.

I have just, through an online translator, read the Russian wiki AA article and I am appalled it was given an FA status. It's full of more extraneous quotes than even this one. It uses for many of its sources several questionable websites which list no documentation and are likely just someone's opinion. It even seems to give serious consideration to some wild conspiracy theories, including one about doubles being switched for the family. Of course the translation is not the greatest but it doesn't appear to be nearly as fact based and accurate as a highly rated article should be. Maybe the Russian wiki mods were going more on writing style and number of sources than content?Aggiebean (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat, I'm saying you are a hypocrite- you add into the story that stuff is burned, yet when it's something in her favor you deny it no longer exists. I DO have my facts right, in Lovell's book, page 477, he stated that Olga's letters disappeared from her barrack in the Black Forest in 1968 and the ones he used in his research were from a 1926 newpaper article by Bella Cohen (which is still not complete proof of the accuracy of what they said) Lovell also said that Kurth quoted them in 'altered form'. As I have said many times, if you want the story told correctly, leave out all the garbage that no longer matters and tell the true story, that she was not AN! YES you DO push her as genuine, why else are you doing this?! EVERYONE sees it and knows it, you aren't fooling anyone! I notice the list of quotes from Duke L. you just polluted the article with, and if you do not condense them for brevity as I have done his son's, I will add his son's back in their entirety. This article is already too long and full of garbage- AGAIN- it is NOT a book! We must limit what it put here, and remember NOBODY CARES about all these quotes! We need someone sensible to write this article. At the very least, the mods need to put a disclaimer on it saying it's in the middle of an edit war and is biased.Aggiebean (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Botkin translated them? Well, that certainly puts their contents in doubt! I'd love another translation by someone I trust like Helen. No, the notes are not 'brief enough' they are just more of what weighs this article down to extreme length- I have condensed mine, you can do the same. If I am forced to repost the long quotes there will be no more vandalism of you adding your little sneak attacks at the end of everything he said or I will report you to the modsAggiebean (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The length of the article is both our faults, as well as several others who must have worked on it in the past. I already told you I was all for condensing and doing away with the entire quotes but you will not comply. As far as 'dubious' if we want a real article free of BS and hearsay we must eliminate ALL GARBAGE from Rathlef-Keillmann and Gleb Botkin, as they were supporters writing books to promote her cause. Since it's their writings that contradict all the others, and we know the others turned out to be true, you are the one polluting the article with hearsay and nonsense.Aggiebean (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat I am sorry that you feel people using verified facts by people who were there but don't agree with you 'ruin the whole thing.' I know you'd like to leave it as nothing but Gleb and Harriet's word for it, but this is not reality. It needn't be so long if you'd just let us state the basic truth that she had a claim and turned out not to be AN and leave out all the quotes trying to take up for her. We have the DNA, she lost, get over it. Nothing you can repost a thousand times will ever change that. We don't need all that mess now.Aggiebean (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Read what I put, it's all well sourced. There is no proof of anything Botkin and Rathlef wrote and much of it could even be fiction! BTW, I am doing a lot right now but don't get your panties in a bunch, I am not deleting anything (much as I'd like to!) but moving some things around and reorganizing to make it make more sense. The 'relatives' section was out of whack. Also I found some great sources proving AA and her gang were after moneyAggiebean (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, I don't believe that, never have! For example, you use Botkin and Rathlef as sources but I think they are useless because they are wrong. How do I know they are wrong? Easy. They are the ones that contradict everyone else who turned out to be right, therefore, they were wrong. I think they are such weak sources it's actually a crime to use them in this article. We should have a higher standard- you know, 'consider the source!' I know, you call mine liars and I don't believe yours, but the difference is, mine turned out to be right!Aggiebean (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

They only say Zahle was the one who originally discussed it with her in 1925, but yes there is reference to him saying she had to act fast in 1928 but it said Boktin was the one who said Zahle said it. He told her if she didn't claim it it was going to Xenia. Of course she wanted it! But if a real AN had been alive she wouldn't have denied her. The 'house' story is a lie. Damn if we keep adding more crap it's going to be a book and it shouldn't be.Aggiebean (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes Chat it is getting too long. I am erasing my old post too. Is there nowhere else we can discuss this stuff? (not fight) They don't offer houses to fakes. Remember Xenia had to live in Frogmore on the charity of her cousin George, and Olga was a poor dirt farmer who had to leave Denmark because the Russians got mad at her for helping Soviet soldiers defect and were going to bring her up on charges of spying. They had no money! As far as the details I have posted you need to take it up with Wm. Clarke who wrote "Lost Fortune of the Tsars." Have you read it? You can get a preview online. The thing is Chat I keep finding more new and interesting stuff and you keep holding onto the same old story by the same old sources though most of it has been disproven. I really am shocked at how literally EVERYTHING I post you contradict with Rathlef- doesn't this show you she was wrong, since the others were right and hers is opposite? ALso with her there is no secondary backup source to verify if anything she said was even true. Think about itAggiebean (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

See just like I said you cling to their old crap that was only written to advance her claim and you refuse everything else, even though decades of new stuff have buried it! Don't you think it's even just a little bit weird EVERYTHING they say runs exactly opposite of what others said and the others turn out to be right? Their stuff cannot be found anywhere else to be verified so how do you know for sure it's not lies or fiction? Who were those doctors and did anyone ever ask them if they said those things, if they ever even existed? How would we know? I do not respect them as valid sources because I can't accept them as any more real than Santa. You bash other people as 'liars' and say their stuff can't be proven well theirs can't either! But in the end, history, time and science have proven them wrong and those whom they contradicted right. So wake up and get a clue, they were the ones who were wrong, sorry! And of course Olga and Xenia did not like each other, they rarely spoke if ever, so how can they conspire against AA? They didn't! Like I've said for years, the entire idea that Olga would abandon a real AN for the 'family' is absurd since Olga did not even like or get along with most of them and if AA had been AN she could have endorsed her and split the profit! But she wasn't and she didn't want her taking her poor dead niece's name can't you see that?Aggiebean (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are you so afraid of Faith's comment? Again, you rely on Rathlef and again all she says is the exact opposite of everything else. How can that be? It's almost like she did it on purpose. Who knows if Duke L. said that or not? Sure is funny it's the exact opposite of what his son said. And why would his son lie? He had nothing to gain or lose. He just wanted the loser/user out of his Dad's house! Looks like the younger generation was not so gullible. You also have to consider these people had pride and they'd rather continue support than admit they'd been tricked by a Polish peasant (which they were) Think about this, you take away Rathlef and Botkin and what do you have? Nothing, because nothing was really there. They just wrote those books trying to promote her and they were wrong. One of these days I'm going to make you wake up and see the lightAggiebean (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat, what we really should do is agree to refrain from posting things as fact that are not proven to be so. Like you can't say Faith wasn't there when another source said she was. Our hereto policy of including quotes from both sides is only making the article longer and messier. We can compromise on things to leave out on both sides, but I suggest we start a new thread.Aggiebean (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I can understand you'd want to get rid of your posts because they are an embarrassment to you. However erasing them does nothing to solve the problems we are having. We need to keep a record of what we did, when and why. But they're never really gone because they're always recorded in the history. As for your view of Faith's comments, that is some mighty fancy twisting and rationalizing there you've done in your mind, reading your own version into it but if I had done that, you would accuse me of 'making stuff up' and not using sources which is exactly what you are doing. If it's going to be okay to suddenly interpret everything we want, I can do the same. So let's not. There are no excuses for AA's reaction. No, I don't believe a person would get upset and scream 'that thing must get out' to a stranger they'd never met, they'd do that to an old aquiantance they feared would expose them. So we have the newspaper reporters and Faith's story against your alleged Duke L. story written by, guess who, good ole Rathlef who tells a different version of EVERYTHING, which to me only proves time and time again her versions are the ones that are WRONG.Aggiebean (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should delete the whole section because it's so long, but remember, it's not really gone, the posts will live on in the history section. As far as who was there and who wasn't, we only have the words for it of a few people. You choose to believe Rathlef, I believe the reporter and the detective. This is the historical version which is documented in books like Massie's. Since we will never be able to prove who was and was not there, it's best we don't state either as a fact. I won't put she was there if you won't state Leuch. was the only witness because we do NOT know if that's true. It sure sounds to me from what Welch writes that not only Faith but the Leuch. children were also present. Your sources, as I have said many times, are biased toward AA and trying to promote her cause and for that reason they are invalid. The biggest proof of this is that everything they say goes against everyone who turned out to be right, so it's clear who was right. Botkin and Rathlef's version were fairy stories. You always call Lovell's book 'fiction' but at least he had the guts, despite his total belief in AA, to publish some things that made her look very bad and fake. He also explained how Rathlef's support was based on her Steiner views and how most of AA's German supporters were folllowers of his. But the dumbest thing is you are STILL trying to paint those who id'd her as FS as liars and act like there was some kind of big 'paid off' conspiracy when time and science have proven those people right, she was FS!Aggiebean (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to forget something here: It was not Massie who published The Nachtausgabe's version of the meeting, it was Peter Kurth! And it was not Frau Rathlef who wrote about the meeting at Seeon, it was the duke of Leuchenberg. And you really think he called in the nanny and the whole family to be witnesses? Honestly! Botkin and Rathlef were first hand witnesses to AA and her story. You are the one who is telling fairy tales. And we have no proof whatsoever that AA and FS were the same person, only an indication by the DNA, and nothing else. Frau Rathlef was a Russian Jew who converted to Catholisism. There isn't a thing about Steiner in her book. Not that I think that there is anything wrong with Steiner, we had excellent Steiner schools in Norway. And Rathlef was not a "supporter", she was only a bystander who wrote down what she saw and heard, but she never called AA anything else than "the patient" or "the invalid". She herself was in no way able to say who AA was. The fact that she invited a family member of FS to meet with AA, only shows that she was interested in finding out the truth. Knopf could have done the same thing, but he dared not. He obviously knew the truth and carefully avoided any family confrontations. As for the liars, they have been exposed for what they were. And don't try to ignore the payoff from Darmstadt, it was even published in Die Tägliche Rundschau by solicitor Spengruber. Of course, Fritz Lucke threatened with a lawsuit, but when he was told that the Duke of Hesse would be called in as a witness, he dropped the suit like a hot potato. ChatNoir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.99.30 (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And, oh yes: Where did I call Lovell's book fiction? That is another lie from you. ChatNoir24 (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a disservice to the public not to state she was FS. This was the only other person besides AN she was said to be, and since she is without any doubt NOT ANASTASIA and there are no other suspects, the pics look alike and the DNA matched we can reasonably conclude she was FS. When the news stories broke with the DNA results on the 2 missing kids being found, news services such as AP, UPI, Yahoo, BBC and CNN all stated that 'a woman claimed to be Anastasia but DNA tests later proved her to be FS, a Polish peasant. So, sorry, this is now very much an accepted part of history and reality and should be in the article.

You have called his book fiction on message boards. I can find them when I have time. You have accused me of other 'lies' I was able to prove you said by digging up old posts of yours. You as much as call him a liar in your post by denying she was a follower of Steiner and those views were a big part of her support for AN. She never met the real Anastasia. Chat, this is what we need to do to save this article:

Agree to shorten it. It's not a book. If something cannot be proven, don't state it as fact. This position we've taken of posting dueling quotes to contradict the ones we don't like have elongated the article. We need to especially cut back on quotes by people most people have never heard of. We need to just tell the basic story and leave out all the filler. Yes, the filler is way too many extraneous quotes by too many supporters and opponents. Somebody besides us needs to whittle it down. If either of us do it we're only going to have an edit war again.Aggiebean (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems people who revere her don't like to mention it because by some it's seen as a religious cult that brings ridicule in some circles. This, IMO, is why Kurth chose to leave it out if his book. There is much on the subject in Lovell's book. There was a long section on it on the socio-world journal site a couple years ago. I think the article is down- or has changed urls- but I have it saved. Just let me dig it out.

As far as "Chat's Proposition", NO, an article about AA written by YOU alone would be a bad thing because we all know your views and you would not represent the other side (the RIGHT side) fairly at all. We desperately need a neutral third party to step in or hopefully finnegan and bookworm can work it out again since they did a good job last timeAggiebean (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Read pages 183-185 and 199-200 of Lovell's book. It explains there how the movement was responsible for Rathlef and others supporting AA because they believed she was some kind of psychic soul manifested by the unheaval of the Russian Revolution, stuff like that. She preached her beliefs to AA. The group held seances. Perhaps some don't want to make it appear that this 'cult' combined with Gleb's "Church of Aphrodite" make AA supporters look like whack jobs..

I think I just found out why the link to that site I mentioned is down- after reading my copy of that page I see it is almost verbatim several pages of Welch's book, and uncredited...oops. So all those details are in the Welch book along with being in the Lovell book. Both are on googlebooksearch preview if you don't have your copies handy.

Chat it wasn't finnegan who vandalized it was you!Aggiebean (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well no, she was one herself, and those beliefs were the core of her support for the claimantAggiebean (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat, I have done my research. In addition to Lovell, it's also in the Welch book p. 200- Rathlef was a follower of Steiner, and her social life was governed by her commitment to that group!Aggiebean (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat you are ridiculous and hypocritical. I have given you not one but TWO sources and you demand a backstory? Tell me, where is the 'backstory' proving all your GARBAGE written by Rathelf and Botkin are true? Okay you better cough it up or don't harass me about my sources. Yours have already been proven wrong. Chat, you are really something else. I really can't believe you have stooped to deleting things from the article just because they make AA and Rathlef look bad, even though they are accurately sourced. My sources are much stronger than yours, all you can put is "Harried Rathlef' and that's supposed to be the end of it, well, sorry, it's not. It's bad enough you insert junk from your side to 'balance' my facts but to totally take away things you don't like is unacceptable. I would like to do that to you, too, but I don't. If you don't stop this selective vandalism I'm going to have to go to the mods.Aggiebean (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC) If it doesn't make her look bad, why delete it? If you are so interested in having the story told correctly, then you're going to have to get beyond quoting Rathelf and Botkin. YOU are the one not telling the story correctly by believing only the people you choose to accept and denying everything else. Look, like it or not, my info is SOURCED which means it can stay in the article! All you put is 'Harriet Rathelf' and call that a 'source' and refute everything else! If you are allowed to do that why can't I use sourced stuff from various published sources that is RIGHT? What you are doing here is trying to control the article by erasing all the stuff you don't like. And THAT is wrong. Aggiebean (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That's all you ever say, yet the ones I quote, like Olga, Gilliard, Dmitri L. and others were 'first hand witnesses' as well yet you call them 'liars' because they didn't accept AA. You need to finally realize that your sources were the ones who turned out to be WRONG and see that they are not equal to and do not take precedence over mine. The only thing is YOU choose to accept them and deny all others. You are so delusional you believe this woman's name alone is all the source you need, but since all her stuff contradicts everyone else who turned out to be right, does that not show you who was wrong? Her! She doesn't even belong in this article, but I don't go around erasing your quotes by her and asking for 'backstories' even though there is NO PROOF and NO BACKUP to show ANYTHING she wrote was even true! Most of all, Chat, you need to see that you cannot go around deleting my sourced material just because you do not like it!Aggiebean (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

And this is what happens when you don't read books. As for Olga and Gilliard, their stories changed very, very much from the days in Berlin until January 1926. Olga said afterwards that "she understood no Russian." Then, in a letter to Mordvinov, she writes:"Curiously, she seems to understand Russian." She said "She understood no English". Then Bella Cohen writes in her article in NY Times that she spoke in English to the invalid, and she answered back in English. Olga said: "My nieces knew no German". And we have copy of a post card written by Tatiana already in 1909 showing good knowledge of German. We have schoolbooks from Anastasia showing that she took serious lessons in German. Olga said, I knew I was looking at a stranger. But in Berlin, she said: "I believe in my heart that she is Anastasia", something she also repeated to Bella Cohen. She said: "We showed her photos, and she did not react." Bella Cohen writes about how AA recognized Shura in a photo where Shura's face was hidden by a bell. Olga "left Berlin with all hope extinguished." The very same day she writes her mother's secretary saying: "How shall I tell Mama, this will kill her." ("Mama" would have been devastated by knowing her grandchild was alive, that would mean that the others had perished.) And she tells Frau Rathlef about how she would like to help "the little one", but has no money. Gilliard calls her "La Grande Duchesse" in front of Dr. Rudnev, and afterwords said that the woman in Berlin had "nothing in common with the Grand Duchess apart from the color of the eyes." And that is after his own wife has shown him the congenital bilateral hallux valgus, the scars on the shoulder and the finger. And according to Shura, she had the same hair color "with the same wave". Clearly these two were lying, their own writings tell us that. , Olga wrote to the unknown woman after the visit: "You are no longer alone, and we shall not abandon you." "Longing to see you." "I remember when we were together." Would she write this to a total stranger? Would she give her personal photo album to FS? I don't think so. And don't forget that Frau Rathlef sent her manuscript to Olga for verification, and got it back with the words that the description of the time in Berlin was "quite corret." And, by the way, stop writing that Frau Rathlef moved her to a better hospital, that was a decision taken by Zahle, Mr. and Mrs.Gilliard and Rathlef together, and the Prince of Denmark paid the bill. ChatNoir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.99.30 (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat! You need to stop rehashing all this on the talk page! I have read your version numerous times, but I'm telling you I do not believe it, I believe Olga and Giliard. Also time and history and science have proven that she wasn't AN therefore she couldn't have told Rathlef any 'memories' and all that stuff is wrong. I hate to be like the person who tells a kid there is no Santa but if you have based your belief all these years on Rathlef, you are going to have to realize that like Scarlett O'Hara you have loved something that doesn't exist. You are way too emotionally attached to this story and too stuck in your own POV to write this article.Aggiebean (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why stop? Are you afraid of the facts? And please don't talk about emotions here, you are the one who go on long rants and resort to name calling when you run out of argument. As for science, I just found in Peter Kurth's book that the former president of the French Graphological Society, Maurice Delamain, analysed AA's handwriting and concluded in her favour. ChatNoir

Why stop? Because the page is way too long, we have been asked to stop, we have been told not to rehash the whole story here, and the rules state this is not to be used as a forum to discuss the subject in general. That is what you are doing. This is about the article only, do not rewrite the book here!Aggiebean (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

When will you people all finally see facts? It no longer matters what you find in Kurth's book to help her cause. They cannot be useful or truthful because she was not Anastasia because Anastasia's bones have been found and identified. The only possible answer to the Anna Anderson question now is that there were people aiding her cause for what reasons they felt necessary, mainly monetary in all likelihood. Things said by the people fighting her cause must now be disregarded as false. These articles should not be based on what certain people would like but on the fact that this woman was only an imposter to the royal name. 12.196.131.26 (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks
I just removed the last three headings, as they really contained nothing of substance other than a few personal attacks and blocked the IP user for 72 hours. At the end of that, I'm going to be watching and he is free to continue if he chooses to play nice and get along with others. If he doesn't, well, I'm happy to go down that road too. And I'm not just directing that at the IP users either. Aggibean, if you find you are unable to express your point without calling someone a hypocrite, ridiculous, etc.... maybe you need to take a break and think it over before hitting the 'ol submit button, yes? Trusilver 08:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Trusilver. I want you to know that I have refrained from using rude and personal remarks, but honestly, hypocrisy is the issue here and I cannot say he isn't being hypocritical when that is the problem I am having with his edit war/vandalism. He tells me my sources are 'liars' or no good and deletes my quotes and sources, while all he does is add in "Harriet Rathlef" and says that is the only source you need. I contend hers is the information that is incorrect, but he deletes mine instead though it comes from various books. He says 'she was there' but won't accept my quotes of people who were also 'there' and calls them 'liars'. I have put up with him matching my quotes with his, though I don't consider his valid, but what I can't accept and what you should not accept is him only using his, changing my wording, deleting my sourced statements and calling my sources 'liars'. This is what I mean by hypocrite, it's not an insult, it's a description of his actions in the article, it is exactly what he is doing and there is no other word for it.Aggiebean (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Is a suggestion welcome here?
If it isn't too much, may I suggest that the idea I happened to catch here was a very good one: why doesn't someone organize an Anastasia Controversy page, a whole new reference source for people interested in the controversy? Because as I see this--and I'm a known fan of Peter Kurth's work--there seems to be a conflict in that here you have Anastasia, here you have Anna Anderson, and here you have this controversy. It may well be stated that Anna Anderson made herself famous by fooling many poeple, but I see here that she still holds people mesmerized and this warrants a whole new page. Think of it: finally, the controversy spelled out in fact and not in ridiculous edit wars... or whatever they are called. RevAntonio (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:POVFORK, among other reasons. Trusilver  20:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What makes this impossible is that there can be no documentation of 'Anastasia Controversy', only a bunch of people arguing and giving their opinions. Because there is no pubished work on the subject, it cannot be sourced here! If you want to start your own website on the subject go ahead but we can't do this on wiki.Aggiebean (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that some people, who have not educated themselves very much regarding this controversy, give their opinion, while some of us stick to the facts. ChatNoir24 (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat, we're talking about a CONTROVERSY page, meaning there IS NO SOURCE because no one has published anything on it! We're not talking about AA herself but the CONTROVERSY!Aggiebean (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

And that is all I have seen so far. ChatNoir24 (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. Oh Truesilver, I see the forked point of view idea you mention, sounds like an old Native term. However, I disagree with you 100%. You may be haunted, and rightfully so, by the screaming debate that sometimes happens here, and I do not want to see a page like that. You miss my point; my point, already clearly stated I thought, is that there remains a controversy for better or worse. That, though directly connected to Anna Anderson's claims, deserves a page of its own precisely because it would be a valuable resource for those who are unaware of current facts. Aggiebean is zealous for fact, why not a factual page about the controversy? It doesn't address whether Anna Anderson was or wasn't--she clearly wasn't--but addresses the controversy which, if you understood its history rightly, you'd see has a history stretching back further than Anna Anderson.
 * RevAntonio (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Remains
This is in the form of a query, respectfully: I see above a mention of the identification of Anastasia's remains...

...Isn't there a valid scientific doubt in the community as to the genuineness of these remains? After all, I do know that the present pretender to the head of the Romanov House, Maria Vladimirovna of Spain, has hotly contested all the remains.

RevAntonio (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If you had all the information, you would understand. Please see the link posted in the last paragraph about the remains, showing the scientifically published peer reviewed final results. Every single member of the family has been found and identified. Nicholas's bones have been matched with relatives and an old bloody shirt of his, and since this same DNA profile is the father of the five children, this is the final proof they ARE the Romanovs. Maria V. does not 'hotly contest' these remains, she is waiting for official word from the church. The scientists will soon meet with ROC officials to present their case on the authenticity of the bones. By the way, the Romanov Family Association, which includes all other Romanov descendants besides Maria V. and her son, officially accepts the remains and their scientific identication.Aggiebean (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I apologize... I have read HIH Maria Vladimirovna's history regarding this, and nothing truly current. If you looked at her own website and documented history, you would see that she herself, without leaning on the Orthodox Church, < > denied the identity of the remains, and sent many protesting letters to Yeltsin about it. However, I do not really know what it is she claims as of this time....
 * RevAntonio (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello! A friendly reminder is in order here, aggiebean, that you are not the sole owner of the facts of this case. Myself, I'm still learning a great deal about the history of the whole affair. In fact, I'm hoping I can learn from you. And this leads me perhaps to a seemingly inflammatory question, but it isn't. What is it about Kurth's history of the false claim that excludes him from the < >? This is a humble and true question, because I am an original owner and student of Kurth's work- the only one available when I first read it- and I think he outlines events, written and published sources, everything quite well. Nor do I think he is actually trying to < > for Anna Anderson today. But in substance I ask: why is his previous and hard-earned research so suspect here? Would this even be available as a topic of history if not for Kurth? And since this will probably be trounced within less than 24 hours, I'll write it anyway: my father, who died two years ago at the age of 98, told us about controversy in this case dating to around 1919... that is why I mention that date specifically in another post here. I know what all the Wikipedians think about personal experience and stuff... heresay or myth, yes? But I was a mere boy hearing about this before anyone else around here knew who Anastasia was. So there, I've put in my personal 2 cents' worth. I think we should have a controversy page that outlines facts neatly.Anna Anderson is amigraine-inducing mess! Can someone at least fix that??
 * RevAntonio (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing out/deletion of sourced material is not allowed, I am correct?
In case anyone else hasn't paid attention, there has been an edit war going on here for awhile. Once again, Chat (IP starting with 72) continues to delete my sourced material showing proof Harriet Rathlef-Keillman was involved in the Steiner movement and that her support was at least partly based on those beliefs. I do not understand why Chat is so adamant this not be seen, unless it's because he feels it portrays his- and Kurth's- star source in an unpleasant light. However, like it or not, the information is published in at least 3 books, 2 of which I have sourced here, pages and all. Is it not wrong/against the rules for him to keep erasing this just because he doesn't like it? I understand he is within his editing rights to add contradictory commentary from other sources in addition to mine, however, completely editing out mine and changing the entire meaning of the paragraph is unacceptable, is it not? PLEASE, someone, make him refrain from doing this! You can see in the history section how many times it's been put in and taken out over the last week or so.

Also, it is wrong that he adds or subtracts information to my quotes that completely changes their meanings and leaves in my source as the source when this is NOT what it said! He's done it before, but most recently he's done it to say 'Rathlef was cleared of all charges' after I put she was accused of trying to defraud the royal family. I have a valid source and page number for this, but my source says nothing of her being cleared. If she was, he needs to cite his own source and not try to piggyback his info in on mine when it's not there.

HELP!Aggiebean (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Aggiebean is trying to make Frau Rathlef a follower of Steiner without having any proof, only a quote from Welch, who cannot back it up, and a few lines from Lovell, who indicates that Frau Rathlef did indeed have friends who were involved with Steiner. Frau Rathlef was a Russian Jew who converted to Catholisism in Germany. But remember, this is the same woman who is accusing me of calling Lovell's book fiction. She still has not supported that one. As for Frau Rathlef being accused of defrauding the Romanovs, this is not quite correct. She was accused of bribing a police official, but was acquitted. Aggiebean also added on to Inspector Grünberg's name that he was a supporter of Anderson. The good inspector actually threw Anderson out of his house due to her obstinant and bad behaviour. Supporter indeed!ChatNoir24 (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Welch, Lovell and Klier and Mingay all mention her involvement in the movement and it is sourced in those books, meaning it is valid to use in the article. As for whether or not it can be 'backed up', well, that could technically be said of everything! Can you, Chat, 'back up' everything Rathlef and Botkin claimed? Really, how do we know the people on either side actually said and did what others say they did? If you get picky, you can question literally any source and any writer. I question the validity of much of what you have put in the article, though I do not erase it. The rules are, if we have a source, it can be in the article, regardless of what someone else thinks of the source. If it was okay to delete sources you disagree with or question, I'd have deleted most of your stuff by now. If it is validly sourced, it should not be deleted. This goes for both of us and anyone else contributing. If you disagree with what I put, add your own version after it but make sure you source it and make sure it's separate from mine, no more sticking stuff in the middle of my quotes! Everyone who reads this will be able to see it was written by different people with different views.

As for whether or not she was involved, it sure looks like she was. There were many supporters who came to her via that movement. This is why she was put in the Black Forest, there had been a Steiner village there and the area was full of supporters sympathetic to Anna.Aggiebean (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, talking about "changing" your version, how many places have you tried to insert the word "supporter" in my quotes? And you talk about me being a hypocrite. Second, just because Lovell and Welch say that Frau Rathlef was a Steiner follower, does not make it so. None of them were witnesses to what took place, and they better back up every little thing like Kurth does in his meticuously researched book. In this case, they have no backup whatsoever. I do think Prince Frederick was a Steiner disciple, and it was he who bought the barrack in Unterlengenhardt for AA. I wish you would read up on this and educate yourself instead of cherrypicking everything you can find that may support your view. Frau Rathlef and Botkin are impossible to "back up" since they are the sources of much of this story. That's why everybody who came after used their information. And it sure would be helpful if you would take time to read their books as well before you review them. ChatNoir24 (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You are the king of cherrypicking! There is a load of anti-AA stuff out there you competely ignore, convenient? But I've found it! Rathelf and Botkin? The only people who used their information were those supporting their cause. Most of what Botkin and Rathlef said has been disproven by the very fact that AA was not AN, and everyone who said the opposite of what they claimed turned out to be right. That seriously taints them as sources, or so any sensible person would see. We know better now! You can't back up what they allege, so don't knock my sources! Take the time to read and do homework? That is exactly what I have been doing for years, most intensely the last 2 years, and the more I read, the more I disbelieve AA, the more explainations I find out, the more holes I find in her story. Just think, you used to say I had no sources, now I have more than you! I have found and quoted a wide variety of sources and you cling to a few worn out rags by supporters proven false. Do not delete my stuff, it's just as valid, even more so, than yours.Aggiebean (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

And maybe you could tell us what part of Frau Rathlef and Botkin's writings have been disproven? I am waiting. ChatNoir24 (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's your answer, Chat: AA has been proven beyond any doubt not to be Anastasia. We know this now as a fact. Therefore, works claiming she 'knew' and 'remembered' things personally as Anastasia cannot be correct.Aggiebean (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, considering the last couple weeks of edits have basically been nothing but reverts, I have gone ahead and protected the page until some kind of consensus can be reached. Note that I am in no way endorsing the current revision. It was either that or block you all for edit warring, and I think this way might be a little more constructive in the long term. Trusilver 07:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much to Trusilver  for imposing the ban. ChatNoir24 has returned once again and has been causing countless problems on this page recently deliberately distorting, by adding incorrect information to established quotes, and placing historically inaccurate information from basically one source only, Peter Kurth, without any correct referencing. He has been on this page previously and caused numerous problems. In fact he has been banned under different names. He has also been banned from other internet sites for the same tactics. He fails to understand or accept proven facts about Anna Anderson and wishes to replace these with information from basically one source only, Peter Kurth, whose book tried to inaccurately portray Anna Anderson as the Grand Duchess Anastasia. Kurth's book has been totally disproven and is not a credible source for anything except misinformation. It is time this all stopped. It is fact that Anna Anderson was not Grand Duchess Anastasia. It has also been proven by extensive DNA testing that she was most likely a woman by the name of Schankowska. Her DNA profile matches one Karl Maucher, a relation of that family. She had no DNA links whatsoever to the Romanov family. The case is closed. The current page is not perfect. It does though try to let the reader know that Anna Anderson was a fraud and for years tried to pretend, by stealing the identity of a dead 17 year old, that she was Grand Duchess Anastasia. The story of the tactics that she and others used in their quest to perpetuate the lie has some merit. It is not really worthwhile presenting any other opinion though as it simply isn't true. The edit war started by ChatNoir24 needs to end permanently. The Anna Anderson page is not the place to perpetuate blatant misinformation. That is not what wikipedia is about. Finneganw 12.17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, I am NOT endorsing the current revision of the article nor am I singling out ChatNoir24 for causing problems. There are a great many people on this article not willing to compromise on any grounds, the problem does not lie with one person. Trusilver  16:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually the problem does lie with one person, and yes that is Chat. While I do not agree with having to 'compromise' on this article since Anna Anderson was NOT Anastasia, we have definite proof of that now and I feel her 'side' need no longer be appeased, I have not stopped him from adding his tit-for-tat opposite quote matching with mine, adding one from her 'side' (ALWAYS FROM RATHLEF, BOTKIN OR KURTH, whose book is basically a combination of those two, never any other, rarely even a page number), however, the problem here is that he completely disregards all the various sources that go against his as 'lies' and 'not backed up' though the same could be said, even more strongly, about his stuff. He, as finneganw and I have said and experienced many times over the last couple years, erases our sourced quotes and tries to stick his own arguments into the middle of our sentences making it look like they are part of our referenced source when they are not. He has repeatedly vandalized the article this way. As I said even though a 'compromise' should not be necessary to him since AA being Anastasia is no longer a valid 'side', I had thought that at least the quote matching, some from each 'side' would appease him, but no, he continues to delete, erase, alter, and vandalize what we have put until it changes the meaning. So since he is the only one not willing to let the opposition's additions stand, he is the one not 'compromising' here. As much as I dislike and disagree with what he has put I have not done that and he has. Therefore the problem DOES lie with Chat and will never stop as long as he isn't told outright by you he cannot delete, alter or piggyback our sourced material. I do agree with the article being locked, though, as the edit war is counterproductive. If he would agree to stop deleting and changing my info, and inserting his snide little comments in the middle of our sourced quotes, we could go on, but he's not going to stop. I know you don't have time, but if you could review the history you'd see that is exactly where the problem lies and what needs to stop. But honestly, since this article is for informational purposes and used by students, it should not in any way leave any impression AA might have been Anastasia, because it's proven now she was not, and we need to tell the article from that POV and not have to appease AA diehards who can't let it go. It's not worth sacrificing the integrity of the article to spare the feelings of a small number of AA devotees who cannot accept the truth.Aggiebean (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Cherry-picking?

 * I think that it may be helpful if someone stated what is the opinion of Peter Kurth's historical work on the controversy. I disagree 100% with aggiebean because there is certainly a documented history of this controversy, however twisted it may be at the moment. Meaning, reporting and documentation hasn't been too clear or honest sometimes--but does that erase the controversy? Does that mean, NO, we must not create a Wikipedia page addressing the controversy that raged since around 1919? Waged perhaps even earlier? It is a thought, and a good one. I do not come here to defend Kurth where Kurth is wrong or indefensible, but to say that many woes would be healed with a controversy page. Though I'm not fully certain of aggiebean's meaning, you cannot deny history! What next, a suggestion that we erase and ignore all controversy surrounding the Holocaust? It's a valid comparison.
 * RevAntonio (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The Kurth book is not about the 'controversy' but her case itself. There are no published works on just the 'controversy', except a bunch of message board fights, so there would be nothing to source it with. It cannot be factual so it can't be on wiki. If you want to create such a site on angelfire, geocties, etc. and add it into the external links, go ahead, but there is no way to make it a wiki article. If all you want to see or quote is Kurth, just go read his book again. I completely disagree that 'wounds would be healed' by a controversy page, on the contrary, it would only cause more trouble and have no end.Aggiebean (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Tired eyes, for one thing....

 * Hello. I follow with lively interest the ChatNoir and aggiebean arguments. But they are tedious. Aggiebean, you defend well, but I'd start ignoring this Chat chap if I were you. Science has decreed with proof and quintuple verification that Anna Anderson Manahan was not HIH Anastasia Nicolaevna Romanov. She was Franziska Schanzkowska, and Lord knows how she pulled off the terrific fraud for so long, if we can call it < >. She didn't get away with it, so no fraud, not ever, except for the few she fooled.

So why is this darned argument raging here at all? Ah-ha! You see why we should have a controversy entry in Wikipedia? You guys aren't afraid of airing this argument-controversy in a proper entry of its own, are you? Think of a poor high school kid, depending on Wikipedia (which his teachers have sagely told him NOT to do) to help with research on the greatest hoaxer of all time. He looks up Anna Anderson, and what does he find? YOUR mess! I say that cheerfully, but not all are equipped with scholar's eyes for weeding through the mess.

And I elect, for what little it's worth from me, aggiebean to write the new page! How's that for a surprise in the Cracker Jacks!
 * RevAntonio (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward with dispute resolution
Obviously, what is happening so far is not doing much to end the dispute. A years-long edit war has failed to bring either side any closer to a resolution, so I think you might consider moving forward with the resolution process. The next logical step I see would be to either take this back to to WP:MEDCAB for more informal mediation, or take this to WP:MEDCOM for formal mediation. I also think that you might just want to do something as simple as filing an RfC, just to find some third-party opinions on the dispute. In the past, that route is as effective or more effective than mediation provided that all parties are receptive.

Thoughts? Trusilver 19:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have always thought a neutral third party mediator would be the answer to the problem and have asked for one several times on the talk page. We need someone to look at it objectively and realistically. I feel that someone here is far too emotionally attached to this case to ever see beyond his own personal view, and sadly that view is not the factual one that needs to be presented to the wiki-reading public. Aggiebean (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be most definitely the way to go. The page needs to be rid of any speculation that Anderson was anthing but a fraud. She has been 100% found out and cannot be linked in any way to the Romanov family or Russian history. Repeated DNA testing in many different laboratories has proven this. It has also proven her real identity as Schankowska. I believe the article could be considerably reduced if inaccurate information trying to push the failed agenda that Anderson was a Romanov were to be removed. Finneganw 01:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, Finneganw. If we can eliminate all the things added in solely for the agenda of trying to show 'maybe she was still Anastasia' 'what about what so and so said', etc., we could cut out half the article. We don't need dozens of quotes from people like "Mrs. Grabish" nobody cares about just to try to defend AA's cause. There is no defense, she was FS, and those who try to paint the people who identified her as FS as 'liars' are the ones who are spreading incorrect and misleading information that needs to be left out of the article. We need not appease a point of view proven wrong, that is not what 'neutral point of view' means if it's leaving the subject ambiguous that she may or may not have been Anastasia. We have proof now, she wasn't, and the article, for honest and educational purposes, needs to do that instead of perpetuating a myth that should have long since been put to rest. We can list who did or did not support her and their quotes for historical purposes as long as nothing in the article leaves anything open ended that might leave the reader wondering if she was Anastasia or not. This is not a place for conspiracy theories and fairy tales.Aggiebean (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes Aggiebean, it would seem it is high time for all references to Peter Kurth's extremely dubious work on Anna Anderson to be removed. They simply are not credible. Throughout the work he pushes his none too subtle agenda that Anna Anderson was Grand Duchess Anastasia in spite of the decision of the German courts which could not prove she was. Kurth's book is not taken seriously by any credible historian largely due to the fact that he pushes such a ridiculous agenda. The book has always been highly subjective, something a credible writer would avoid at all costs if trying to convince a reader. The fact that the work is so one-sided (Anderson is Anastasia) and that Kurth resorts to openly attacking and distorting information provided by people who actually knew the real Anastasia makes the book basically worthless. There never really was any 'riddle' about Anderson's identity. Repeated independent DNA testing has proven beyond doubt that she was Schankowska all along. She certainly was never any relation of the Romanov family. No serious historian believes Anderson was Anastasia. That has been totally disproven. Only someone with an agenda to push Anderson is Anastasia would use Kurth as a source. It simply does not stand up to historical fact. If a person wants information on Anderson they can check her so-called autobiography, 'I, Anastasia' that was written long before Kurth's book. It tells the story of her supposed escape. It's time for the Anna Anderson wikipedia site to be considerably reduced in size so that it tells her story but does not push an incorrect agenda. It is fact that she was a fraud. Anderson certainly never did anything that enhanced the image of Anastasia. That had already been established before her murder in Ekaterinburg in 1918. Countless photographic images of Anastasia and the rest of her family, deliberately reproduced as a propaganda exercise by Nicholas II, were available for many years before the revolution as was information about the Romanov family. If somebody wants to find information about the Romanovs and Russian history they certainly won't find it in Kurth's fictional work about a proven fraud. It would appear there is no dispute. There are just some who simply want to continue pushing the agenda that Anderson was Anastasia and the rest, the vast majority, who know it simply was never true. Finneganw 08:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "I, Anastasia" is quite an informative book. It takes its information from the books of Harriet Rathlef and Gleb Botkin, plus some very interesting documents from witnesses. Funny that you should like this book. And I cannot understand why you call Kurth's work 'fictional' when it is indeed the best researched and documented book on the subject. Also, one more thing that I find strange, is that someone, and I suspect you, has 'edited' the segment about Lili Dehn, saying that Kurth "alleges" everything. Nothing is farther from the truth. The information comes from Lili Dehn's own testimony in Hamburg plus an interview with the French newspaper Le Figaro. That's the beauty about Kurth's book: Everything is sourced. And no matter who Anna Anderson was, the story about her does not change. ChatNoir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.135.252 (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

'I, Anastasia' was never written by Anderson. It is fact that it was ghost written by her supporters in their quest to perpetuate fraud. It was never informative. It was just an attempt to explain Anderson's fraud at taking the identity of a dead 17 year old woman. For anybody with any knowledge of Russian history and the Romanov family it was in fact immensely ridiculous and humorous in the extreme. Anderson could never prove in German courts that she was Anastasia. Kurth's book is also equally ridiculous and based on fraud. There have always been those who will support any cause irrespective of truth. Often greasing of the palm with money encourages them to say things which they know to be untrue. Numerous people have also committed perjury in court and elsewhere over time. It is fact that Anderson was never a Romanov and that has been completely proven. Her 'story' was fraudulent from the beginning to end as is Kurth's extremely subjective, historically inaccurate and very tedious book. It is not appropriate to source information with a source that is not credible. There is nothing to debate. Her supporters were all involved in fraud for whatever reason. Many of them made money out of books. The game is totally up. It's time to move on and cease the attempts at trying to link Anderson with Anastasia as it was always untruthful and inaccurate in the extreme. Move on and if you have a real interest in Anastasia read about her and her brief life and the Romanov family. It is far more interesting and real than anything Anderson ever attempted. Finneganw 09:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I clearly remember that you advised people to read "I, Anastasia" for information on Anderson....! And maybe you could give an example on what fraud Kurth's book is based and what historically inaccuracies he portrays. Thank you. ChatNoir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.99.30 (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I, Anastasia is a mixture of fiction and available information gleaned from personal accounts and books by or about those who knew the family that were out at the time. Compare this 'memory' of AA's from I, Anastasia about life in Tobolsk

In the morning Papa breakfasted with my sister Olga in his study, where afterwards he read or made entries in his diary. Mama was the last to get up, though she woke very early. She stayed a long time in bed, however, and drank her coffee in the bedroom, which she usually did not leave before lunch. Lunch was at noon, and we still had our old chef. There was soup, fish, meat, preserved fruit and afterwards coffee. For supper, too, we sometimes got fruit, whenever it was obtainable in the town. After meals Alexei had to rest while we others went downstairs again.Before tea, which we drank in Papa's study, Alexei got a history lesson from Papa.We also built ourselves a small terrace above the orangery, with steps leading up to it, and there we enjoyed sitting in the sun.

and check out p. 44 of "Last Days of the Romanovs", published in 1920, from the examination of Gibbes:

The empress got up at different times, sometimes much later than others. There were times when the empress came out only for lunch.At lunch we used to have soup, fish, meat and dessert. Coffee was served upstairs. The dinner was similar to the lunch with the difference that some fruits were served. In the morning the emperor had tea with the Grand Duchess Olga in his workroom. Tea in the evening was always served in the emperors workroom and only the family was present.According to the doctor's advice the czarevitch had to rest a little on the sofa after lunch. We went out for a walk till about four or five o'clock. After we returned the emperor gave a lesson in history to the czarevitch. With some assistance the emperor built up a platform on the roof of the orangery. A staircase which was constructed by our combined efforts led to the platform.

It is exactly the same paragraph, reworded and reordered, paraphrased, but the same descriptions! This is just one example of how AA and her supporters used existing information about the family and stories told by others to pass of as 'amazing memories.'

The biggest problem with Kurth's book is that it leans heavily on the now discredited accounts of Botkin and Rathlef, and ignores (cherrypicks over) incidents and quotes unfavorable to AA and her case. For example, he ignores the goldmine of damning info in Gilliard's book, labels him a 'liar' and probably hopes no one will ever be able to find out what's in it since it's rare and only in French. If anyone was able to research and 'do their homework' they'd find out just how much there was exposing her even years ago that never came to light, or was avoided or supressed, because, as Berenberg-Gossler said about the press at the time of the trial, and what Prince Michael Romanov lived with in frustration for years, no one wanted to listen to the opposition it was more interesting and marketable to believe the fantasy. It may be thick and detailed, but ROA comes off as being written as a defense lawyer prepares a case for a guilty client, conveniently leaving out the incriminating evidence while over embellishing their 'side.' There is no question at all what side he is on and what side he hopes the reader will take. This is why this cannot and should not be the only source used for this article.Aggiebean (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you read the bibliography list of "I, Anastasia", you will see that "The last Days of the Romanovs" is not included. And what 'incriminating evidence' is Mr. Kurth 'conveniently leaving out'? Specifics, please. ChatNoir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.135.252 (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well OF COURSE it's not listed! That would defeat the entire purpose of using it! They wanted to trick people, not tell where they got it!

As for the 'incriminating evidence' left out of Kurth's book, I could start with the details in Gilliard's book, add stuff I found in other books such as "Lost Fortune", Klier's book and Welch's book, even Massies, and don't forget Vorres, that was out there too but ignored. You know what I mean, the things I post on boards you have fits over and the stuff I've put in this article you erase? This stuff was surely available to everyone yet Kurth chose not to use it, apparently because it damaged her case and he was on her side. Kurth ignores so much and only uses and advances Rathlef's versions of things which were quite the opposite. Since we know now AA was not AN there is no question Rathlef's versions were wrong and those you say were liars were rightAggiebean (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

So you are accusing the authors of "I, Anastasia" of wanting to trick people. Very convincing argument. The details in Gilliard's book cannot be verified due to the burning (!) of his archives. All his correspondence with Frau Rathlef, however, where he confirms AA's memories and states that her handwriting is "very much like the one of Grand Duchess Anastasia's", is preserved at the Houghton Library. As for Klier & Mingay, Welch and Massie, they all draw heavily from Kurth. Vorres' version of what happened in Berlin is very different from Olga's formal testimony at Toronto (March 23-24, 1959, Hamburg). Kurth relied on Frau Rathlef's version since she was there, as were Herluf Zahle and Professor Rudnev, who backed up Frau Rathlef's version. Details were also confirmed by Bella Cohen in her article for the New York Times. Olga died in 1960 without ever seeing the finished book by Vorres. As for Herluf Zahle, he wrote after reading Frau Rathlef's report: "By and large it agrees with my memories and my notes, and in any case contains nothing which speaks more for the identity....than the material I either possess or which has come to my attention." Grand Duke Andrew wrote to Serge Botkin: "Sadly, I must report that everything Gilliard writes to me about the meetings in Berlin deviates very much from the truth". Now, what incriminating evidence were you talking about again? ChatNoir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.135.252 (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid the writers of "I Anastasia" WERE trying to trick people, because it's not true. One thing YOU have to realize and accept is that AA WAS NOT AN therefore she had no memories of AN's life, therefore someone else told them to her, she picked them up from books or conversations, or the writers of some of the books added things from available books thinking they could trick people who hadn't read the other books. THIS IS reality, because AA was not AN. Again you say Rathlef was 'there' yet others who were 'there' you dismiss as 'liars'. You quote supporters as if their word is the end all but again we must consider reality and know they were wrong, incorrect, misled or lying because the claimant was not Anastasia, therefore their word and works no longer hold up. You say Gilliard's stuff can't be verified because he burned it, but it was at the time, the publishers saw it, the courts saw it, and and it lives on in the book. Even though Rathelf's is still around, most people will never be able to go access it so it's useless and also there is no backup, no alternate sources that prove Rathelf's and Botkin's writings are any more than fiction!As far as the other authors 'drawing heavily from Kurth' that may be true on some things but not the things I have mentioned and used in this article and on my site that you don't like, they came from other sources. Olga wrote letters and gave interviews as early as 1926 telling how she didn't believe in AA so don't try to say she changed later. Olga and Gilliard were the ones who were right. You accuse some of them of lying for money, well, considering all the stuff I see in "Lost Fortune" it sure looks like the greed may well have been on the AA side, and many of her 'supporters' were backing her for a hope of a payoff. OThers were just sadly misled, wishful thinking or did not know the real AN well enough to know for sure. The ones closest to her, Olga, Gilliard, Bux all said no. But look the mods are going to get mad at us for making this a discussion forum again so back to the article.Aggiebean (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the mods would not get mad if you stuck to facts instead of ranting. And what "court" saw Gilliard's papers? It was in court he was forced to admit the burning of his archives. ChatNoir24 (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been sticking to 'facts' ever since I've been working on this article, but you keep erasing and vandalizing the ones you don't like! Maybe you can address further rants to me on my talk page or yours and not here.Aggiebean (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Solution for Trusilver

 * Okay, this obviously isn't accomplishing a whole lot. Let me ask a question to all parties involved: What would you like to see changed on the article as it currently stands, or are you happy with the article as it currently stands? Trusilver  02:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The article as it stands now, is a holy mess. It should be shortened a lot. All silly quotes should be erased, and only the bare facts should remain. I have already written an article that was well received in the past, but it was ruined only a short time after. So don't look to me for writing another one. ChatNoir24 (talk) 04:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that ChatNoir24 has always pushed the agenda that Anderson was Anastasia. That is completely untrue and unacceptable. As such ChatNoir24 fails to accept historical reality and therefore sadly cannot provide any solution to the Anderson page. Finneganw 07:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.69.69 (talk)

And it would be very interesting to see Finneganw back up his lie. I have only pushed the true story, regardless of who AA was, and I am of the opinion that Anna Anderson and Franzisca Schanzkowska were two different people. And I would also like him to back up his charge that Peter Kurth was trying to falsify the truth. ChatNoir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.135.252 (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat, if you sincerely believe your version is the 'truth', that is good reason for you not to be involved in editing the article.Aggiebean (talk) 10:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a mess, it's been reorganized and cleaned up in a lot of places. There is still too much excess clutter but it's because of the tit for tat quotes stuck in that make everything longer, more complicated and harder for the average person to understand. I agree it's WAY too long and needs some serious whittling down, but under the current circumstances of having to appease Chat and other AA supporters this is impossible. Finnegan and I would edit it down one way, to tell the story from a factual standpoint now that we know she wasn't Anastasia, and Chat would do it another way, deleting everything not said by Kurth and/or Rathlef and still trying to leave the impression that despite the DNA tests she still might be Anastasia because this person said this or that 70 or 80 years ago. I would rather leave it as it is than to have Chat keep deleting and vandalizing my stuff every day. As long as same old cast remains the same I see no hope of changing things. May we still have that third party mediator please?Aggiebean (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Trusilver the article has to be honest. The solution is very, very simple indeed. It is fact that Anderson was never Grand Duchess Anastasia. That has been completely proven. She was murdered along with the rest of her immediate family and remaining faithful retainers in the early morning of 17 July 1918 in the cellar of the Ipatiev House in Ekaterinburg, Russia. Anderson never had any connection with the Romanov family ever. She was a complete fraud as were all her supporters. They have all been unmasked as fraudsters due to the extensive DNA testing which exposed Anderson as a complete fraud. The article should be a very short one that clearly sets out that Anderson was a total fraud. This needs to highlight the information revealed in the DNA testing. A brief synopsis of her 'story' should be told. In no way should it ever hint that she was ever Anastasia as that is completely untrue. Those who actually knew the real Anastasia and were honest should be included as they could easily prove Anderson a fraud. Others who claim otherwise obviously had an agenda that was untruthful or were delusional. Information from Peter Kurth's book is irrelevant as he has been proved to have been an Anderson supporter with a clear cut agenda to falsify the truth. His work was never objective. As such his work is not credible in any shape or form. All it tried to do was con people into believing a total fraud was a dead 17 year old woman. As such it has no worth whatsoever except to be exposed as a work that is untruthful. What needs to be done is really not difficult. To avoid further unnecessary edit wars caused by those who cannot accept reality, the article then needs to be locked. Finneganw 07:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I will give one opinion on this and allow it to be interpreted as you will: Every person that achieves any form of celebrity status during their lifetime will eventually (especially after they are dead and can't pursue claims of libel) have something written about them that is patently false and easily provable as such. Fringe authors have repeatedly written books detailing life events of famous historical figures that conflict with the writings of others. In these situations, it has been past Wikipedia practice to not lend weight to that which can be easily disproven. Not every opinion is equal and Wikipedia does not have any obligation to give equal weight to all sides of an obviously lopsided disagreement of fact. That being said, I'm going to to open an RfC today for this article (bear with me, I'm busy today) and perhaps we will get some other opinions. Trusilver  16:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In the spirit of comraderie and aopolgy, I have removed this entry myself. I hope it is accepted in the spirit it was done.
 * RevAntonio (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * RevAntonio (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just one note before anyone responds to this: I've blocked this user for a period of one week for his long-term pattern of disruptive posting and personal attacks. He's more than welcome to resume after the week, provided he can refrain from his previous behaviors. Trusilver  02:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Trusilver, here I am and I hope constructive activity will start here again... it's been awfully dead, I've noticed, and I still believe weshould reduce Anna Anderson to a well-detailed footnote in a section on Anastasia's page. Massey's book devotes a few lines to Anderson's "pathetic" attempts to pass herself off as HIH Anastasia. I agree with Massey. Let's bring this back into fruitful, mature debate!
 * RevAntonio (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The less connection with the real Anastasia the better. Anderson was a fraud from beginning to end. All she did was pathetically try to steal the identity of a dead 17 year old woman. Only those out for financial gain supported her. Nobody can really believe for a minute that anybody who knew the real Anastasia could have ever connected Anderson with her. Anderson and her fellow travellers were all up to no good from the very beginning. There was never any connection or physical similarity whatsoever with Anastasia. Early photos of Anderson and later DNA extensive testing prove this. Anastasia was dead on 17 July 1918 and her surviving relatives mourned her death for the rest of their lives and were outraged that such a creature would dare to attempt to insult the memory of the dead Anastasia. It's time Anderson was relegated to the dustbin of history where she belongs with other fraudsters and pretenders. There were many connected with Russian history. The majority before the Russian revolution had at least been in Russia and were dispatched very quickly. She really was a very pathetic creature. Finneganw 01:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

How about the first part of the article, and the rest summed up like this:

Anderson first appeared in 1920, pulled from a canal where she had apparently tried to commit suicide. She ended up in an asylum, where a fellow patient found a likeness between her and a photo of the Tsar's daughters in a magazine. When word was spread that 'Anastasia' was possibly in a Berlin hospital, she received many visitors, both royal and other Russian emigres'. Some accepted her claims, others did not. She lived with various supporters in Germany and the United States.

A court case attempting to have her recognized as the Grand Duchess and therefore heir to any remaining Romanov fortune was filed in Germany, and dragged out over four decades. She was finally defeated. In her later years, she moved back to the United States and married an American supporter, John Manahan. Despite his wealth, the couple lived in squalor at his home in Charlottesville, VA and were well known as local eccentrics. She died in 1984, never having denied her claim.

Ten years later, DNA proved her an imposter.Aggiebean (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Then how about this...

 * In light of the requests for opinions on Anna Anderson and its final form, let me first join in to agree that Anna Anderson Manahan was a pathetic pretend/impostor. If we can agree on that, and I think we all do, let us then move on to dropping Peter Kurth (I still respect his early 1980s research and documentation). Then let us drop all other non-credulous "references".


 * Know where that leaves us? With no Anna Anderson at all. That is really the solution here. Once that's done, an Anna Anderson page will doubtless start all over again... but we will have united to make this issue accurate.


 * And I still say we put a CONTROVERSY section on Anastasia's page, because I know, no matter how badly you dislike it, there was controversy beginning in 1919 as to whether anyone in the Imperial Family got out of the massacre alive! It had nothing to do with Anna until she got herself in the papers.


 * So we can address impostors-in-general in the controversy section; because it was and is a real controversy. Sorry aggiebean, but there it is. Then it can be cited carefully that many Anastasia impostors popped up and were demolished. Any good bio of the Imperial Family will back that up... problem solved? Or do we keep nitpicking this preposterous issue?


 * In short, I am proposing a deletion of the Anna Anderson page. Since I don't know how it's officially done, I'm proposing it here and now.


 * RevAntonio (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to delete the Anna Anderson page. The basic summary before the Contents box should remain and everything else should go if brevity is what is to be achieved here. Nothing else is needed. There is no controvery. Anderson was and remains a fraud. The real Anastasia died on 17 July 1918 in Ekaterinburg. Anderson was just one of many imposters. Finneganw (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be good enough for me. I also agree it's wrong to have her tied to the real Anastasia on her page since she tried to steal and profit from the identity of a murdered girl. There are 'false reports of survival' sections on most of the royal childrens' pages already. If there is to be any discussion of claimants let it be in the "Romanov claimants" page. The most important issue here is that WE DO NOT LEAVE ANY IMPRESSION THAT ANDERSON MIGHT HAVE BEEN ANASTASIA because that is false and proven to be so. This is not an option. All the commentary in her favor now must be disregarded as lies or errors.

As for a 'controversy' page, why blame me, it was the mod who said no, it is against wiki policy. What do you plan to do with it, add in the 'this person said this, but that person said that' stuff again? Isn't that what has clogged this article and turned it into a fight? We need to all accept, it no longer matters what this or that person said decades ago. The DNA said NO and that's the end of it.Aggiebean (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Another thing, "Rev", I hope you aren't trying to use that 'all other imposters were demolished" to in any way leave the impression AA was 'special' or more valid than the others because it took so long to discount her. The court case was what made her claim continue while others faded away.The more I read about the stories behind all this, the more I am certain SOMEBODY was after money, and planned to use AA as "Anastasia" to get it. Rathlef was accused of this, but it was Botkin who would have had more inside info on any possible money. We can't know for sure, but when they have her telling about secret bank accounts in 1925, when she was FS and knew nothing about it, there leaves little doubt somebody was trying to get to the money, and that was the basis of her claim. The other factor behind it all was the deliberate misinformation from the Soviets who did not want to admit they had killed the women and children for several reasons (I can quote them all and document all this, but this is not the place) Because of all the denials, false reports of them being seen, moved, etc., it left the door wide open for people to doubt the entire family was shot, and for people to claim to be this one or that one. However- now that all the bodies are found and identified, it should indeed all be dumped on the trash bin of history, something we konw to be false. There is no more mystery- except who all was in on that money plot, because someone had to be.Aggiebean (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come off it already!

 * My above suggestions are clearly stated, and they are my ideas about what could be done here. In wishing to keep the page as it is, you clearly wish to keep this controversy going here. You, who say there never was any controversy. Aggiebean, put your money where your mouth is and prove here that there was never any controversy about the possible survival of members of the Imperial Family. I'll work on my proof, so be prepared. Nicholas and Alexandra will be where I begin!


 * No, I do not endorse that anyone was Anastasia other than HIH Anastasia. Science showed us what the truth is. You are not thinking clearly on this subject if you see my outright statement and then try to put opposing words in my mouth!


 * Finally, for the 3rd or 4th time, I'm no longer saying we need a controversy page, only a section in Anastasia that shares the history of the controversy. There is no need to get so hot-headed about that. It's real, and I'm so sorry for any student who comes to research the issue here. If you can't handle a clean, honest "controversy" section on Anastasia's page, then what is the spirit of wiki supposed to be about here? Does the controversy need all this garbage? No! Only a concise history about the possible survival of memebers of the family. Then, for some reason, people latched onto Anastasia-- including my father, as I have stated here before. I do not propose we support or favor Anna Anderson.


 * What an exasperation it is here sometimes!


 * RevAntonio (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The WHITE'S flag

 * Look, everyone, to start with I want to offer an apology for whatever it is worth. When I first came to edit at Wikipedia years and years ago, it was very different. But I started off here as abrasive and it was agreed that my posts here were disruptive--though that was a tad unfair.


 * Now I want you to know, though I have always been a fan of Peter Kurth's, and I respect his historical research, I SEE HE WAS MISTAKEN. I will not believe that in 1984-1986 when he wrote his book he was trying to do some sort of confidence trick with Anastasia's survival or identity. He believed what he wrote, though little of it is truly biased. I've re-read him again and again--have any of you?


 * In re-reading him closely, and studying other biographies, I was quickly convinced to abandon my misguided belief that Anna Anderson was Anastasia. I have many personal reasons for being misguided, but I am not misguided any longer.


 * Accept my apology too, for my sloppy mention of Massey: it is Robert Massie, biographer of Nicholas and Alexandra. And it is there I will begin to make my case for the history of a controversy about the survival of the Imperial Family. Then I'll hopefully show some of you the reasoning behind at least rewriting Anna Anderson, so that it deflects ties with Anastasia.


 * I'm still convinced that a controversy section, perhaps on the page about the Tsar or wherever, is a good idea. It doesn't have to be on Anastasia's page, but I thought it ought to be....


 * Again, my apologies. You do have every right to view me as a crazy, imbalanced old man with obsessive ideas. That is how I presented myself all along here. Now, I ask you: can you give me a chance, forgive, and try not to be so mean in debate? Must this Anna Anderson slop be dragged out eternally?


 * Are you going to stop contradiction and admit there has always been a silly controversy, it is part of HISTORY? Because you say we must not delete Anna Anderson. Why not, if she's such a hideous fraud? Because she's TRUE HISTORY. So you say we must not link her to Anastasia for fear that we are endorsing her fraudulent claims. But why not keep her linked to Anastasia? Isn't that the best remedy for those who still buy the malarkey?
 * RevAntonio (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just one note on the possibility of a controversy section. While controversy sections are not expressly prohibited (quite a many controversy sections exist on a quite a many articles here), the preferred method is to integrate the controversy into the article itself. It if it is possible to include the information without its own section, that would be the best way to go. However, a controversy section would not be totally out of line. Trusilver  19:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, the entire AA story and article IS a controversy, and that is why there are so many fights and so much editing. It's controversial and everyone has to add their 'side.' This is what is wrong here, and what needs fixing! We need LESS controversy, not more! I agree with finnegan what we need is a simple factual article stating basic facts, and leave out all the controversy, he said she saids on both sides. Did you see the sample I posted in the section above here? That's really all we need to say. I do not like the controversy, and my mission is to expose AA for the fraud she always was, even before the DNA. I have no interest at all in arguing or being any part of a controversy page or section. IMO that is the problem here and would only cause more headaches, and our goal is supposed to solve this issue with less trouble. Exploring the controversy will only extend what's already going on here that needs to end. So can we still have the mediator? Aggiebean (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

...And a Thank-you!!

 * To Trusilver. You have risen to the ocassion! Your paragraph above is just the view we needed to start considering! And my apology stands offered to you, too.
 * RevAntonio (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC), the crazy old Buddhist who never learns

A well-deserved shot in the face... but it won't work

 * All my recommendations for Anna Anderson stand. They are in good faith and I see one person here who simply can't stand it. You see, aggiebean who hides and cannot be emailed directly, I have disciplined myself and you certain people here simply won't let go. I have meditated--have you? You will not goad me into attempting to attack or even defend myself. You may believe what you like. We monks are hot-tempered as anyone, and all true Buddhists know this fact. So I am a crazy old man, abrasive and passionate. There will be no more apologies from me here. And by the way, your attack on me, my religion and my credulity are going to be reported. Fair is fair and discipline is discipline. Trusilver will not tolerate this kind of thing, as I well know. Ah, so many alike, so many exactly the same....
 * RevAntonio (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not attack your religion, I simply expressed my doubt you were really any Buddhist 'rev' (do they even use that title? Don't think so!) due to your behavior. We can be contructive and implement the suggestions by finneganw and I or we can continue to play games.Aggiebean (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way...

 * aggiebean who hides, can you not read the rules of this discussion page? Slipping your remark under Trusilver's... very crafty. But I have reported you for your attacks. And from the horse's mouth, it puts Trusilver in a "foul" mood when he has to "babysit" immature editors. By the way, didn't I say about a zillion times that I do not believe Anna Anderson was Anastasia? It isn't me who needs to let go. Re-read Trusilver's message about my suggestions, you know, the one you snuck in under, to post your attack on me. Say... a question has occurred to me, you won't answer it honestly of course: are aggiebean and finneganw one and the same? Makes me think, anyway.... What has happened to ChatNoir? Gone for good? Banned thanks to aggiebean/finneganw? How do you do that, hide so well and seem to be more than one person?
 * RevAntonio (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I know exactly what everyone is going to say: "Whiner!" However, this post is here as a courtesy. I have invoked the right to vanish. I'm not coming back, believe me or don't. I know full well what vanishing means, and Trusilver or Protonk will do it for me ASAP. Enjoy yourselves here. Aggiebean, since I know you always take things in the opposite meaning: I wish you every failure possible. Now, I apologize, you are not finneganw, ok, I'll buy that. So, would this ChatNoir idiot vanish himself? Who cares? Wait til he returns and ask him yourself.
 * RevAntonio (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

note to aggiebean
you are in error, aggiebean, who loves accusing others. i am here only to counter your attack on buddhism. buddhist priests/monks are commonly known and titled as reverend. if you were not quite so ignorant and ready to pick fights, you would know this. don't waste your semi-precious time replying because i have taken leave of this wretched page and you stubborn people who have trusilver's protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.116.175 (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Again I am not insulting any religion I am merely expressing my disbelief you are a practitioner. I know 2 people who are personally studying Buddhism as part of anger management therapy. They have told me about it and this is how I know that the Buddhist way is calm, accepting, resigned to find happiness in the way things are without fighting to change them, taking deep breaths before lashing out, and honestly not letting stuff bother you anymore. You are the exact opposite of all these descriptions and this is how I know that it is impossible you are a Buddhist holy man of any type. Maybe you should join my friends in their next meditation session and it will help you get over your aggression and bad feelings about AA. Really, when trusilver gets back here he's probably going to just lock the whole thing talk section and all. This is getting ridiculous.Aggiebean (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The troll is back and now vandalizing the talk page
He came back and deleted a bunch of comments by me and finneganw. He is totally out of control and needs to be stopped. I see he is aggravating others on other pages too. He has a slightly different IP this time but it's still him. I tried to undo his changes but I don't think it worked. Can anything be done about this outrageous behavior?Aggiebean (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And would you believe, he erased my tribute to your silly quarrels, too. But to be quite honest, there ain't much of this page that is worth saving, especially the comments from Aggiebean and Finneganw. ChatNoir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.135.252 (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no troll, and I see aggiebean is back too, after promising not to return to add more bile to this alleged talk page. There is no justice in this article. And you will not stop me, because this is America and this is a Democracy.75.21.115.37 (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is Wikipedia and it is not a democracy. I'm rangeblocking you this time to deal with your block evasion for good. Trusilver  18:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Simplifying Anna Anderson page ... your thoughts please!
I wish to propose the following solution to the Anna Anderson page to end the ridiculous edit war that has occurred.

I believe everything should be removed below the current introduction. I welcome suggestions. I believe there is no need to tell Anna Anderson's story. She was an impostor and this has been well and truly proved as all the Romanovs murdered in Ekaterinburg have been accounted for by extensive proven DNA testing in numerous laboratories. There is no evidence Anderson was ever in Russia and there is certainly no link to the Romanovs. Please give your opinions. I plan to make this alteration after a week if there is no objection. Thanks in advance. Anna Anderson should really be a very minor page at Wikipedia as she was a proven impostor and a personage of very little historical importance. User:Finneganw 14:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just coming here to suggest the same thing when I saw this excellent suggestion. I agree, the article is way too long and complicated, and gives way too much unnecessary detail about things we know know to be proven false, such as her escape story and the invented details of the "Tschiakovsky" family, and Kleibetzl. We can summarize a lot in a few sentences, eliminate much of the gory detail and seriously cut down on the direct quotes. I support whatever you will do, I trust it will be a major improvement. I do hope the troublesome person will not come back under a new name and IP to mess with it again.Aggiebean (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

More vandalism- I just noticed, reading back over the talk page, that he has inserted comments into posts with my name that were added by him but trying to make it look like I said it. He does this to the article and now our own personal comments. He is incredibly childish and outrageous, and his behavior is totally unacceptable.Aggiebean (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Talking about vandalism: I have just completed all the lacking citations with books AND page numbers, and immediately, they are being removed. Who is responsible for this very childish and disruptive action? ChatNoir24 (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Chat, Harriet Rathlef is no longer a valid source as her versions of what happened have been proven to be false. In instances where Kurth uses her as a source, that is no longer useful, either. Her writings were pure pro-AA propaganda, and her versions of everything people said and did runs exactly opposite of evidence that proved to be correct. She embellished the story and wrote AA a sad and tragic figure denied by her friends and family for money, but this was not true, therefore we do NOT need to tell that 'side' of the story anymore since it's been proven false. Doing so would be a travesty against the educational purposes of this site. As the mod mentioned earlier, if you didn't delete the post, not all sources are considered equal by wiki standards. Honestly, Chat, you (and your aliases) trying to add the tit for tat pro-AA quotes by her supporters into the basic story we're trying to tell is what is making this article long, complicated, confusing to average readers who don't know the whole story and came here looking for information. This is the purpose of the article, and that's why we should do right by the students and information seekers by telling a brief writeup of the basic story without all the gory details and quotes from both 'sides.' There are external links and references listed, if people so desire they can read those books and sites. This is not a book, it's an encyclopedia article, so let's keep it brief and to the point- the point being, she pretended for years but turned out not to be Anastasia, and there is proof.Aggiebean (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

So Harriet Rathlef is no longer valid? I am afraid you are so blinded by your own agenda that you totally forget that the story of Anna Anderson does not PROVE that she was Anastasia. It only tells what happened, what people said, how they reacted, what the scientists found etc. etc. Harriet Rathlef's book is as valid today as it was when it first was printed in serial form by the Scherl Press in Berlin. Even the chapter about Olga and her visit to the Mommsen clinic was endorsed by the Grand Duchess as being "quite correct". You may want to read Bella Cohen's article for the New York times, which describes the meeting in more detail and lends even more credibility to AA's claim. You claim to back the education of the public, still you will use any source that goes with your belief, no matter if it is sourced or not. You seem to forget that just because something is written down, it doesn't necessesarily mean that it is true. This is the wonderful thing about Peter Kurth's meticulously researched book: EVERYTHING is sourced. As for me and my aliases: I do not have any! You and your co-hort Finneganw are the ones who use multiple aliases. But I now know who you both are, so it does not matter. 66.245.238.77 (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

But Chat, her version of 'what happened' and 'how people acted' is wrong, and has been proven so! It's terrible that she paints some as 'turning their backs' on her when they just plain decided it wasn't her, even if it took them a little time because she was so damaged. As for Olga's endorsement, I doubt it, since Olga could not read German well, and because Olga's own letters and interviews from as early as 1926 tell a very, very different story. Bella Cohen was doing for AA in NYC what Harriet did for her in Berlin, embellishing and romanticizing the story to sell her to the public, but they were both wrong. In the end, and it IS the end for AA's claim, everything Rathlef wrote and quoted runs exactly opposite of what others told- and the others turned out to be right, so by logical deduction, we must conclude that Rathlef was either wrong or intentionally falsifying to help AA's claim. Yes, Kurth's book is sourced, but if the source is Rathlef, that is now in question. This article needs FACT, not a slanted viewpoint from the 20's. We have to get rid of the double quoting to appease AA's side when AA no longer has a side. This is an encylopedia article, and needs to be brief, to the point, and above all factual. No more 'what if she was' and dubious quotes.Aggiebean (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The more I find out about this story, the even more obvious it is that she was a fraud all along, and that the way her supporters, mainly Rathlef and Botkin, presented her to the media played a large role in how she was seen and accepted by the public, and that the court case over the alleged money was what made her claim last longer than other claimants. With no money at stake, no one cared about the others, but with the hopes of a cut of countless millions, naturally there would be those who would get behind AA. Anderson supporters have always cherry picked and avoided info that was damaging to her cause. For example, only recently I came across the quote by Shura that she did not see Anastasia in AA, yet for many years it's been claimed by AA supporters that Shura was this big supporter and had to 'shut up' because of her husband being paid off by Ernie. This was never true, she didn't accept her, the quote was from a letter written in Jan. 1926! Why didn't Kurth add this quote to his book, and Olga's from the Vorres book? Because they damaged her and that's not what he wanted to present. Look in the index of Kurth's book and Lovell's, they both list Anastasia and Anna Anderson as the same person! AA supporters have glazed over facts and told things from 'a certain point of view' for decades but the DNA revealed the truth and now we can tell what does and does not make sense. This is why we have to be careful about adding stuff exclusive to AA supporters and their 'side' into the article because it isn't accurate. AA was a fraud from the start and we need to show that instead of leaving the aura of 'but maybe it was her because this person said x' by adding all those dubious quotes. Please let's get to the real story and present proven facts.Aggiebean (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And the more I read of your nonsense, the more clear it becomes to me that you know very, very little about the story. The letter from Shura was written at the behest of Pierre Gilliard, the same one who talked Olga into a denial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.238.77 (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ho hum, as I said, Chat, you try to say that she was forced to deny her because Gilliard was paid off by Ernie, just as I expected. This is the LIE that has circulated in the pro AA camp for decades that now must end. The fact is, she denied her because she was not AN! Do you really think if she was AN Olga or anyone would have listened to Gilliard to deny her because he was paid off by Ernie? Do you realize how dumb that really is? Besides, were you there when Shura wrote the letter? Did Gilliard have a gun to her head? That is ridiculous and more pro AA propaganda. The story is always that the person really believed her but denied her for some sinister reason. This was all the ploy of Rathlef and Botkin but their charade is exposed and over for good, let it go!Aggiebean (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Look at the date of that letter: January 1926. The time of the break between Gilliard and Frau Rathlef. Up till then, Gilliard was most co-operative. Here are a few samples: How are things in Berlin? Is she good? Is she taking her food regularly, in order to build up her strenght? It would be very charming if you could arrange for me to get frequent news from you... From Shura: Please tell her that not a day passes but I think of her, and send her my heartfelt wishes. From Gilliard: My wife was quite excited when she received the card she sent us. It is true that the handwriting reminds us very much of the handwriting of the Grand Duchess Anastasia when she as 13 or 14 years old. Please be good enough to give the patient the enclosed card. On January 13, 1926: We will do all we can to assist you in the work conscious of our responsibility and in all good knowledge and conscience. We have too great a sense of responsibility to do otherwise. We need a great deal of time for this, however, and the work must proceed as quietly as possible, without the intervention of outside persons. which would give the whole business the character of an adventure.... January 27th: Tha latest information communicated by the patient regarding the regiment of the Grand Duchess Anastasia is quite accurate.. (These letters are kept at the Houghton Library.) Again, NOBODY has ever said that Gilliard was "paid off" by Ernie. The relationship between these two has never been quite clear. All we know, is that Gilliard passed himself off as the representative of the House of Hesse, and that his financial situation improved considerably after joining forces with Ernie. I really wish you would read up on this case instead of filling up the net with your home made conclusions. ChatNoir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.238.77 (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It is high time you gave it a rest as none of it washes. It is totally fabricated and utter nonsense. The game is up and everybody except a handful of rabid Anderson supporters know what happened. Anderson was a fraud and it is completely known that the Romanovs in the Ipatiev House along with their attendants were brutally murdered in the early hours of 17 July 1918. All their remains have been recovered and identified. If you are at all interested do some reading about real Russian history. It has always been far more interesting than frauds. It is time to put an end to your fraud. She has been exposed. Move on. Just a reminder at wikipedia inaccurate source material is not acceptable. It's time for you to dump Kurth and Rathlef as both are totally disproven. User:Finneganw 05:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. This won't wash anymore, give it up. There is NO evidence at all that anyone accepted her and then 'abandoned' her due to orders from somebody except for Harriet Rathlef's slant on things. She told it that way to make excuses once her protegee was rejected. They had to become villains/liars to server the needs of her and AA. Botkin perpetuated this beginning with his letter. That was the whole basis for her claim that has unfortunately carried over to this day but it's not true and we can't give it any validation now. You know, Chat, I know there are greedy relatives who will lie to get money. It happened to me, literally. I was cheated out of most of my inheritance this way. I could not believe just how low some people I thought I knew well would sink. But just because it does happen does not mean it happened in the AA case and it's wrong to blame it on people who didn't do anything wrong. The BIG difference is, she was NOT ANASTASIA and they knew it! THAT is why they denied her! It wasn't like they did anything to the real Anastasia because they didn't, she was already dead! All the garbage by Rathlef and Botkin using this viewpoint is false and needs to be dumped now. Sorry if that is about 75% of Kurth's book but that's the way it is. We need truth here, not more invalid fantasies and propaganda.

Answer me this, Chat: if Kurth's book is not for the promotion of the agenda that AA was An, and an open endorsement of AA as AN, why are they listed as the same person in the index?Aggiebean (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the list of PRINCIPAL CHARACTERS, you will see that Anastasia Tschaikovsky, also known as Anna Anderson, is listed as "claimant to the identity of Grand Duchess Anastasia". Anastasia Manahan was her legal name, Anna Anderson was a pseudonom. A little homework could have saved me from spelling all this out for you. And I am not continuing this pointless "discussion" with two very ignorant people. I can only suggest you visit the Houghton Library at Harvard and read the original letters for yourself. You will then learn that Frau Rathlef and Kurth were correct all the way. And long after this awful article is forgotten, their eminent books will be as accurate as ever. ChatNoir —Preceding unsigned comment added byChatNoir24 (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You are very sadly mistaken Chat. Rathlef is an unknown tabloid trash fabricator who saw a way to make money and milked it for all she could, the Botkins were all on the take making money and cannot have been so blind that they could not recognise a fraud when everybody else could and Kurth has also milked Anderson for all he could and as a result is an open laughing stock for his poorly researched unobjective work on Anderson and his continued denial of hard fact about the Romanovs. The game is completely over. Move on. The only thing extremely ignorant has to do with those who cannot accept proven historical fact. It's rather curious how you cannot find other sources apart from Kurth and Rathlef. You fail to admit that Olga, Gilliard, Tegleva, Irene, Ernest all knew the real Anastasia. You choose to insult her memory just as Anderson always did. Anastasia died in on 17 July 1918 after living an all too short life. Anderson/Schankowska wasted her very long life largely living off others, drifting in and out of mental asylums and pretending to be somebody she wasn't. With each passing year Anderson will be more and more forgotten whereas Anastasia will always be remembered as the youngest daughter of the last Tsar of Russia. Isn't it curious how Lenin deliberately manipulated the Anderson story to try and divide the Russian monarchists. He knew she was a fraud as well. He knew for a fact all the Romanovs in the Ipatiev House had been murdered. Go to Russia and you will soon work out that there is no interest in Anderson, but there certainly remains an interest in the Romanovs. By the way Chat where was Mrs. Leeds for years after Anderson was asked to leave her house? No doubt Mrs. Leeds was very grateful the leech Anderson was no longer connected with her. No doubt the image of her murdered relatives lying dead on that cellar floor in rivers of blood and later stripped naked and horribly disfigured was something she never ever forgot. Certainly Grand Duchess Olga and the rest of her family could never escape the incredible pain those murders caused. To think Anderson and her fellow conspirators were quite prepared to rub salt into the wounds of people who had lost their families in such a bloody way is truly beneath contempt. Try to extricate yourself from such an odious bunch before it is too late. You can't fool those who know what happened. Don't continue fooling yourself. User:Finneganw 17:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

So Rathlef saw a way to make money? Well, let me explain to you very, very ignorant person: That money, and every penny of it, went to pay for the expenses of AA. And the Botkins were on the take? Then maybe you can explain why Tatiana lived like a nun, and Gleb never had any money. As for Kurth: Tell me just ONE thing in his book that is proven wrong. Just ONE. Olga, Gilliard, Shura, Irene and Ernest all knew Anastasia. Olga writes to AA: I am sending you all my love, am thinking of you all the time. 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.......My thoughts are with you - I am remembering the times we were together, when you stuffed me full of chocolates, tea and cocoa. Gilliards letters are in the above post. So is Shura's. Irene denied AA, but the story bothered her to the end of her life. Ernest was so afraid of meeting her that he never saw her. Just waged a very expensive war against her. Why he didn't just go to Berlin and reject her to her face we will never know. Xenia Leeds divorced her husband, but never lost her belief that AA was AN. She was ready in court to testify on her behalf when the time came. And if you had read up on this, you would have known this information by now and saved me some time. ChatNoir

I have read up on this, extensively, especially in the last 2 years, and the more I read, the more I see how Rathlef's version is the wrong one. You cannot prove that those people accepted her then turned their backs for money, that is only Rathlef and Botkin's versions to try to get sympathy for AA and help her cause and case. It might have taken them time to be sure since she was so messed up but they finally had to realize their hopes were dashed and she wasn't AN. You can't even prove the letters you speak of were even true. They felt sorry for her but once they realized it wasn't AN they stopped. That's the only reason. There was no sinister plot by Ernie or somebody. The REAL sinister plot was passing off a Polish factory worker as a dead 17 year old girl and trashing her family and friends for not accepting the fake. That is a disgrace and one that should finally be made right. It's time Olga, Gilliard, and the others get their reputations cleared. AA has been proven a fake, meaning they were right and Rathlef was wrong and therefore should not be used as a source for the story. You still haven't answered if Kurth's book is not pushing the agenda that AA is AN why are they listed as the same person in the index? Since she's been proven not to be AN, that makes the idea that she was, and all 'evidence' to that effect, useless. Especially Rathlef and Botkin!Aggiebean (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And if you care to look in the index of Peter Kurth's book, you will see that Anastasia is referred to as Fräulein Unbekannt, Frau Tschaikovsky, Mrs. Anderson, etc. Never Grand Duchess Anastasia. And again: Tell me ONE thing in the book that has been proven wrong. Just ONE. ChatNoir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.135.252 (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It says "Anna Anderson see also Anastasia" is that not saying they are the same person? I know about her various names, but we always use AA in these discussions for continuity regardless of what she called herself at the time, even though she was FS all along, but never "Anastasia"Aggiebean (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said: Anastasia Manahan was her legal name. The only reason we use AA on the boards, is because some people will have a conniption if we use the name Anastasia. ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We're not buying that, Chat. She didn't have that name until she was over 70 years old. It refers to her as "Anastasia" all through the book, and clearly it means Anastasia NR. If not, Anna would have been used, that is what most everyone else uses. When looking up "Shura" it says 'see also Alexandra Tegleva Gilliard' and they are the same person, so that is what was meant by AA and AN as well, and you know it.Aggiebean (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, put your glasses on and read page xix in Peter Kurth's book: PRINCIPAL CHARACTERS. Anastasia Tschaikovsky, also known as Anna Anderson, claimant to the identity of Grand Duchess Anastasia. Anastasia Nicolaievna, Grand Duchess of Russia. Got it?`ChatNoir24 (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

'''Simplifying Anna Anderson page ... your thoughts please'''

Here are mine: - first delete this whole "discussion" page as some of the posts here are beginning to sound positively unbalanced.

Second, get two reputable writers from the opposing sides - and by that I mean professional, published, writers to write two parts for the article setting out for and against AA being Anastasia in their opinion. (And frankly who better than Kurth and Massie - they may disagree but I know that they respect each other so there would be no hissy fit tantrums.)  Then a  third independent person  top and tails the article, including stuff about the DNA results, the graves. Then finally, lock it so no-one else can edit it. That's it. End of story.

And while we're on the subject, why is there no independent page about Franciszka Schanzkowska? I have read quite a bit of the court transcripts and I know I'm not the only one. We could do a page outlining what is known about her life before her disappearance (more than some people would think) and then it could link through to this one as well.Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The answer is very simple. There are not two sides. The fact is that Anderson was never Anastasia. You seem intent on pushing your obsessive agenda. Kurth is totally discredited. The game is up. It is about time you accepted reality rather than sneaking back in here to push gross inaccuracies. Finneganw 14:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm hardly "sneaking" am I when I have signed my name? Why does my suggestion bother you so much? The fact remains that there are, no matter how much you hate it, two schools of thought. If this is an article about Anna Anderson it has to include both sets of opinions, whoever she was. The court case lasted for decades and plenty of people believed AA was genuine. Therefore that has to be shown in a true and accurate article about Anna Anderson, regardless of whoever she really was. Peter's book is certainly not discredited: it is the best researched and sourced book about AA's life and he presents the opinions of people involved in the case. They may be wrong, they may even be liars but that is what they said, and he tells us when they said it. And I don't think my three posts, or whatever it is, makes me "obsessive" and my only agenda is that of free speech. Disagree all you like but stop trying to suppress my right to opinion. Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't bother me in the slightest. I just find your POV agenda pathetic. You are an obsessed Anderson supporter and cannot see fact as you are unwilling to let go of your fallen fake Goddess. Use the sandbox to write your fanasty story. Don't put in discredited information into the article as it will be removed in accordance with wikipedia policy. Kurth's book is not at all well researched. It displays a gross lack of understanding of the Romanovs, the Bolsheviks and the events at the Ipatiev House. It is laughable as it is so bad. It actually leaves out information that shows what most people thought about Anderson. It's very good though at knocking those who knew the reality. That is a sign of a very poor writer. That is why you can buy his rubbish for around 2 cents at amazon.com. You are not convincing anybody here. Your POV inaccurate opinion is dicredited and as such it is worthless and out of step with wikipedia policy which you have been informed of. Finneganw 2:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the one with the obsession, posting dozens of times a day and your opinion of Peter's writing is not shared by readers and critics the world over. I suggest you read the reviews of his books - not just one the about AA. He is a fine writer who thoroughly researches. Your comment that he leaves out information is laughable since every time anyone tries to add a comment to this article to show that people did believe her, you delete it. Your stock in trade is insulting anyone who disagrees and that says everything about you. I have asked you more than once to delete your offensive personal attacks. Please do so now. Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You really are very amusing in how you try to defend the totally discredited Kurth and his trash Anderson book. Your own increasingly bizarre attempts to back Anderson are sad to see. The moment you are found out you start personal abuse. That is typical bullying behaviour from those who cannot accept reality and proven historical fact. The same behaviour used by Anderson supporters such as Botkin when those who mattered refused to accept the fraud. The only ones who back Kurth and his absurd 'Riddle' trash the world over are those who live in a very bizarre fantasyland. No serious historian backs Kurth on Anderson and no credible scientist the whole world over does either. Go and have a look at the Nova program where Kurth was asked questions once he was exposed and see how clearly he squirms as he tries to defend himself. It is just so absolutely pathetic and extremely embarrassing. Of course you won't want to see that though as it also exposes Schweitzer and other obsessive Anderson supporters. Use the sandbox for your weird rants at wikipedia. Finneganw 02:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

ChatNoir24, his many guises and use of inaccurate referencing in contravention of wikipedia policy
Chat you have yet again provided information of your various sock puppetry. It is absolutely useless discussing any of this with you as you are a a rabid Anderson supporter who cannot look at the matter factually or clearly. You cannot find alternative sources to Kurth and Rathlef as they simply do not exist. They are both inaccurate sources which have been totally discredited. As such they will be removed in line with wikipedia policy that discredited sources cannot be used as references. You have been caught out. If you wish to continue vandalising the Anna Anderson page appropriate measures will be taken. Your trashing of proven historical references will be reverted. You are causing an edit war and have been warned.User:Finneganw 23:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The only one doing vandalism here, is YOU!!! You are removing sourced material just because it interferes with your personal agenda. Again: Show me ONE thing in Peter Kurth's book that has been proven wrong. If you can. ChatNoir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.135.252 (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Your material is not sourced. It uses discredited fabricated inaccurate material in contravention of wikipedia policy. As a result it is removed. Sadly you do not seem to understand. User:Finneganw 00:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

So testimony in the Deutsche Oberlandesgerict is now discredited, fabricated and innacurate material? You better answer my challenge which you so far have not managed. ChatNoir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.238.77 (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Chat everything is wrong now that she has been proven a fraud! You can start with the part about 'Anastasia's death being only a theory.' Then how about all the sap Rathlef wrote about her going "My Shura! I want to squeeze my Shura" and all that childish display on p.123-4 softback? Then she adds AA whining 'why do they say such bad things?' about asking for handwriting samples. It's all attributed to "Notes of Harriet Rathlef" therefore it's so much toilet paper. Obviously this is an example of the emotion-tugging melodrama Rathlef used to gain support and affection for AA. The letter that follows the tirade in the book, written in Dec. 1925 says nothing of accepting her only that they feel sorry for her sickness. The one saying they did not see AN in her came on Jan. 6. 1926, BEFORE some of the dates you claim they were still supporting her, and Kurth conveniently chose not to use it in his book but to go with Rathlef's twisted concocted version, the oh-poor rejected AA pityparty instead. This is an example of why it's not valid to use as a source. Oh also the chapter 'Shadows of the past' where Rathlef is 'helping' AA to 'remember' by closing her eyes and concentrating, etc. And the 'what have I done' chapter trying to evoke pity for her being 'turned on' by her 'family!' You will see that most material not favoring AA, such as the Olga Vorres quotes, has not been included in the book, and when negative information is mentioned, it's always followed by a scene where AA bemoans being rejected, again evoking pity and casting 'shame' on those who 'turned their backs'. Anything in Kurth's book that is referenced from 'notes of Harriet Rathlef' or "The Woman who Rose Again" by Gleb Botkin must be disregarded now that she has been proven a fraud and we know some things CANNOT have been true!Aggiebean (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As I thought, you cannot prove a single thing. Pity. ChatNoir

Chat, there is nothing we will ever do to convince YOU because you live in a fantasy world where AA is AN, Ernie and Gilliard are evil and Olga 'turned her back.' This is all the fabrication of Harriet Rathlef and Botkin and is not what really happened, but you will not be able to give it up. However, it's not right to have your delusions dominate the article and mislead those coming here for true educational information.AA was not Anastasia and this has been conclusively proven. This means your stories of how she really was or that there is still some unsolved question are no longer valid. We have to do what is right in spite of you and your unfortunate lack of ability to accept reality. Aggiebean (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And I am still waiting for you to prove Kurth wrong.ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You're like a broken record Chat. I am not the one to have to prove Kurth wrong. Many accurate and respected historians and scientists have done that already. You prove Kurth was right. How about naming the scores of published works who agree with him. That would be good for a laugh. User:Finneganw 12:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry of ChatNoir24 exposed
The following are sock puppets of ChatNoir24 :

67.119.135.252

66.245.238.77

72.25.99.30

User:Finneganw 00:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's all me. ChatNoir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.238.77 (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

ChatNoir24/ 67.119.135.252/ 66.245.238.77 You have been reported for your rampant sock puppetry and ongoing vandalism using discredited inaccurate 'sources' against wikipedia policy. User:Finneganw 11:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I saw your "report". And I am still waiting for you as well to prove Kurth wrong. Seems that I will have to wait for a while. ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

ChatNoir24 and sockpuppets - You just don't get it. I don't have to prove him wrong. He was wrong from the beginning and others continue to prove him wrong. You are so sadly deluded. You are the one who has to prove him right and you are unable to do so. User:Finneganw 15:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As I suspected. You have nothing to back up your accusations. ChatNoir24 (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

He's back using this IP again 66.245.238.77, just tried to insert some more of his unverifiable pro AA quotes and will probably strike again. He's going to have to be rangeblocked in every one of his IP locations. Dare I say only an independently wealthy writer with means and too much time on his hands would be capable of such incessant trickery? His obsession knows no bounds. Is he traveling all the time or just using several ISPs in his home/homes?Aggiebean (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Here I am, Most Reverend Antonio Hernandez. I see my ideas have been stolen [the idea to either delete or shorten the page]-- and now it seems I'm not only ChatNoir but also Peter Kurth. Give this to Trusilver on a platter: in collusion with aggiefinneganwbean, Trusilver is engaging in WikiHounding. A report contra all of you is in preparation right now. And by the way, you should all read my talk message at 75.21.115.37 because that's me too. My IP fluctuates because I have internet service as a business, and that is what business IP addresses do: I do not hide myself and change names like you all love to do. I am Antonio Hernandez, and you are a bunch of mean, vicious, terrorizing children. Do your tracing, Trusilver, you'll find I've vandalized nothing. And keep covering for these others, because you'll be in very hot water soon enough.75.21.153.2 (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

On Finneganw's page you call yourself Archbishop. You have also claimed to be a Buddhist monk. Please get your alias characters straight. There is no need to keep making excuses and coming up with silly stories that are even worse than my teenage daughter's alibis, you are only humiliating yourself further as no one believes you because we can easily see all the names/IPs acting the same way over the same issue are all the same person. Please, spare yourself any more public embarrassment and just stop now.Aggiebean (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Two notes. First, in the case of Chat Noir. Editing from multiple IP addresses is NOT sockpuppetry. It is only such in the event that the user is being deliberately misleading in the use of multiple accounts/IP addresses. Nothing has been proven there yet, so lets tone the rhetoric down a bit. As for the Reverend, I did a range block, but on further investigation, his range is a little bit too broad for me to be comfortable blocking it for an extended period of time. I will block in on short terms whenever needed. At this time I'm considering him to have a defacto indef block for repeated trolling, disruption, etc. Let me know as you see him edit, I will block it as needed, or find another admin online and direct him to the past history. Trusilver 23:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

" His obsession knows no bounds. Is he traveling all the time or just using several ISPs in his home/homes?Aggiebean (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)"

CHAT's obsession? He's not the one who has made almost 110 posts on this page (yes I counted!) and turned this "discussion" page into what almost appears to be a one person rant. You want to disagree with him, fine, but we all know your position so please give it a rest. I'd also like to confirm that Chat is NOT Peter Kurth - never has been, never will be. I also remember that when I first appeared on the AP you accused me of being someone else. I know it bothers you but there is more than one person in the world who doesn't share your opinions about this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrymansdaughter (talk • contribs) 12:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How very interesting. The return of Ferrymansdaughter who was banned from the Alexander Palace board for massive pro-Anderson problems and multiple insults to contributors. Realise people know your agenda and will not tolerate you pushing inaccuracies here. Finneganw 14:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is a shame she has to come back around with all that bogus, disproven AA propaganda, ruining the article again.

To Ferryman's- if you look back at the archive, there is no 'one person rant' as you claim, I don't even come in until the end of the very long winded archive 2 and I am not in archive 1 at all. The oldest archives are from before I was even here and are dominated by no other than your precious Peter Kurth posting under his own name, and the minute he is gone his torch is picked up and carried on with exact rhetoric by "ChatNoir." I did not even come to wiki until 2 years ago, and did not become active until about 2 months ago, so all that old archive stuff is me-free, so don't try to blame it on me. And as for 'sharing my opinion', you really really need to get the message here- this isn't about 'opinion'- this is supposed to be a fact based educational article and stuffing it with disproven, discredited garbage trying to make it look like she may have been AN, despite peer-reviewed science articles proving all the children are now accounted for, is strictly in the realm of fantasy and conspiracy theories and has no place here. You and Chat also need to accept that no one is 'afraid' of AA, we only want the NONSENSE to stop so we can get on with telling the true story free of all the stuff that has been proven false by the fact that AA was not AN.Aggiebean (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And if you are not deadly afraid of the true story, why are you or your little co-hort removing all the info that does not jive with your agenda? You are constantly removing SOURCED MATERIAL and are nothing more than vandals trying to force your agenda on Wikipedia. Ferryman's daughter, take a look at Bookworm's talk page, and it will show you how much trouble she had with our Aggiebean. ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Chat, Chat, the problem is it is YOU who are afraid of the true story. Your version is not the truth, it's been disproven due to the fact that AA was not AN. It makes no difference what Rathlef and Botkin and other supporters claim she said/did/remembered, now that all the bodies are found, we KNOW for a FACT none of that actually happened that way, which is how we know it to be false now and should not be used in the article. I am not the only person editing, Finneganw and some of the mods, not to mention your fellow AA supporters, also edit. As Trusilver told us, not all sources are considered equal by wiki. As Finneganw told us, wiki rules state that once a source has been proven to be outdated and disproven it is no longer qualified to be used as a source. Anything written by Rathlef and Botkin is now in the realm of fiction. If something from Kurth's book referenced those writers as a source, it too is discredited and cannot be used. And go ahead and go to bookworm's page, there is very little of me there, however, he has terrorized my page in the past. I am really tired of laughing every time you say we are 'scared of the truth.' Your version is not the truth, we are not scared, we only want to rid the article of any leanings to AA's side and any discredited info now that she has been proven 100% to be a fraud by DNA. Apparently that means nothing to you must believe the scientists were paid off by the Queen or something. Your version of the story is not valid and should not be told.Aggiebean (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Finnegan, I have to refute, once again, your libellous accusation that \I was banned from AP. I'd like to see you try to prove your lies because of course you can't. I closed my account and can prove it. Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion board. People know your past here. Now get back on track and do try to not vandalise the page with inaccurate disproved fantasy. Finneganw 12:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Chat is back
I thought he was deleted but he's back. I don't know how strongly I need to emphasize that as long as he is allowed to edit this article there will be endless edit wars, 3 reverts, and him adding in info now discredited as invalid in his desperate attempt to try to convince somebody she must have really been Anastasia despite the DNA. He also inserts sneaky little snippets of his own snide commentary and tries to pass them off as being part of someone else's validly sourced sentence. As was covered before, now that AA is a proven fraud, there is no obligation for a 'balanced' article that appeases her 'side.' Her 'side' is now simply inaccurate misinformation that does not belong in the article. He may say 'but this person said it' well, this person is proven wrong, and sourced or not, it's invalid. Once again, the point of this article is fact and education and reality, not games and fantasies. Please, mods, this person will NEVER stop no matter how many chances you give him because that is his goal, to disrupt the article and leave doubt as to her identity. We don't need that.Aggiebean (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And if the point of this article is fact and education, why did you see it necessary to remove Olga's own writings? Simply because they do not support Vorre's account of what happened. And what about your posting about that book that nobody can find, "Im Angesicht der Revolution"? No quote, no page number, only a rumor of its existence. And what about Professor Reche? You are sourcing 3 books (none of which you have read), and again, no quote, no page number, nothing. Is this a way to edit Wikipedia? And what about your own personal comments: We have no other witness than the dubious Botkin etc. The article as it stands now is not only bad, it is laughable. ChatNoir24 (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sadly Chat the only thing laughable is your extremely POV ranting and vandalism. You need to realise your Anderson has been totally exposed as a complete fraud. Do some real research and get your head out of Kurth and you will realise how very bizarre your POV rants are. Go to Russia and do some research and you will realise the Russians knew all along that Anderson was a fraud. In fact Lenin encouraged the fraud. He knew for a fact that all the Romanovs were murdered in the Ipatiev House cellar. After all the Russians did the crime. How anybody could fall for others sneaking in and removing Anastasia is simply laughable. She was very, very dead along with her parents, sisters, brother and servants. The dead can't walk or talk. There is plenty of real evidence to back this as well. I guess you cannot cope though with the reality. Stop your vandalism and find some sort of other interest as none of your opinions are valid about Anderson. Your using the discredited Kurth continually shows your lack of ability to find accurate sources. His so-called 'work' is utterly worthless and has been blown wide apart displaying countless factual errors. Botkin is also completely worthless. His agenda has been exposed. He and his sister used Anderson for a very long time as a convenient meal ticket. By the way stop your ridiculous attempts at knocking Vorres. He was the official biographer of a real person : Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia. They are not his opinions but hers. Nobody doubts her words apart from you and a few other deluded fellow travellers. I guess you can't cope with a real Romanov who knew the real Anastasia from birth and all the major pre-revolution Romanovs as only a Romanov could busting up your fantasy fraud Anderson. That really is extremely pathetic. Your vandalism as you have been notified will be reverted.Finneganw 05:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I know for a fact that Reche is briefly mentioned on page 28 in one of the books, and that's all. Where is your proof that his work was "discredited"? (Somehow, you and your co-hort have fallen in love with this word.) As for the German book: If it was out, don't you think it would have been presented in the court case as evidence? As for Botkin and Rahtlef, please prove where Botkin and Rathlef have been proven wrong. And I am still waiting for you to prove Kurth wrong. And again: Why did you remove Olga's own writings? Too embarrassing for you? ChatNoir24 (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna's opinion you go to the extensive interviews that she gave over an extended period to her official biographer. They are 100% unaltered and accurate. You don't go through twisted and altered versions that are factually incorrect obviously pushing a pro-Anderson agenda which have been provided second hand by dubious sources. You seem obsessed with knocking those who knew the real Anastasia whether they be blood family or close associates and choosing for some very peculiar reason to push a proven fraud. That is really quite bizarre in the extreme. I guess though you have an agenda to protect your Goddess Anderson. Finneganw 14:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have just gone back and listed several pages where both Reche and Eickstedt worked heavily in racial eugenics for the Nazis and Eickstedt was involved in that ridiculous experiment where allegedly Tibetians were proven to be somehow of German descent. As for him being discredited, there is a list of people who have discredited him and his methods. Writings of those scientists will yield results. As far as Gleb and Rathlef being proven wrong, you need to get out of your fantasy world and get a clue- they were saying stuff that ran contrary to what others said and the others turned out to be right, therefore they were wrong. Easy as pie! When AA was proven not to be AN, there was no way she could have known all that stuff they said, therefore they were wrong, maybe lying, but regardless, she was not AN so all things claiming she had first hand memory are now FAKE. Also their quotes of other people, like Gilliard and Prince Christoper, and denied by others, again others who turned out to be right. Their ploy of painting people as having 'accepted' her and then turning their backs for greed was only fake, their own view, not what really happened. I didn't even see the Olga stuff you're talking about, but there is no proof those letters are real, and even if she wrote them, she made it very clear that she did not believe her but only felt sorry for her. She may have taken some time to be sure but realized she was not AN. This is NOT the same thing as 'accepting and turning your back.' You need to see that. But again, you live in a fantasy world and nothing will ever change your mind. That is why you have no business editing this article.Aggiebean (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And what can one expect from someone who confessed to a "D" in research? NOBODY is claiming that Anastasia survived, all I want, is the story to be told as it happened. But that is too scary for you, too many strange incidents of recognition, knowledge and verification of identity by scientists. I see you are rabidly going after Reche and Eyckstedt, (don't forget Klenke), but no matter how much you try, they were respected scientists, and Reche was appointed by the Hamburg Oberlandesgericht as their expert witness because of his eminent status in Germany as the father of modern anthropology. Besides, Mauritz Furtmayr and Peter Vanezis further confirmed their findings, someting you conveniently removed from the article. As for Olga, she wrote to AA: You are not alone, and we shall not abandon you. I REMEMBER WHEN WE WERE TOGETHER etc etc. She remembered Franzisca? But when AA did not die as expected after three months, she and Gilliard changed their stories. Their own writings are what give them away.ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As for Otto Reche, here is a link that may interest you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Reche As an avid editor of Wikipedia, I hope you have something to add to this article as well. ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

So what is it going around with you people, I get a D or I get A's writing for other people? My website, now fully documented, is proof of my research abilities. I have done a lot of heavy, time consuming research on this subject over the last two years and I have found more holes in your stupid AA 'mystery' than in Blackburn, Lancashiere. You just can't stand it that AA has been proven a fake and we are the ones with the truth on our side. No matter how much you try to criticize us, you will always be the loonies because you buy into a flat earth disproven fantasy.

Reche-When I have time I will add more to that very weak article. The fact is, he was exactly what I said he was, and also, his exams were not accepted by the German courts. Sure, they were identical twins, just like the Tibetans are German. You continue to add Vanezis as backing these people up, but this is false. He said he gave the photos a 4 out of 5, and could not give them a five due to the quailty and angles of them, and most of all he NEVER said anything about AA being AN. As for Olga, as I said, do you even know the letters were authentic? I already said, if it took her time to be sure, that is NOT the same thing as 'turning her back.' You really, really need to get off the backs and reputations of these dead people you continue to villaize for your own agenda. You can't stand it that Olga A. and Gilliard refuted your faker, so therefore you have to make up fantasy stories about them really believing her but lying for money. Or so Rathlef and Botkin originally made them up and you carry them on, but it is TIME TO STOP! We have DEFINITIVE PROOF that AA was a fraud, and anything trying to make it appear there may be a chance she was AN have no place in a factual article.Aggiebean (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Your website may have references, but your sources are dubious, to say the least. But that's how you do your "research". Anything that goes with your agenda, is ok with you. Reche's exams not accepted by the courts? Are you totally off your rocker? He was THE EXPERT WITNESS APPOINTED BY THE COURT! The judges all said that his and Minna Becker's words would be the final ones. But when they both came out in support of AA being AN, the judges got cold feet and changed their minds. Peter Vanezis team gave the right ear a 5, which means a perfect match. The left ear got a 4 due to the different angles. See NOVA. Fantasy stories about Olga and Gilliard? Surely you jest. Their own writings felled them. And as you may have noticed in your confused state of mind, this is not about proving that AA was AN, just about telling a story in the correct fashion. Something you vehemently oppose since you apparently do not believe in the DNA results. ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You are one to talk about dubious sources, you who cling to the disproven Rathlef and Botkin (and via them most of Kurth's book too) No, Reche's exams were not accepted by the courts, either that or they didn't believe him because they denied their results. As it states in Larry Wolff's "Inventing Eastern Europe" on page 370, those old Nazi scientists continued to work unabated throughout much of the Cold War era in the 50's-60's, it was later that they were totally discredited, it's a shame it took so long. So this is why they were called in German court as 'experts' though obviously they were not accepted or believed by the judges and in 1961 were totally thrown out. I HAVE seen NOVA, I was the one who told you that the line from "Tsar" about the faces being a match was false, Oxlee declared AA and FS a match, not AA and AN as you said. The "British" TV show "Mystery of Anastasia" was the same as NOVA and featured the same basic info. No, Venezis did NOT declare any meaning to the eare test and did not in any way endorse AA's claim. If you are so interested in 'telling the story correctly' get rid of Botkin, Rathlef and all other junk by supporters trying to say she was or even could have been AN. The people who were against her were right, not liars, not rotten apples who 'turned their backs.' As I keep saying, Chat, you live in a fantasy world and cannot accept the truth, and that is why you should be stopped from messing with this article.Aggiebean (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Too bad you cannot discredit a single thing. And you should probably take a look at the German court system before you make more mistakes in your assumptions. Venezis did not have to declare anything else than that the ears matched. Sorry this upsets you so much. ChatNoir24 (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There you go with your fantasyland POV again. Chat, all of the pro AA stuff was discredited by the fact that, because she wasn't AN, she couldn't have know/said/remembered the things you and your 'sources' claim. Sorry you can't accept reality and move on, but please don't distort this article with more disproven commentary and your odd POV rhetoricAggiebean (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

She couldn't have known/said/remembered the things "my" sources claim? My goodness, you sound like Grand Duke Alexander. But, we all know that it cannot be so just because it upsets your agenda. As for the article, your co-hort has again vandalized it. But I guess when you are a teenager you have nothing better to do. Even in Russia. ChatNoir24 (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your increasing bizarre rants are weirder and weirder Chat. Reverting inaccurate discredited sources is in line with wikipedia policy. It is not vandalism. You are the one who constantly vandalises by placing in information that is completely disproven. It is about time you stopped. Sadly you seem incapable of distinguishing fact from fantasy. You don't want to discuss. You just want to push your POV grossly inaccurate fantasy. That is not acceptable here. Use the sandbox if you want to push your POV. Finneganw 13:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

An example of dealing with fraudsters
This is a message for wikipedia moderators on how an obsesssive extreme POV Anderson supporter was dealt with elsewhere.

It is most interesting to see how the Forum Administrator at the Alexander Palace dealt with an obsessive Anderson supporter, Schweitzer.

Here is what he told Schweitzer:

http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=p049olico9vovcfjuvvetv9i77&topic=10364.msg292906#msg292906

"I'm done. I'm locking the thread. I will no longer tolerate this bull***t. No more game playing. We will no longer provide this forum as a place for Richard Schweitzer to propogandize his theories, much less call them "truth". They aren't.

Take your fairy tales elsewhere Schweitzer, you had a chance to actually answer questions, but you just won't. You are as much a FRAUD sir, as FS was masquerading under the name of Anna Manahan pretending to be the long deceased Anastasia Nicholaievna. The reason you are a fraud is that the tissue sample was NOT "putative" according to you until you did not get the results you wanted. YOU had no doubt as to whom the sample belonged, until, surprise, the answer wasn't the one you liked. Then suddenly, it becomes "putative". Go away you humbug, you hypocritical obfuscator. Come back when you have some genuine facts or evidence, and have the "cojones" to actually take a position and prove it.Take your crap elsewhere, we will not be party to your deception any longer."

The same equally applies to other obsessive Anderson supporters. The game is over. Anderson has been exposed as a complete fraud and it is pointless continuing the rubbish that has been left on this discussion board by obsessive supporters who are totally unwilling to accept proven historical fact. Their continued extreme POV agenda of adding in discredited 'sources' is not acceptable in any shape or form anywhere, especially at wikipedia. This message has been placed for moderators to see how one Anderson supporter was dealt with firmly elsewhere. He was banned for his continuing obstructive behaviour and pushing a false POV agenda. I would seriously recommend that the Anderson page be locked to prevent further distortion and deliberate vandalism by POV Anderson supporters. Finneganw 02:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I dare you to show us just ONE thing in Peter Kurth's book that has been discredited. Just one. So far, you have failed miserably. ChatNoir24 (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I sure wish someone here would say to Chat what FA said to Schweitzer because it all applies to him as well. Chat, you living in a fantasy is getting very abrasive and is detrimental to this article. We have shown you time and time again things that are discredited, yet you still say 'show me one more thing I think not!' It is more obvious than ever that you are the writer of that book you defend endlessly and you are so obsessed with AA you are now incapable of seeing reality and therefore should not be editing this article. The nurse garbage you continue to add was all Rathlef's doing to try to predate the Clara P. story. The newspaper story even said 1922. It is WRONG to state as a fact she said that before because it isn't true. You need to stop, you are acting like a very bad kindergartener who needs a time out. But unfortunately you never learn or change. Please give it up.Aggiebean (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid that the one who never learns, is you. Thea Malinovsky's testimony, together with Dr. Chemnitz, is a part of the papers from Hamburg Oberlandesgericht and by no way an invention by Harriet Rathlef Keilmann. Die Nachtausgabe either by mistake or wilfully printed "fall of 1922", something Frau Chemnitz pointed out in her letter to Kurt Pastenaci. However, in the fall of 1922, Fräulein Unbekannt was already away from Dalldorf for 6 months, and could not have told the nurse anything. ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Chat, just because something is 'recorded testimony' does NOT mean it actually happened. In ANY court case, there will be people who are lying or just plain mistaken. I doubt the timeline of the nurse story too, that's why I find it more likely that it never even happened and was pure invention by Harriet Rathlef to help the cause. See Chat, we now can look at all this from a different perspective, now that we know AA was not AN we know that, as Judge Judy says, if it doesn't make sense, it's not true. Unfortunately for you, it's Rathlef's and Botkin's fantasy that now is disregarded as false, it had to be, because AA was not AN. Sorry but reality is not on your side.Aggiebean (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Further information to enlighten
The information found below serves to enlighten those who need information about the reality of Anderson. It relates to Gleb Botkin's son-in-law's (Richard Schweitzer) bizarre attempt to cover up Anderson and the DNA testing. It comes from the Administrator of the Alexander Palace discussion board.:

Schweizer wrote: The "DNA" was a physical result of scientific procedures that were state of the art at that time. But, it was clearly stated by those scientisits that the tests were of "putative" tissue. We have never cavilled with those procedures. Thus, he obliquely states that the "tissue" was only "putative" as Anna Manahan's. The option he thus suggests is that there was some doubt that the tissue was really hers. It not being hers explains why the results showed no relation to the Victoria line of descent. I did some digging:

Peter Gill, 13th INTERPOL Forensic Science Symposium, Lyon, France, October 16-19 2001: MtDNA has proven invaluable in solving historical mysteries such as the fate of the Romanov family (Gill et al 1994) and testing the claim of Anna Anderson to be the Duchess Anastasia (Gill et al 1995). Dr. Gill calls the results invaluable to solving the mystery. He doensn't seem to mention any doubts in his mind about the results here...

]Mitochondrial Steve: paternal inheritance of mitochondria in humans Lindell Bromham, Adam Eyre-Walker, Noel H. Smith and John Maynard Smith Centre for the Study of Evolution, School of Biological Sciences, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, Sussex BN1 9QG, UK

mtDNA analysis has also been used to counter ongoing claims to the Romanov dynasty. In 1995, sequencing of mtDNA from Anna Anderson Manahan showed that she could not have been Anastasia, daughter ofTsar Nicolas II, as she claimed [c]. References c Stoneking, M. et al. (1995) Establishing the identity of Anna Anderson Manahan. Nat. Genet. 9, 9–10 Hmmm, they seem pretty sure that the results were good when they made these assertion here.

NATURE REVIEWS, GENETICS, VOLUME 5 OCTOBER 2004 pgs 731 et seq

ENCODED EVIDENCE:DNA IN FORENSIC ANALYSIS MarkA.Jobling and Peter Gill

The remains of one of the Tsar’s daughters,Anastasia,were absent from the grave,and controversy surrounded the claim that she escaped execution and survived,under the identity of Anna Anderson.STR analysis of 20-year-old paraffin wax embedded samples from Anderson was inconsistent with her being a daughter of the Tsar and Tsarina. However,the mtDNA sequences matched those of Carl Maucher,a putative maternal relative of a woman named Franzisca Schankowska.The mtDNA results were confirmed by an independent group from Penn State University,who concurrently analysed hair shafts purported to have come from Anna Anderson note131

131. Gill, P. et al. Establishing the identity of Anna Anderson Manahan. Nature Genet. 9, 9–10 (1995).

Nobody who did the tests seems to have the slightest doubts about the results that Anna Manahan was NOT ANR. I don't see "putative" anywhere here other than the relationship between Maucher and FS...which nobody disputes.

Finneganw 11:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I have no idea why you drag all this into the discussion. What we are trying to do here, is to write down the story of Anna Anderson. And regardless of the outcome, her story does not change a bit. What happened, happened. The testimonies, the verdicts, the recognitions by friends and family, the scientific findinds, everything remains the same. I will now ask you NOT to keep removing sourced material from the article just because it does not agree with your own personal agenda. Your actions are nothing but vandalism. ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Chat you STILL do not get it. As we have tried to tell you not all 'sourced material' is considered valid or equal by wikipedia and once it's proven wrong, it can no longer be used. It's not that the entire nurse story doesn't fit my 'agenda' it's that it doesn't make an sense considering AA had no idea to be a Grand Duchess until Clara P. called her Tatiana. The alleged nurse story was only a planted ploy by Rathlef to make it look like it predated the Clara P. incident but it couldn't have and did not happen. You are only using it to make it look like she was AN before Clara gave her the idea but this is false. Again, the information is not proveable, since the paper put 1922 and the nurse claimed they made a mistake but really it was because Rathlef told her she had to backdate it before the "Tatiana" incident. Now that we know for SURE AA was NOT AN this is the only logical explaination, other than the one that the entire episode never even occured and was made up by supporters to help her cause. Again, get your head into reality and see that because she was PROVEN NOT TO BE AN most of the stuff in her 'story' is now worthless garbage. You want to tell the story right, then accept that fact and get rid of the bogus info invented and/or embellished by supporters. We cannot pass of such tabloid rumor as fact here anymore. YOU are the one who is wrong.Aggiebean (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Up to your usual garbage again, aren't you. And the only reason you will not accept nurse Malinovsky's testimony for the Hamburg Court, is that it interferes with the myth that AA changed her story from Tatiana to Anastasia, when there in reality was no story to change. Rathlef did not know Malinovsky, she only printed a published letter from her in the book. And as I have pointed out again and again: AA WAS NOT AT DALLDORF IN THE FALL OF 1922, AND COULD NOT HAVE TOLD THE NURSES ANYTHING AT THAT TIME. But I see that you are not able to understand that. ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What YOU are not seeing, Chat, is that the story is fiction. You can also argue about the dates and details of her alleged 'rescue' and 'cart ride' but it makes no difference because that was fake too. The main thing you are missing here is that, since AA was not AN and that is proven, the vast majority of what you consider her 'true story that never changes' is now relegated to FICTION!Aggiebean (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole flight to Rumania may very well have been fiction. But it does not alter the fact that Kleibenzetl gave his testimony, as did the other witnesses to Anastasia's survival. They may have been wrong, but they still belong in the story. I have no idea why you find this so scary. ChatNoir24 (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Because if they 'may well have been wrong' why are you so insistent on putting them in a factual article? This is another problem with you, because you live in a fantasy world where AA was really AN but everyone lied and denied her and now everyone is so 'scared' that the truth, apparently in your world, is 'covered up' and people like me and Finneganw are part of the mighty conspiracy to discredit AA and help the Royals and the Russkies pull it off. WRONG. The simple fact is, really and honestly now, that AA was NOT AN and our article should reflect that. That means that information that could only have been true IF she were AN therefore must now be discounted as false. I believe all such idiocy and fiction should now be left out of the article, or if they must be told at least add a disclaimer like 'some have claimed' or 'it was alleged' but NEVER EVER presented as a direct fact the way you add them. I see you are now using the completely fictional "I, Anastaisa" as a reference now, you must be stopped.Aggiebean (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ranting again, aren't we. How wonderful it would be if you actually READ the books you are vilifying. If I remember right, that was the reason you were chased off the AP board: Reviewing books that you had not read. The story about Anna Anderson stands as chronicled in Peter Kurth's eminent book. The DNA is only a part of that story, and if you stop and think a little, there has been no legal decision in the case in spite of new evidence. Since you think all idiocy and fiction should be left out of the article, why are you so eager to include Vorres, whose story totally clashes with Olga's own letters? What witnesses said in court, are facts. They did not allegedly say so, they did. Be they right or wrong. As for Ich, Anastasia erzähle being completely fiction, only shows that you have never opened the book. It is greatly based on Frau Rathlef and Botkin's books, with lots of written testimony from various people. You also added a silly line after my addition to Svoboda's testimony saying that it contradicted AA's story. What on earth are you referring to? AA was, per her own story, unconscious until she woke up in Tshcaikovski's cart, on the way to Rumania. There was no horse and cart involved on the night of the murder. AA, according to Kleibenzetl, spent 3 days in the Popov house, and was then taken away by apparently Tschaikowsky. THAT's when the horse and cart comes in. Gee, I WISH you would read up on things before going on your usual rants. ChatNoir24 (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ranting aren't we? It's no use, Chat,it's too late to try to paint me as the 'hysterical' one, you are obviously the one with nothing sensible on your side, you believe AA was AN and you continue to pollute the article with false, disproven info.

Aggiebean (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Chat I have read your (Kurth's) book more than once. I know what it says, but I also know that because AA was not AN most of it is now useless. Jsut like that other book you mention that some said I didn't read, FOTR, but after reading certain passages that turned out to be completely false, and seeing alleged sources of theirs not match up to what was said, I didn't want to waste any more of my time on a book that was prsented as nonfiction but was not. It was not worthy of my time. Since then, however, I have found yet more to prove some of the info in that book is untrue. They sure turned out wrong, with all that stuff about the DNA being wrong, there being no burned bodies, Anastasia possibly surviving, and of course the only reason they made Bux a traitor is because AA said she was, and at the time the writers were in with you on the AA thing, but sorry, the story is make believe and is easily proven wrong by other sources. See what I've done to the Bux article for more info, but that is not the issue here. If you want to get into being 'run off the AP' how many names is it now you've been banned as? I remember the say you told me in a PM you were being suspended because you had 'let Bob and Lisa have it with both barrels' and then your name turned to guest. My name never turned to guest. I know how you desperately try to tie the fake Kleibetzl story in with the fake Tchiakovsky story, of course they'd have to do that or his 'testimony' would have been useless. Get a clue Chat, I KNOW the story, but I KNOW it's fake and should not be presented as fact. The book "I, Anastasia" Is FICTION and even borrows blatantly from "Last Days of The Romanovs" passing off info available as early as 1920 to her 'memories'. I have no access to a copy of that book but if I did I'm sure I could find much more in it that was stolen from other books at the time to pass off as 'memories.' The book is officially regarded as FICTION now and should not be used as a source any more than the Anastasia cartoon should be used! This is RIDICULOUS we even have to argue the sensibilities of this stuff! Aggiebean (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"Jsut like that other book you mention that some said I didn't read, FOTR" - from my recollection, you yourself finally admitted that you hadn't read it, despite the fact that you had trashed it and the authors on the AP for quite some time. Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ferrymans, since that time I have read and done extensive research on that book and its sources and found out that my original opinion of it based on what others have shown me worsened to the point of disgust or sometimes laughter as I read more myself. I was completely stunned at the blatant assumptions and falsehoods passed off as fact, such as the "screams on the Rus" and the Buxhoeveden betrays the family fairy tale, and their leaving the door open for AA's escape. Their inaccurate position in questioning of the DNA testing, and their apparent denial of a cremation of any bodies, and saying the deaths of AN and Alexei were 'only a theory' are completely disproven and discredited now that their bones are found and idenitified. I could not believe some of the shaky and unverifyable sources, such as their own 'different' version of the Yurovsky note, and how they never provided Helen with their copy for comparison to the one she translated, if it even existed. After reading and finding out all I did, I can state fully that I have nothing to regret or apologize for, other than not being better armed with careful research when I first engaged in the argument. This is, of course, OT, and has no place in the AA article discussion. I will gladly fill you in more on your talk page or mine or in private if you are interested. Leave me a message on my talk page if you are and we can take it there. Also remember that it's no use you and Chat trying to make me look a right twit, after all, y'all are the ones who still believe AA was AN!Aggiebean (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The only two possible options to save the article
I am not going to bother to fight with Chat anymore, I have done it for years all over the net and I can tell you for a fact his rationality and realistic objectivity are long gone and it's hopeless to try get him to accept reality. There will be no 'compromise.' There is no getting through to him or changing his mind or making him see reason. He is a lost cause. However, that should not mean the article is. I see only two ways to put an end to all this outrageous fighting that shouldn't even still be an issue after the March 2009 DNA publications.

1. BAN AND DELETE CHAT. He is a detriment to the article, his info is discredited or false, and he will edit war with us several times a day, forever. It's hopeless. Ban him, or...

2. MAKE A "WHAT SUPPORTERS BELIEVE" section to the article. Leave the article intact with the true info provided me Finneganw and myself, and then add a section near the bottom called 'what AA supporters believe' and let Chat go mad in there telling his side and no one will change a thing. Even though I totally believe his 'side' should not be included and by rules doesn't have to be, this would at least, hopefully, keep him out of terrorizing the rest of the article and letting him have his 'say', fantasy though it is. That way anyone who reads the article will see that his stuff is not the real thing, unless, of course, it's another AA supporter, and then there's probably no hope for them either.

Of course I would prefer option 1.

Aggiebean (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Solution and warning
It is very noble of you to put forward a solution. Suggestion 2 has already been discussed Aggiebean as unworkable. Supporters live in a bizarre fantasyland. They should be using the sandbox as wikipedia has never supported discredited information. Under every edit section it clearly displays :

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable
None of the information put forward by supporters is ===verifiable=== as it has been proven to be completely inaccurate and openly discredited. ChatNoir24's vandalism has been reported. It is now only a matter of time before he is banned. He should take note of that. He has already blatantly broken the 3RR ruling. Finneganw 22:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree, his residing in fantasyland does make it impossible for him to be a valuable contributor to the article. I also had second thoughts about option 2, because we know full well he won't leave the rest of the article alone even if he is given his own section. True, the only place for his version is in the sandbox.Aggiebean (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I, Anastasia
The book, "I, Anastasia" claimed to be written by Anderson. In fact it never was written by her. It was put together by her supporters in a feeble attempt to prove she was Anastasia which the whole world knows she was not. It was full of flaws and is now regarded with contempt by historians. It is not credible in any way as a source. It is a ridiculous piece of proven fiction. It has no place at wikipedia except as an example of fraud. Its entire content can be easily refuted. It's really amazing the desperate straws fanatical Anderson supporters cling to. The one thing they have in common is an irrational inability to understand that others can see through their fiction and scams. Finneganw 22:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You are exactly right, the book is fiction and completely discredited as such. There are paraphrased passages in it taken directly from "Last Days of the Romanovs" and passed off as her 'memories.' This book is just as much a lie as the Anastasia cartoon and is not a valid source to use on Wikipedia.Aggiebean (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

And if you care to go back some posts, you will see this book recommended by Finneganw him/herself. Now what will it be, fact or fiction? ChatNoir24 (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

He recommended it as an example of what junk it was, and how it was a good example of the lies spread by AA supporters. He didn't mean it was good reading! Again, your fantasy world blinds you to see only what you like.Aggiebean (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Full protection
I've fully protected this article, meaning only sysops are able to edit it, for a week due to the rather out-of-hand dispute that's been going on recently, and the fact that this doesn't seem to be the first time this has happened on this article. I personally have no idea exactly what the dispute is over, nor how valid the arguments and sources are, but edit warring over it isn't the way to go. Use the talk page to discuss changes to the article, but don't edit war over it on the article. It looks like the editing has quieted down in the past few hours, so I haven't given out any blocks for 3RR or edit warring, although it looks like I probably could have. In the future, WP:3RR would be the place to report 3RR violations for a quick response, and WP:Sockpuppet investigations is the place to go if you believe editors are currently engaged in sockpuppetry. For what it's worth, I've watchlisted the article and will try to at least keep an eye on things from now on. Alexius Horatius  04:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Alexius, you paying mind? Look, it's from your page:

"RevAntonio - a formal request for wikipedia administrators The above entry is yet another in a very long line of outrageous and bizarre rants by an editor who has caused nothing but severe problems at wikipedia. He was banned for a period and has returned having learnt nothing during the ban. He is quite frankly highly irrational and dangerous. I would like to formally request that the ban be extended for a much longer period as he has a proven record of causing massive problems at wikipedia. I very much doubt they will cease. Would you please take this matter to a discussion panel of administrators. Thank you in advance. Finneganw 23:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And there you have it. A plea in good faith is immediately interpreted for you by the infallible finneganw! I can agree with the above user in one thing: take this matter to a discussion panel of administrators. One better: take it to arbitration as I have asked. This creature will not escape so easily with his bullying, lies and insults this time.76.195.94.220 (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)""... so here it is on Anna for everyone to see it. Bow to the finnegan-god or be banned! Some editors!76.195.94.220 (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The only reason it quieted is because people went to bed. It would have continued all day if not locked. I know you don't have time to read the whole story to find out what is behind this, so please let me tell you briefly. Anna Anderson was not Anastasia as DNA tests from 1994 and again in 2008 have confirmed. However, ChatNoir and his socks and a couple buddies cannot accept this and insist on adding their 'side' to the story though it is now totally discredited as false. Finneganw and I have tried to keep it factual and eliminate the now discredited info for educational purposes, but Chat will not let this happen. He insists on readding things that do not belong in the article. This talk page and its archive is proof that discussing or 'talking it out' does no good with him and never will, because he does not accept reality and in his realm everyone against Anderson was a 'liar'. The only option is to stop this fanatic from ruining the article by banning or blocking him and his socks. Thank you for your time.Aggiebean (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Know what else is behind this? aggiebean/finneganw ranting at, bullying and threatening any contrary opinion about even the talk page! Did you see aggiegirl's insane notion that lines are being inserted into her posts? As if no one could easily expose such a thing! Only she can do that without getting caught, but I hope I'm wrong and she no longer enjoys undue protection here. By the way, for what it is worth, I'm not Chat and you damned well know it. Trusilver practically screamed it at you, but he is too lily-livered to say it directly.76.195.94.220 (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The DNA tests do indeed say she was not Anastasia. However, what Aggiebean and Finneganw seem to want to do is remove all references to the testimony and opinions of people who did believe she was Anastasia and more specifically that she was not Franciszka Schanzkowska. They continually seem (and I have only been looking at this since 2nd June) to delete anything which shows that there was an alternative opinion and make rude comments about, and try to ban, users who disagree with them.

You cannot delete historical testimony from this page, it simply doesn't make sense. After all, if there was no argument at all in her favour, why did the court cases over her identity run for 40 years? You have to show there was an alternative view - and why it was considered viable - even if you top and tail the article by saying DNA tests now seem to show she wasn't Anastasia Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What we object to is the commentary on her 'side' being presented in a factual way, like what was claimed really happened, when we know now that she was not Anastasia, it couldn't possibly have happened the way it was recorded and is therefore now misinformation that does not have a place in the article. The idea that we just don't like people who disagree with us is preposterous, because there are facts to prove us right, and them wrong, therefore we do not have to give any value to their disproven 'opinion' anymore. What Ferrymansdaughter calls her 'opinion' we call discounted, proven inaccurate information. As Finneganw pointed out in the message from the mod, not all sources are considered equal by wiki and once they have been discredited they are no longer useful. Wiki does not give equal value to all sources. Anything alleging she did or knew something that leaves a person to question if she might still have been Anastasia, (which I believe is the goal of AA supporters in this article) should not be allowed. Any mention of anything claimed by her or a supporter should only be presented in a way such as 'x claimed that on this date, y happened.' But do not say 'on this date, x happened' because that is now discredited and is proven as false by the fact that she was not Anastasia. Because she wasn't, most of the things said by supporters are now reduced to fiction and should in no way be given any value or consideration or 'balance' with those that tell the truth. All writings by Rathlef and Botkin, along with testimony by supporters, is now cancelled out as wrong and should never, ever be presented in any way to appear possibly factual.Aggiebean (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And there you are yet again! It cannot have happened if aggiebean says it didn't happen. Let's just all do whatever the hell she says. No one gives a flying gas explosion in space about the entry anymore. And in any case, can anyone be right except aggiegirlie?76.195.94.220 (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

A big part of the problem of this article is the need some feel for 'tit for tat' quoting, such as, if we put that Dmitri Leuchtenberg said she knew no Russian or English when she first came to Castle Seeon, AA supporters have to add that nurse x claimed she spoke Russian like a native, which of course is rather silly because it runs contrary to the AA supporter excuse that she could not speak Russian due to being "traumatized" by "Ekaterinburg." The whole article is full of such quote matching which has dragged down many a message board argument over the years with no positive results. This article does not need that, it needs basic facts. If we eliminate most of the quotes and all the disproven info, the article could be reduced and condensed, which would be to the advantage of wiki readers. Currently I don't see how anyone but those of us who know a great deal about this case could possibly understand it. Since it's supposed to be for educational purposes, this is wrong.If we can leave out ANY allusion to any 'mystery' to her identity and state plainly that she was not Anastasia and those who opposed her were right, we could get rid of most all the quotes on both sides and whittle the article down to more clarity. I say all we should do is basically state the truth that she was an imposter, tell about how she started out in an asylum, was taken in by various supporters, had a long legal battle and ended up living in squalor. We should include quotes from supporters and opponents, but the quote matching battle on all the side issues has got to stop.Aggiebean (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"The idea that we just don't like people who disagree with us is preposterous"

Annie, I'm afraid it hardly seems preposterous - to me at least - when in the 3 or 4 days I've been on this site, I have been insulted left right and centre and all sorts of unfounded accusations made against me both here and on various talk pages including my own.. I hope this can be sorted by the time I get  back from my holiday.Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What has been extremely insulting to all who edit and read wikipedia has been Ferrymansdaughter's continued inability to realise that wikipedia is no place to present inaccurate information that sadly is part of her extreme POV agenda here and elsewhere. When proven factual historical and scientific information has been presented from a huge range of accurate sources, you have lashed out at those who are only presenting proven reality and not discredited invention.You have chosen to ignore advice from a moderator as well. You have been exposed as wishing to continue to support a proven fraud both here and elsewhere. You are not prepared to take part in discussion or learn from your errors. You really should depart this article and stop exposing yourself to ridicule. Finneganw 07:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Your responses to other posters, Finnegan, ARE frequently quite rude, as is the one above. I don't believe that Anna Anderson was Anastasia. I think it's likely she was Franziska Schanzkowska. But there are authors, predominantly Kurth, who call that into question and his work belongs in the article along with those of authors and scientists who say she was Franziska, a fraud, whatever else has been written about her. I object to your continual sniping about Kurth and your accusations that he supposedly is one or another of the anonymous posters here. I have no way of knowing who is or is not Kurth on this board. I imagine he has better things to do with his time than edit something for free, but if he does edit, he'd have to cite his work like everyone else. It's the content of the article that needs to be of importance here, not who the poster is. The article has been a mess and needs editing for grammar, spelling, and to regularize references. It also should say Anderson was most likely Franziska, which it does, but contain succinct information about the whole story, INCLUDING why people supported her and why a few might doubt she was Franziska, while not believing she was Anastasia. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Have a care, Bookworm, editing is not just working on an encyclopedic entry here. Here, it is whatever they say it is, and if you don't escape now the almighty finneganw will have you BANNED! INSERT SPOOKY MUSIC HERE!!76.195.94.220 (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC) [came back to fix a typo76.195.94.220 (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)]

Bookworm talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You are in total denial. Anybody who thinks Kurth is a credible source is either very naive or a rabid Anderson supporter. His book is worthless, grossly inaccurate and very poorly researched. Its agenda is very clear for anybody to see. It pushes all the way that Anderson was Grand Duchess Anastasia. It also knocks those who know the reality that she most definitely was not in a most insulting way. It even invents information to do so and does not bother to quote the reality. That is a sign of a very poor writer. If you like his work you are a rabid Anderson supporter. You have been, over an extended period, one of the reasons why the article has been a mess. You continue to push Kurth and ignore reality. It is about time you did some real research yourself rather than pushing a very POV inaccurate agenda. If you bothered to do research rather than ranting as above you would realise Kurth is worthless. There is no doubt, except amongst rabid Anderson supporters, that she was Schankowska. To suggest otherwise grossly insults the vast majority of historical researchers and the entire scientific community. That is gross arrogance in the extreme. If you wish to worship Kurth and not do any further reading, please use the sandbox for your inaccurate drivel. Don't think you can foist it on wikipedia users as fact as it is most definitely proven inaccurate. If you wish to be involved in fraud do it elsewhere. In the meantime realise that at wikipedia sources must be verifiable and credible. Kurth most definitely is not either. He has been proven by a huge number of writers to be grossly inaccurate. That is why his dubious work has no place in this article.Finneganw 22:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, I wonder, why in the name of hell did Trusilver ask Bookworm to come over here and take the reins? Why? To wade in aggiefinneganwbean's filth? To be accused of being me? (By the way, I am ChatNoir and Peter Kurth, didn't you know??) What you, aggiebonehead and finnefreak need to do is what I said should have been done long ago. Shorten the stupid entry, leaving only fact. Oh, but you stole that idea and passed it off, as your own, didn't you.... Anyway, you're still on report just as much as I am. Oh wait...darn, I forgot to buy off an administrator or actually become an administrator and then pose as an editor so I could cover for myself!!76.195.94.220 (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

A simple thing
Finneganw, you have been warned at least twice by adminstration-level about making false accusations of sock-puppetry; you were advised that a user using multiple IP addresses is NOT sock puppetry. Your arguments for truth here are commendable, but please stop your false accusations and your hounding. You have been warned several times as a courtesy--you're on report for false accusations and wikihounding.

As to this new information, I see an agenda comprised of bashing certain authors on this entry. There is your clear refusal to acknowledge history-as-it-occurred. Please stop bullying/hounding people here who disagree with you. You already know that there will be no successful attempts here to claim Anna was HIH Anastasia, so why not get back to work on cleaning up this mess of an article? Instead of hounding, accusing and victimizing people?

[Addition of accidentally omitted comment]: you know who I am, though you have accused me of being several others. I, unlike several users here, am not afraid of being recognized.

76.195.94.220 (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Here you are, cybercriminals, just what you were waiting for. May you be punished by all this, as I HAVE BEEN!

'My own plea for help

Some of the posts of this were signed, others were not. You all know me. I do not care about that. Some of the posts accidentally reveal my email. Do not try to use that information against me, I warn you. My computer has government-level security even though I may not deserve it!

From: REV. ANTONIO HERNANDEZ Subject: Administrators Date: Saturday, June 6, 2009

Dear Administrator(s),

I am former user RevAntonio. Yesterday my 30-day ban lifted, an unjust range-block applied by administrator Trusilver. Though it was wrong of me, I posted a warning to certain users who are hounding and attemtping to terrorize me. I see Trusilver has passed the torch to you, and seems to be implying that he's leaving Wikipedia soon. So I post to you, though I know I shouldn't be posting at all, to ask assistance with one issue:

Sometime after being granted the Right to Vanish, I posted a bit at Talk:Anna Anderson, where all the trouble is centred. I shouldn't have done that, but there it is. It also happens that my IP address fluctuates because I am on the net as a business--I cannot help that, my provider tells me. Please, I am requesting administrative intervention at the Anna Anderson talk page and other talk pages, to stop those users from persisting with their knowingly false accusations. The users are Lisa, aggiebean and finneganw--surely you know of them, as they rant on every page they are able. Since user Lisa has been in a great deal of past trouble, she is keeping a much lower profile, but the other two usernames will surely be ranting at you sooner or later.

Although they and Trusilver know who I am, they have all, in collusion, persisted in accusing me of sock-puppetry, vandalization, edit-warring, threats, and other vile nonsense. They had been warned by Trusilver recently to stop the accusations of sock-puppetry, Trusilver informing them that multiple IPs do NOT constitute sock-puppetry. They of course have ignored the direction. My identity matters, because I have posted personal information in the past, and these users find a safe haven by accusing me of being many other users. It is one of their favorite tactics, to chase away editors from the Anna Anderson page.

It is sort of a game with them to make vicious accusations against users they do not like. Admittedly, I do have an abrasive history with these users...assuming it is more than one user...and as a result, it has been Trusilver's sport to harshly punish me, without knowing or caring about any of the actual facts. He merely did whatever the abovementioned users dictated to him, including the range-block. They have been asking since the end of May that my IPs be permanently blocked. On top of all this, those users have no right to mention the old, non-existent username RevAntonio...nor do they have entitlement to bring up my past.

Trusilver finally drew the line when he was ordered to permanently range-block my IPs. This seemed to put an end to any publicly posted collusion on Trusilver's part. Something more: I can CC you or direct you to the section on Trusilver's talk page, in which he stated to me that he was using a special double standard against me because he did not like me. If you go to his talk page, you will find it if you simply search the page for the term double standard. He has deleted certain posts I have left him in the past, in which I rightfully challenged his unfairness. He has encouraged the use of my now-non-existent username/user identity, and he has gossiped about me to other users. The other guilty users have been having a field day with my identity and old non-existent username since my unjustified IPs range-block.

Though it is fruitless, I have submitted my case to both arbitration and bureaucracy--they have both assured me they are forwarding my request for amelioration to the proper party. I have no idea who that party is, and that is why I'm posting THIS for all to see.

I have noted that the users in question somehow breeze through the system, undisciplined and out-of-control. In the past, they have accused others as they now accuse me, of being the author Peter Kurth, another individual whom they loathe. Kurth unfortunately has a bad and foolish history on the same talk page Anna Anderson; he did battle there because he wrote Anna Anderson's biography. I attest that I am not Peter Kurth nor any other user now active.

You will see now, also, that these users have found a way to sneak in posts without any kind of signature showing. This way, no one can see who has posted which information. I have no doubt they are vandalizing their own talk posts in their effort to terrorize editors they dislike.

Please, I am asking you in an act of self-protection, that you approach and warn these users about this hounding and cyber-terrorism. They know how to work this system, and I have no doubt they will set Wikipedia aflame once they see this post; I can assure you they are monitoring for yet another chance to persist in their wrongdoing.

Rev. Dr. Antonio Akiva Hernandez, O.M.D., Judaeobuddhist Order www.myspace.com/judaeobuddhist www.cryptojews.com/Antonio_Hernandez.htm 76.195.94.220 (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 76.195.94.220 (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

RevAntonio/76.195.94.220 is back
The cause of massive problems is back as is evidence by the long rant found immediately above. Sadly it would seem he has learnt nothing at all from being banned for a time. It would seem that such a ban needs to be put in place once more, for an extended period, as he cannot understand why he was banned in the first place. Finneganw 22:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It is you, not I, who will in due course understand it all, perfectly. And your little tricks are up, no one believes your rants about identities now.76.195.94.220 (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet more ranting. You never learn and have been reported. Finneganw 01:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet more ranting. You never learn and have been reported. Let's see who gets tired of that line first.76.195.94.220 (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In support of the worm and the daughter
Have you, a. & f., no heart at all? I for one have been saying for weeks (before you got me banned by your pocket administrator) that I do not believe Anna is HIH Anastasia. Yet you fail to see something equally important:

...in the history of this fruad, many of us believed from childhood that there was NO ANNA ANDERSON MANAHAN. We believed in only Princess Anastasia. Mama and Papa talked of the Imperial Family and their possible survival. I've mentioned this here before.

But you, you heartless people, cannot ever separate Anna from the Grand Duchess, because for our generation, for many generations before and many since, she was Anastasia.

All you have to do is find an old paper from the 1950s or 1960s. People here loved her, because she represented hope. Like the hope of escape from your evildoings here, many, many generations hoped Anna was really Anastasia--so she became Anastasia. You, aggiebean, who hates history so much, you cannot erase what perhaps your own great-grandparents may have believed: THE HOPE of Anastasia, the hope that Anna Anderson Manahan represented.

NO. ANNA ANDERSON MANAHAN WAS NOT ANASTASIA. It matters little if I say that--you say I'm Peter Kurth! You say I'm pushing agendas here, and you are insane! Work at this, put your money where your mouth is and write a good entry for Anna. Do it for all those ignorant peasants who hoped, and put all their hopes on her.

You said it: the truth is there, it's incontravertible. So what, then, is the big friggin' deal?? Do you think I'm vandalising the page? You know I'm not and so does Trusilver.

By the way aggiehistoryqueenbean, the family's name is SCHANSKOWSKI. 30 years studying, eh? And you don't know the -a at the end signifies a woman of the family, that it is not spelled quite the same as the surname proper?

And they still let you guys do what you will here!

YES!! An official, finneganw-grade rant!! Get it while it's hot, it's lovely!!76.195.94.220 (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

READ
FROM TRUSILVER'S TALK PAGE, ALL EMPHASIS IN BOLD IS MINE:

Your comments (addressed to Trusilver) - I have been sitting out the RfA, and don't see any need to participate in that until and unless it becomes an active nomination. But two recent comments by you there[8][9] are grossly inappropriate for anyone in any forum, much less an administrator opining about nonadministrators who choose to participate in Wikipedia process. You have made very clear that you support CoM, which is fine. Please confine yourself to that, and '''tone down the insults and accusations against other editors. I cannot see any good coming of that.''' You should seriously consider removing or refactoring the comments you have already left. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

AND TRUSILVER REPLIES:

Thanks for the advice WD, I do actually appreciate it. I've had a good time here on Wikipedia, It's been an amazing few years. I think that the wisest person I have ever met to sum up Wikipedia is my daughter (that's not just parental bias, it's the actual truth) She edited with me for a couple months, an amazing thing, I thought, for a girl who was thirteen at the time. Then abruptly, she stopped editing. I asked her if she wanted to work on an article with me, she said no. When I asked why, she said: "Because almost everyone there is a bunch of fakes who like Wikipedia because they have power over others." It took me a long time to see that she was right. My Wikicareer is down to its last few gasps, I'm no longer afraid to say it like it is. But thank you WD, and may you keep fighting the good fight (and keep telilng people what you think, too.) Trusilver 08:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

ARE YOU PEOPLE PAYING ATTENTION TO THAT TEAR-JERKING BIT OF THEATER? TRUSILVER'S DAUGHTER IS SMARTER THAN AGGIEBEAN! H E R E S Y ! HE'S GOING, GOING, GONE BY NOW MAYBE, OR MAYBE JUST PRETENDING. BUT YOU SHOULD PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS STUFF...IT'S REALLY QUITE GOOD. IF IT'S TRUE AND NOT SOME FAKERY BY YOUR FAKE, IMBALANCED MARTINET-ADMINISTRATOR.76.195.94.220 (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

MY GOODNESS! I leave for what I thought would be a nice day of riding in the mountains and come back to see this mess! Rev, I can't believe you aren't Chat because you both display the identical irrational behavior and lack of touch with reality to see that YOU are the one that is wrong and not those criticizing you, who are right. This is completely over the top. May a mod strike you down soon!Aggiebean (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * YES, this was noted by me the day it was posted. I'm not responding to it, and further I offer my apologies for those over-the-top statements I posted earlier. If we continue to keep clear of each other in this way, we may fix this entry and fix it correctly. Then Ann Anderson's talk page will cease to be the world-wide embarassing mess it is now.
 * 75.21.109.14 (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)--sorry, logged back in to make a correction because at least I follow the admin's instructions.

Enough
Okay, I had started with the idea that perhaps this was a large-scale content dispute, and it's looking more and more like plain old disruptive editing. I'm about one inch from kicking this thing up to WP:ANI, and the next admin who comes in here will probably lack my mild manners and hesitation to block disruptive editors. First, no more accusations of sockpuppetry, cyberterrorism, etc. This is an article talk page, meant only for finding ways to compromise and improve the article. If you believe that there has been other stuff going on, such as wikihounding and block/ban evasion, then there are other venues for that. What I want to see, in simple English, and under 5 kB, is what each side wants to happen with the article. What do you want to change, and what are your greatest problems with what the other side is trying to do. Stick to what changes to the article you want to see happen, and, at least for 48 hours, try to forget about who did what in the past. Lets at least try to approach this thing as rational editors.

Also, please start signing your posts the way everyone else does, by simply putting four tildes at the end, and please start indenting your posts with a colon, as it is getting difficult to follow. Alexius Horatius  04:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Solution for AlexiusHoratius from Finneganw
I believe the solution is as follows:

Delete everything in the article not above the current =Content= box. There is quite enough in the summary that deals with Anderson.

Anderson fraudently attempted to pass herself off as Grand Duchess Anastasis Nikolaievna of Russia and has been totally exposed as an imposter. She has been completely historically and scientifically proven not to have ever been Grand Duchess Anastasia. In fact she was Franziska Schankowska. Extensive DNA testing by some of the most eminent scientists in the world in numerous laboratories have dealt with this. It is no longer open to debate except from a very small group of rabid fanatics who cannot accept reality and wish to push a completely untrue agenda that Anderson was Anastasia. These fanatics constantly use the discredited book by Kurth which pushed the POV agenda that Anderson was Anastasia. They also use Rathlef, a journalist from 1920s who invented information on Anderson and also Botkin who was a fellow conspirator. Both Rathlef and Botkin made huge amounts of money out of Anderson. Kurth has latterly done the same before being exposed as pushing a POV agenda. They fanatics are not interested in the hundreds of other credible sources that totally destroy their agenda and choose to engage in personal attack when they are exposed.

I believe this is sufficient. The situation is very simple. There is proven historical and scientific reality and then there is extreme POV fantasy. =END=Finneganw 10:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Alexius, please do not get the idea that this is personal and that 'if we forget who did it' we wouldn't mind what they did. This is not the case. The facts are exactly as finneganw has stated. We have a subject here that has, due to recent DNA findings, completely changed from a 'mystery' to a facted based solved case, but a few of the diehard Anderson supporters will not allow us to put only factual, proven info in the article and insist on adding things that are now discredited and unverifiable commentary from old supporters who have now been proven wrong. When one of them adds something to the article, presented as fact, we have to change it because it's not accurate and the article needs to be. The person then gets mad and yells we are insulting them via dissing their 'opinion' but everyone needs to understand that their 'opinion' now has no basis and is completely disproven and are now in the category with the flat earth society adn 9-11 conspiracy theories. We do not and should not give any value or 'balance' to that POV because we have proof it is not right and should not be included in the article. Aggiebean (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In other words: You two want to delete the whole story about Anna Anderson, simply because there is too much evidence there that indicates that she might have been Anastasia. How very convenient. But that is not how history works. And I am sure the editors of Wikipedia will agree with me. The story of Anna Anderson stands as it happened, like it or not. The testimonies, the opinions, the recognitions, the rejections, the findings by the scientists, it is all the story of the claimant to the identity of Grand Duchess Anastasia. And while we're at it, could you two please show me just ONE thing in Peter Kurth's eminent book that has been discredited? I have waited for weeks now, and none of you have been able to show me a single thing. ChatNoir24 (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Anderson was not Anastasia, since we have DNA testing that proves otherwise, both on her body and on the remains discovered at Ekaterinburg. I won't agree, however, to removing all references to her similarities or citations of books by her supporters. It's part of the story and the whole story belongs in the article. Kurth's conclusion has been disproven, but his book remains a good source of the story of Anderson and her various supporters. Certainly other references with opposite viewpoints should be used as well and the DNA evidence and the conclusion that she was most likely Franziska Schanzkowska needs to be at the start of the article. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add that my main problem with editing of the article has been tit for tat editing: "Anna Anderson was a fraud," with lengthy quotes from references that are very poorly cited, or "Anna Anderson was Anastasia," with just a reference to someone's website. It's a mess. It can be hard to read or figure out where the statement is coming from with no page numbers or publication info. All the citations need to be regularized. There's no objectivity. This is Anderson's article, not Anastasia's, and Kurth's and others' books have value as a tale of HER life, even though it can be proven that he was wrong about her being Anastasia. It needs to include more about where she lived, whom she knew, whom she married, her medical history, her personality, as well as the trials, who supported her and why, and who didn't. The best reference for that is still Kurth's book. There are too many accusations flung about as fact about supporters,  for instance, "Gleb Botkin was in it for the money or was an evil mastermind." Neutral language must be employed. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Finneganw, I think I see why you wanted to revert some of the edits from the earlier edit war, like "she confessed that she was Anastasia...", in that they made it sound as though she was in fact Anastasia. I also see your problem with using Kurth as a source, in that its conclusion was basically wrong, as Bookworm said. On the other hand, I don't think it would be wrong to leave in information about others at one time thinking she was, provided they are worded as past tense and explained that they are only based on more passing concerns such as general appearance and so on. Would you be opposed to putting in a mention of how (and, for context, why) some people at one time took her claim seriously? While we shouldn't give undue weight to discredited opinions, I think the issue of how and why people thought she may have been who she was not is an important enough issue in relation to this article's subject to at least mention. Alexius Horatius  17:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're missing the larger point, I think, which is that the article is about Anna Anderson and her life and times. Kurth's book is a biography of Anna Anderson, who now turns out not to be Anastasia. It contains information about HER personality, health, relationships, living arrangements, and other things that happened in HER life. Kurth's book remains the most comprehensive biography of Anderson and details about her life in the book belong in the article. Other books about ANDERSON, not books merely proving why her claims were fraudulent, would be equally good citations. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem, may I ask Bookworm and AlexiusHoratius exactly WHERE in Kurth's book he comes to the conclusion that Anna Anderson and Anastasia were the same person? ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In my copy of the book, Kurth explicitly writes: "Yes, I believed her and I was proud to stand on her side in the struggle." The fact that he drew the wrong conclusion doesn't negate the rest of his work, in my opinion. It remains a well-written, well-researched book by an author with a bias, who acknowledged where he had the bias. Such a book should be examined with a critical eye and its viewpoint countered with books representing other viewpoints. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Bookworm, that is Mr. Kurth's personal belief, and only that. Not anywhere in his research does he personally indicate that Anna Anderson was Anastasia. ChatNoir24 (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We mean essentially the same thing and are phrasing it differently. Kurth acknowledges in a forward to the second edition of the book that he believed her. That naturally reflects on what people think as they read what he wrote and consider what sources he chose and the material he cited. As a journalist I know that I can't be 100 percent objective because I'm human and have opinions. Nevertheless I try, and I know that people have told me they can't tell what I actually believe when they read certain political articles. If I'm covering politics, I don't tell them and try to just represent what each side believes and let people make up their own minds. Kurth was objective to the best of his ability, but his statement of belief shades the way everyone still reads the book, even though it is well-researched and is a good presentation of the facts. It does lead me to think he left some things out. It can't be the only source we use, but it should be A source. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Bookworm, he also acknowledged in the afterward of the original book he believed in her, and he has not changed his mind. His current site, while recently redone, still reflects his stance that she was Anastasia. Also in his book, the index says "Anna Anderson see also Anastasia" and he refers to her throughout as "Anastasia" and no, I do not buy the excuse this is due to her being called Anastasia Manahan late in life. As I have mentioned ad nauseum on this page, the biggest problem I have with Kurth's books and with references used by Anderson supporters is the use of anything written by Rathlef and Botkin, which, sadly, is the basis for the majority of Kurth's book. He has even bragged openly online that he is Rathlef's successor, in possession of her original notes. It is now painfully obvious that all written by Rathlef and Botkin was trying to aid her cause and encourage belief in the claimant, and that much, actually almost all, of what they wrote must now be regarded as fiction. Looking through the article, we see in the 'tit for tat' quote matching that anything going against her claim, (things that turned out to be accurate) is always counteracted by a tat quote by source "Harriet Rathlef", proving hers were the ones that were wrong and should never be presented as anything close to fact. She and Botkin were responsible for the perpetuated myth that people actually believed AA but 'turned their backs on her' for 'greed.' Many people at the time called her dubious and suspicious and argued what she wrote was not accurate but AA supporters always took the side that they just didn't want the 'truth' to come out.

As we can see from Chat's most recent comments, this is still his position. He still believes that she was Anastasia, and people are trying to cover it up because they are 'afraid.' This is soley his delusion, and if he chooses to live in this realm of fantasy, no one can stop him, but we should stop him from polluting the article with wrong and disproven information that misleads innocent readers.I should also point out that, not only does he add his tit for tat quotes, he has been known numerous times to make 'sneak attacks' in the middle of sentences of others, adding in POV vandalism and carefully placing it as to appear part of the sourced quote of someone else. He has also gone into our comments on the talk page and changed what we said to read something else. This is the lowest form of online vandalism.

Personally I agree with Finneganw's idea of deleting everything after the intro, because I am completely convinced there can be no way to solve the problems we've had here due to the personalities and tendencies of those involved. The tit for tat quoting will never stop, the content never agreed upon, it will go on forever just as it is today.Aggiebean (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the problems here, is Aggiebeans outright LIES! Yes, Aggiebean, I am calling you a LIAR on a public forum. First of all: I have NEVER said that I believe she was Anastasia, I only want the story told correctly. Second, I am NOT Peter Kurth. Third: I have NEVER gone into your comments on the talk page and changed them. You really have to stop your accusations. As for Kurth's book, he clearly writes about 2 different people, something I have already pointed out to you in an earlier post. Anastasia Tschaikovski (later Manahan)and Anastasia Nikolaievna. Anna Anderson was only a pseudonym and never her legal name. As for his sources, he uses some from Harriet Rathlef Keilmann and Gleb Botkin, and a myriad of others. A lot comes from the testimonies made in the Hamburg trial. And the wonderful thing with Kurth's book is that everything is sourced. And I still dare you to show me just ONE thing in his book that has been discredited. Just one! ChatNoir24 (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Chat, this is the center of the problem. You believe she was Anastasia, this is extremely obvious. When you say you 'want the story told correctly' you want it only told from the POV of those who held that belief, such as Rathlef. However, her stories are now proven NOT to be 'teh true story' so we should not use them. You call all others who opposeed her and what Rathlef said as "liars" or 'greedy/paid off' or drop other little comments to discount them. Yes, I think this of many of the AA supporters, but the difference is, Chat, I have truth and reality on my side. Because she turned out not to be Anastasia, the people I am quoting were RIGHT and yours were wrong. And yes, you do vandalize the talk page comments and I can find them and post them. At least you didn't bother to deny vandalizing commentary in the article, such as Olga A.'s and Dmitri L's and Prince Christopher's comments, because everyone knows she did.

As for Kurth's book being proven wrong, well, we've told you numerous times, you refuse to accept it, because you live in your own realm of alternate reality, so I am not going to even bother to write it again, but it is all so obvious. There is no question that Kurth's book refers to her as "Anastasia" throughout because that is who he believes she is and pushes that viewpoint. Everyone else (well, except Lovell, who goes so far as to call her "Grand Duchess Anastasia") refers to her as Anna Anderson or just Anna. Kurth does not 'clearly write about 2 different people', even combines them as one in the index, and gives absolutely no value to the idea that she was Franziska, even calling the details of that aspect of the story "the Schanzkowska myth" and on page 349 saying 'that was the end of the legend of Franziska Schanzkowska."

So, since you want the story told correctly, you will support us in our endeavor to eliminate all inaccurate information, especially that put out there by Rathlef and Botkin, get rid of slanted and cherrypicking POV comments, and explain why she was a fake and how she was found out. If you insist on telling it your way, it is not the correct story. We need the truth here, not the desperate rantings of someone who cannot let go of a disproven fairy tale and a solved mystery. You have sufficiently shown yourself to be unworthy of editing this article due to your extreme and unchangeable point of view.Aggiebean (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem here is you and your co-hort Finneganw whose only contributions to this page have been to slander and throw accusations at everybody who do not see things your way. I know what I believe, I do not need you to lie about it. As for Rathlef, none of her writings have been proven wrong. What happened, happened. And she was a first hand witness, not like the writings of Prince Christopher which are nothing but hearsay. I know you are adamantly against Rathlef's account of what took place at the Mommsen Clinic in 1925, but her version has been backed up by Herluf Zahle and Professor Rudnev. And when you read Bella Cohen's interview with Olga and Shura in the New York Times, you realize that Frau Rathlef's version was really minimizing what took place. Also, Frau Rathlef sent her manuscript via the Danish Embassy in Berlin to Olga for verification. Olga returned the manuscript with the remark that is was "quite correct". Olga's own writings also verify that she was of the opinion that the unknown patient in Berlin was her niece. None of this makes Anna Anderson into a Grand Duchess, it only shows that the persons involved, Olga, Shura and Gilliard, were of the belief that it might be her. Vorres' version was issued after Olga's death, and also belies Olga's own writings, and has very little in common with Olga's own testimony in Toronto. (Hamburg) In Kurth's book you will also find him saying that "Franzisca had joined Anastasia and the Tsar's daughter". He clearly keeps the two Anastasias apart. See my earlier post: Again, put your glasses on and read page xix in Peter Kurth's book: PRINCIPAL CHARACTERS. Anastasia Tschaikovsky, also known as Anna Anderson, claimant to the identity of Grand Duchess Anastasia. Anastasia Nicolaievna, Grand Duchess of Russia. Got it?`ChatNoir24 (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC) As for the end of the myth of Franzisca Schanzkowska, yes, that happened with Doris Rittman running out of the court room after refusing to take the oath. And I am still waiting for you to discredit anything in Kurth's book. ChatNoir24 (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe she did go by the name Anastasia Manahan during the later years of her life and Anna Anderson was not a name she ever called herself or was called regularly by people who knew her. Kurth apparently made the choice, as I do as a journalist, to call people what they want to be called. He did make an attempt to distinguish between Anderson and the grand duchess in his cast of characters. The bottom line for me is that Kurth's book is the current best reference we have to Anderson's life and it must be used as a reference. I think the article should be fleshed out with some of the stories about her life in Germany and in the U.S. with Jack Manahan. There must be some news or magazine articles about the two of them from that time or books that I don't happen to have. Hopefully someone HAS written a book based on interviews with the Schanzkowskis that will be given out. I don't think it's a given that Rathlef's material is faulty and it belongs in the article in a short section, along with a "So and so says this account is false and Grand Duchess Olga did not recognize Anderson as Anastasia." I do not agree to Finnegan's suggestion of deleting all but the lead. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Bookworm, she did go by that name in the last years of her life. No, I do not accept that is the reason she is called "Anastasia" from the beginning of the book.

I am sorry, but AA being Franziska was no 'myth' or 'legend' and did not end. That is her true identity. The myth was that she was Anastasia.

I am not going to respond to Chat anymore as he is turning this page into yet another dog chasing his tail circular game that has gotten the discussion banned from many a message board. He is incapable of being rational or realistic. Aggiebean (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You do "not accept the reason for being called Anastasia". If that is your best argument, I see no reason for you even being here. And the entire Franzisca story was made up from beginning to end, with a paid witness who had everything written up in her little book so "she would not forget anything", a paid newspaper, a bank detective who lost his evidence, a twice retouched photo, another doctored photo and a family who denied any relation. In addition, NOBODY ever came forward claiming the unknown in Berlin to be their classmate, their friend, their co-worker, their patient etc. Absolutely nobody. As for the dog chasing his tail, that is the usual line you use when you run out of arguments. ChatNoir24 (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm out, but I'm in
I agree 100% with the rational suggestions, and aggiebean has made as good a set of suggestions as anyone else.

The new referee here probably also feels his head will explode, but his idea is excellent and so is everyone's agreement on it. (Maybe with one exception, and I'll get to him in a sec.)

My agreement is also with finneganw. The TRUTH is what matters here. Only recall this: we have to, we must, whether we like it or not, begin with Anna-the-hopeful and end with Anna-the-fraud. That means a smattering of what bookworm suggested and what ferrymansdaughter also suggested, in part. Fits all criteria worked out herein. And I hope this last gasp of mine proves my intentions, and my identity.

I shouldn't even be posting. But it looks like this crazy place is nearing sanity! So, I will call especially to ChatNoir's attention: the referee here has said enough, and that ought to be respected.

75.21.109.14 (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for format of re-done entry
OK, so nobody's biting now that we seem to have more balance here.

The following is a good suggestion for the entry's new look--it is the proper scholastic & journalistic method:

1. The entry should take the approach of telling what you're about to tell, then tell it, then tell what you've just told. It's an old maxim used for public speeches.

2. We're reporting, not debating, because this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Instead of merely chopping the article near the top, let us spell it out only like it is. This is rough, so bear with me: the rewritten article as I propose states Anna Anderson Manahan was a fraud who was able to sustain her charade for close to 60 years. She should, by rights, have been totally ignored and thrown into an asylum or sanatorium. But somehow, this Anastasia-hope pervaded in the public, and we must cite some sources as to why that happened. That is reporting on history, and offers no judgment. Then we catch up and state science has proved her to be a total fraud, with proper citations.

3. The rule of approximately 2 lines should be used: 2 or 3 lines to state each fact chronologically. Thus follows the approximate 2-citation rule, about 2 or 3 supporting citations for each thing. It practically writes itself.

4. This article does NOT need any more points-of-view, such as the validity of Kurth. I bring up Kurth because I cannot find evidence that his original 1983 book is fraudulent or inaccurate. He cannot be ruled out as a source, or we'd have nothing! The article can state that he is an improperly biased resource today. We all know there is an agenda to totally separate Anna from HIH. That cannot be done, it's unnecessarily revisionist.

Remember, this article deals with the person of Anna Anderson Manahan. It must read like a newspaper report, up-to-date, with facts and sources. NOTHING else should be there. The story is social history which cannot be changed, no matter how much we dislike what occurred in the past. Point is it is all in the past, because science has spoken on this issue.

The locked page, as it is now, is an unholy mess. It is longer than this talk page, and at the bottom, below the quoted sources, we see Anastasia over and over. All that must be taken out of there.

Perhaps an illustrative analogy: let's say People or Time did this as a feature article. What would they do? They would report, and be thorough. They'd be neutral because all the facts are there waiting to be reported. And their article would be a quarter of the length of the present Wikipedia Anna entry.

Remember, there hasn't been anyone like the fraud Anna in modern history--perhaps never in all history. There has to be a compelling article of fact, so there is no doubt she was a fraud and no doubt of the other facts. In this way, she is a bit like Madame Blavatsky. I haven't seen Wikipedia's entry on her, but it may serve as a good template, I don't know....

OK, there's the humble contribution of what this article should be and how it should look. Agreements? Any takers? 75.21.109.14 (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC) OOPS--edited a small typo.75.21.109.14 (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)--I logged in again to edit some point of grammar.75.21.109.14 (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Responses to the extreme POV unrealistic non-solution
I disagree that the article needs to be neutral now that there's an answer. Here's a difference: an article on WWII should not be neutral because we know which side won, but an article on a movie star and whether or not he cheated on his wife should be, because we do not know for sure that he did and we should not endorse rumors. In the case of AA, we have an answer, and we are justified in telling that truth without having to appease a few who are unhappy with it.


 * I do not believe there's anything in MY suggestion that makes the article "neutral" when it comes to facts versus lies. An agreement with my general proposition is appreciated, but if you have some distorted conception of what I posted, ASK, don't accuse. There's an answer, you said it, and so did I if you'd care to read more carefully....75.21.109.14 (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree Kurth's book is 'not inaccurate or fraudulent' as you claim. Because it heavily relies on the words of Rathlef and Botkin as sources, and they were inaccurate, and possibly even fraudulent, we cannot state their 'evidence' as a fact. Such as 'she remembered the funny animals!' No, she didn't, because she wasn't Anastasia. Nothing coming from supporters claiming she 'knew' or 'remembered' something should EVER be used unless it's with heavy disclaimers such as 'so and so claimed'.


 * Well, I never suggested anything of the sort in my above proposition. I would call that to the attention of our new and already worn-out referee.75.21.109.14 (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You speak of articles in magazines, here is a good example of just how we should state the case, openly that she was FS and an imposter:

http://www.readthehook.com/stories/2009/03/19/ESSAY-AnasstasiaManahan-A.aspx

Tell the story and tell it like it is, with the benefit of post-DNA knowledge! Aggiebean (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, what did I just write above there, that finnegan and aggie can't seem to read straight? I AGREE WITH YOU!!75.21.109.14 (talk)

The article needs to be accurate and not full of the fantasies of rabid Anderson supporters such as the discredited Kurth. Anderson was a complete and proven fraud. There are no half way measures on this. Accuracy is essential. Her identity has been proven by some of the very best scientific brains in the world. There is no longer any doubt at all. Fantasies should be in the sandbox at wikipedia only. Inaccurate information is not neutral. Finneganw 02:28, 12 June 2009


 * WE KNOW. SO LET'S MOVE ON AS I SUGGEST!75.21.109.14 (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And I am STILL waiting for any of you to prove that Kurth's version is discredited. As for innacurate information, what about the ridiculous version of the meeting in the Mommsen clinic as recorded by Vorres after Olga's death? If this is what you mean by "accurate information", there is no hope for this article ever. As it stands now, it is so full of hearsay and wrong information that it puts Wikipedia to shame. But I know that any attempts from me to clean it up, will be met with vandalism from Aggiebean and Finneganw, so I am not going to waste my time. And by the lack of input from anybody else on this page, I realize that very few people pay any attention to this mess anyway. ChatNoir24 (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, for the most part I say let's do it in accordance with the suggestions immediately above... the truth, and accurately outlined. As for Kurth, and I will only repeat this once, he may be discredited and whatever else, but he has to be mentioned because he was erroneously considered to be THE authority for a long time. As I said, and I am not in disagreement with the colleagues above: TRUTH and BREVITY are what matter. So how about we try, as the referee says, to reach a consensus--in this case we try to agree about how Kurth will be dealth with in the new entry? What do we say? Just say, Well, he's a fraud, he always was... I'm not sure proper historical reporting will allow only that. Like I say, we give him at most two lines and the 2nd line dismisses him from any further time-consuming/space-wasting. We can find any one or two citations from his book to show why the view of his research is what it is. God, how we have wasted space and time here, arguing about bloody Kurth!75.21.109.14 (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected
Although my attempts at informal mediation bore little, if any, fruit, the last period of protection, which lasted a week, has now lapsed and I've removed the protection template.

While editing of the article is possible again, it would be a wise choice to continue discussing things on the talk page instead of heading straight for the article. To the editors who were involved in the earlier edit wars, - IPs, accounts, whatever, - please consider any significant content edit to already be contentious, and thus in need of talk page agreement before it is made on the article. When faced with a significant content dispute, administrators have two options to restore some sort of order - full protection and blocking disruptive editors. While I opted for protection the first time around, blocking editors, including range blocks on IPs, will probably be the response to a repeat of the type of edit warring that went on before.

If parties are interested in further attempts at dispute resolution, please consider starting a WP:Request for comment, in which wider community opinion is sought, or consider contacting the WP:Mediation cabal. Both of these options are still technically informal, but may work better than one inexperienced admin (me) trying to mediate things. They are also usually, but not always, considered needed before formal WP:arbitration begins. Alexius Horatius  05:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, a thought

 * For expediency, how about this: we cannot scurry away from the fact that Kurth is disgraced, but his work must be mentioned. Especially if it is all a hoax and fraud as he wrote it in 1983. So, how about you put a thoroughly discredited line from his book, then back it up with what Massie says about Anna in Nicholas and Alexandra? Though it is the beginning of the 1960s, it's almost as if Massie were foreseeing someone like Kurth. I have my copy, can't recall the edition, but I can give you all that and page number. Now as I say, we put those two things together, maybe one other thing, and POOF!!--no more Peter bloody Kurth and no more arguing about his role in this. It's truth and has to go in the information someplace; it is as factual as the DNA proof. Boy, you people are going to get me into trouble....75.21.109.14 (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I never used Nicholas and Alexandra as a source for AA, except where it describes the real AN and how different she was than AA. There are places to use Kurth, such as his account of her last years or very basic info. However, NEVER should we give ANY value to the discredited writings of Rathlef and Botkin on which so much of the book is based.Aggiebean (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Stupid. Just plain stupid waste of space. Who said you "used" Massie before? What I'm saying is Massie describes the pathetic and obvious falsehood of Anna's claim. He's very sharp about it, and to-the-purpose. THIS is an excellent source contra Kurth! Can you honestly not understand what I'm saying? And as I wrote, I agree with you in details and that is why I don't bother with Rathlef or Botkin here. If you can figure the clean way of inserting them to the purpose, then do it. They are of great value in the case, but then you go wild for 15 paragraphs about "Rathlef this, Botkin that," and we need BREVITY! We need hard sources and we need to blow past Kurth once we've shown he was a fraud and was in on it all along!75.21.124.148 (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)--Logged back to edit typos and add a few words.75.21.124.148 (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Kurth has no place in the article at all as his book is totally discredited fiction. Finneganw 13:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * finnegan, put a damned reliable source to back up that statement or stop wasting our time--how many times have you stated this here, a couple dozen times?? We already know Kurth is probably fiction... that's the best we can say right now with no sources. Is your repetitive statement something you consider cold-hard fact? FIND A RELIABLE SOURCE and put it in the article!75.21.124.148 (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

His book is also very biased. A lot of info damaging to her case, such as the quotes from the Vorres book, denials by the children of supporters she stayed with, and the open denial, in 1926, of Shura, whom he claims among Anderson's supporters, and more, are not included in the book. He also avoids the lengthy, detailed versions of the denials by Buxhoeveden and Princess Irene. Cherrypicking? Of course! He was presenting AA as AN and his version of the story is told from that POV. The only time anything is quoted by those who did not accept her, it's always followed by careful spin slanting the info to mislead the reader into believing the person really did accept her, but 'turned their back' for money or some other ulterior motive, but, oh, no, they couldn't have just denied her because they knew she wasn't Anastasia, because that's not how he wanted to portray it. Also much of the villanizing of detractors is often followed by a dramatic scene of AA bemoaning 'what have I done' 'how could they' 'why?' 'my Shura would have taken a bullet for me, why did she turn on me?' and such propaganda to entice sympathy for the claimant and paint those who refused her in a bad light. His version, created by Rathlef and Botkin and perpetuated by Kurth until some believe it as fact, is the idea that Gilliard was paid off by Ernie, Olga was threatened by Xenia, Bux was a traitor and Ernie was afraid she'd tell about his trip, there is some alleged reason why all these people who he claims really accepted her denied her, but none of it is true! He describes Irene as being tortured to the end of her days by being forced to deny her 'niece', but when you investigate the sources, all that really happened is that her husband asked von Kleist to leave them alone since they had already decided she wasn't Anastasia. Claims of 'hand wringing' came only from one of Anderson's supporters. He cannot accept that someone like Irene, Olga or Gilliard could not accept her so he had to make up excuses, or reuse those already invented by Rathlef and Botkin. Worst of all is his insistence that we are 'afraid' of her and the 'facts.' That is completely delusional, and wrong. We only want the real story told free of embellishments, fiction, and any allusion to 'what if' or any kind of 'mystery' because it's over!Aggiebean (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC) (UTC)


 * See, this is why the article will never be a proper encyclopedic entry. No one wants concensus, no one wants a proper article. Just keep arguing, just keep arguing. No one here even knows what a reliable source is. aggie says "...when you investigate the sources..." then she provides NONE, or rambles them into incoherence. This is an encyclopedic entry, not a Supreme Court oral argument!75.21.124.148 (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Example of discredited sources
Here is one of what could be literally hundreds of examples of why most of Kurth's book, using Rathlef and Botkin as sources, are no longer credible to use in a factual article now that we know AA was not AN. Of course, the AA supporters would like for you to leave in both 'sides' and, as one put it, 'let the readers make up their own minds', but I disagree. This is not a game or a personal website, this is a worldwide encyclopedia, used by many people as a source of information for those who need the straight up facts. Would you 'let the readers make up their own minds' if Napoleon lost at Waterloo, or other things in history? No, of course not, you should only tell what is factual and proven and leave no room for speculation and fantasy.

Onto the example, Kurth's book (paperback) p.76:

(Here, from Rathlef's notes, Rathlef is trying to help "Anastasia" remember the name of her dog) Harriet Rathlef:"What was he called, do you remember?" Anastasia dragged her hand across her forehead, as if she were trying to hold her head in place. "No, I cannot find the name, I cannot." HR: "Was he called Jackie?" AA: "No, it was different." HR: "Try to think, if it is correct, I will tell you." Rathlef had the impression that Anastasia's thoughts were literally ripping across her brow: "I have seldom been able to observe so cleary the changing expressions of a face..she shut her eyes, the lids fluttering nervously, the face is working..the whole face is in tension." Then the name flew out: "Jemmy!" "Yes, it was called Jemmy!" AA: "You are so good to me, so I can think better, and suddenly a lot comes back that was not clear."

on the next page, 77, Rathlef asks her: "Were you brought straight from Tsarskoe to Ekaterinburg?" AA: "No, we were someplace else first, but what was it called.." she strokes her forehead, wants to say a name, then she stops. "Everything has gotten lost, I do not find the word, I knew it once." She said in despair. Rathlef: "Leave it, Anastasia, it's not important." "Tobolsk!" she says suddenly, sitting up straight and looking at me like a child who wants to be praised."

(on a side note, we can see here that Rathlef apparently has a lot of info on the family available in order to tell if "Anastasia" is right or wrong about things- and since we know for sure she was not Anastasia, it appears highly likely that Rathlef was using such things to 'help' AA with her 'memories', and that this was quite probably intentional, making Rathlef part of the fraud!)

Okay, now can we see the reasons why this is not a valid source?


 * [I have cut into aggie's rant because I can see why aggie is not a reliable source. You're presenting what LOOKS like original research. Also from a point of view. Do those terms sound familiar? Get sources in line, and stop wasting everyone's time with this speculative garbage!, Now back to aggie's commercial:75.21.124.148 (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)]

This is the only source I need to prove those scenes from Kurth's book are discredited:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004838 Aggiebean (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

(second half of my interrupted post) Because it's documented in the book, sourced from Rathlef's notes, a person could potentially use such falsehoods as "She remembered the name of her dog" and "After struggling with amnesia, Anastasia recalled the name of the place she and the family were taken in captivity" and put down 'Kurth, p.76, Kurth, p.77' and technically this would be 'sourced' and stay in the article. BUT- since we now know for a fact these incidents COULD NOT have possibly occurred the way they are portrayed, it is reduced to a emotional episode in a novel, fiction, but not fact. Because the book is so chock full of quotes like this that if allowed could really put a lot of inaccurate and misleading info into the article, we have to be extremely careful about such things. When Trusilver told us that wiki does not consider all sources equal and that if they are easily proven wrong they should not be used, it's stuff like this that perfectly fits into that category. Also, allowing AA supporters to put in things like this, while the rest of us post other things to discount it as false, only leads to more length and complication of the article. It's plainly wrong now, so why even use it? Just to make them happy? That is not a good enough reason. We have to be realistic here, and if they will not, they should not be editing the article, or should have their false info removed, 'source' and all, and don't let them call that 'vandalism.'Aggiebean (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, to hell with Trusilver who is GONE from here, and stop trying to lay down trails of endless speculative paragraphs. This smacks of your personal and original research!! PUT SOME RELIABLE SOURCES IN!!!!75.21.124.148 (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And in all your ranting, you only tell us one thing: "It cannot have been this way just because I don't like it." I would now like you to explain Vorres' depiction of what took place at the Mommsen Clinic compared with Olga's own writings. And don't try to tell me that they don't exist. ChatNoir24 (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. No sources, then Chat-the-Black-Cat gets to fire them right back at you aggie! Get the sources and put them to good use!75.21.124.148 (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, no, sorry Chat, because she wasn't AN none of those stories could be true! But of course existing in your alternate reality you refuse to accept it, which is why you should not be editing this article. If you're so interested in Olga's writings perhaps you should check out her letter to Irene in 1926, her letter to Miss B. in 1928 and her 1926 interview with the Danish newspaper to see how she really felt about AA even that early. Your version has been embellished by the fraudulent Rathlef. As I have stated, you constantly try to say that people really believed her but turned their back for some ulterior motive. This is not the case. Also, if you want to play these message board games with me go to talk page and don't clog up the AA article, or Alexius's personal page. You have been told over and over again this is not a discussion forum about the general topic of AA.Aggiebean (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Aggie, this is also not the Aggiebean discussion Forum or the I-Know-Why-Kurth's-Book-is-False Forum! Can't you people understand anything?! Do you really think you're helping here by putting your simple views of Kurth's book in the posts? Put reliable sources.75.21.124.148 (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait just a minute... I'm sorry how bad this is going to look, but I DID NOT WRITE THE ABOVE REMARK. I have never said anyone here has simple views of Kurth's book, and I'm reporting this incident to the admin. It escapes me how someone took the IP address, but I repeat I DI NOT write that post above, and this monkeying around will stop.75.21.124.148 (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

1. This is the TALK PAGE, it does not have to have the sources the article does. If it did, I'd like to see the sources for your irrational rants and accusations! 2. I have shown you the only source I need is the scientific report proving the real Anastasia died with her family. 3. What is a 'reliable source' to you, other than Kurth? Let's see, Vorres is a liar, Gilliard is a liar, Prince Christopher is a liar, nothing that goes against AA will ever be good enough for you and you know it so why even ask me?Aggiebean (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * AGGIEBEAN, I DID NOT WRITE THE ABOVE RIPOSTES. I DO NOT CONDUCT MY POSTS THAT WAY. I'M CC'ING ALL THIS TO THE ADMIN. YOU, WHOMEVER YOU ARE TRYING TO SET ME UP, YOU'RE IN TROUBLE. I CAN'T TELL HOW IN THE WORLD IT IS MADE TO LOOK LIKE MY IP, BUT I'M REPORTING AND THAT IS IT. I'M NOT PLAYING THE INSULT GAME AGAIN.75.21.124.148 (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And may I humbly jump in and ask aggiebean to stop making this a Trusilver the Great memorial-page? He made a good point, let's work with the advice he gave about sources, and stop quoting him like he's the Qu'uran. Trusilver is either going or gone, and he was never the ultimate authority here. AND YOU, CHAT!! CUT THE CRAP WITH AGGIEBEAN OR I'LL BE GETTING AT YOU NEXT! The last thing I need is for these kooks to think you're me, which they already do. You have not helped a hell of a lot with the past troubles, don't cause new ones! And lastly, will you people get on with it, stop this niggling and find the sources to discredit Kurth so we can pitch this out the window. In an AAM entry, WHO CARES about this nit-picking?? IT'S AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, ask finnegan, he'll tell you!75.21.124.148 (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like someone erased my answer. Again, you DARE NOT compare Olga's own letters to the patient to the ramblings of Vorres. And "my" version has not been embellished by Frau Rathlef, whom you libel with your unprofessional remarks. If you read Bella Cohen's interview with Olga and Shura, you will realize that Frau Rathlef really minimizes what took place. ChatNoir24 (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ChatNoir, if you are accusing, don't waste time doing it here and derailing us... and that goes for everyone. Chat, if you have been vandalized, go through the Channels, though they be choked with filth and excrement. Do it right, let people see YOU trying to play a fair game for a change!75.21.124.148 (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

'''::THIS IS THE REAL ME, AND I SUSPECT THAT IF IT ISN'T ONE USER IN PARTICULAR HERE, THEN IT IS ANOTHER. SOMEONE IS USING MY IP AS A SOCK PUPPET. BUT YOU'LL BE CAUGHT OUT VERY QUICKLY, BECAUSE MY IP FLUCTUATES UNPREDICTABLY, AND THE MODS KNOW THAT.75.21.124.148 (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)'''

When is enough going to be enough?

 * WHOA!! Can we put the air brakes on here a minute?? You people want an anti-PK page, not a proper scholarly encyclopedic entry about Anna Anderson Manahan. Well, fine, do it. Make an anti-PK page! He deserves the discreditation, you keep claiming, so make a page about him! THIS page is about Anna Anderson Manahan. I cannot believe finnegan still swims in this fantasy that anyone wants Kurth "fairly" included. No one has ever said to be fair to Kurth himself or anything other than treating his book in the year and context it was written.


 * What has been the good constant theme here is TRUTH, and it has to be IN BRIEF and to the point, not an aggie-rant, not an anti-Kurth rant that passes itself off as an entry. Everyone and anyone can read those facts in any related material--stop wasting a hundred paragraphs to yap about bloody Botkin! The world knows the name of Anna, they know Peter Kurth, but even interested subjects will say, "Who the hell is Botkin and who cares?"--let's stick to the good, simple outline of the truth you and finnegan were onto yesterday/day before.


 * Aside from ChatNoir, and he does have a fair point, I thought we HAD the concensus about Kurth and his frauduent posture... but I saw something here, AGGIE, and that is you either present clear and SHORT citations or pack it up!! Your 1,000-word posts aren't the equvalent of a reliable source. This article must present reliable sources proving Kurth's fraud and lies. You cannot get away with saying, "He lied all along, I can tell," or "I can prove it, look at this silly quote." It's not for you or me to do this: RELIABLE SOURCES! And the same goes for ChatNoir, because so many people feel Kurth's book is a fraud in its entirety. Time to start investigating for the sources that will prove that or at least support the charge that PK was a fraud all along.


 * Otherwise, people, you cannot keep saying that just because you suspect it or think you can prove it. You have to cite sources, you know these rules! Otherwise, guess what? You end up looking like the fools and Peter Kurth ends up looking like he's untouchable. Do you want that?--I didn't think so. Therefore, get the reliable sources or get off the hayride. Doesn't ANYBODY here pay attention to the admin's advice?


 * My understanding is there is a question about Vorres. That can be addressed, and should be addressed. It strikes me there are lots of Vorres-lovers out there, but I've seen questions raised about his work. I don't study it, and I wish I could. My point is that when you lean on Kurth you must also lean on any other cheaters/agendizers. WITH RELIABLE SOURCES.


 * You know something, I don't think anybody here wants this thing to be finished, or to be done well.75.21.124.148 (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody apart from rabid Anderson supporters questions Vorres. He was the officially approved biographer of Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna and is highly respected as a writer. Of course Olga knew her niece Anastasia from birth and also had the gross misfortune of having to be in contact with the fraud Anderson who she totally exposed. That is why Anderson supporters have spent so much time trying in vain to discredit her. Their attacks over decades were truly despicable. It's as simple as that. Finneganw 00:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's that simple, write it in the entry! And BACK IT UP or you're doing no better than other unsourced opinions. I never read Vorres, so I defer to those who know his work.75.21.124.148 (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

English 101 for all the world to see (NOT)

 * Know what else? I just looked at that horrid 17-page slop of an entry. Could someone at least write it at an adult level? My 11-year-old nephew showed me an essay he was proud to have written. It read far better and more maturely than the Anna page. This fact led me to wonder if any of you actually have teenaged children, or are you teenaged children? Are you genuinely proud of the contributions to that entry?!75.21.124.148 (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the rants have started here again as well. Finneganw 00:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As stated, I will not dignify the above with a reply. These aren't rants and it is clear to see that fact. Am I ranting now? Some will say "YES".75.21.124.148 (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll say it loud and proud: to HELL with Kurth

 * Before I get steamrolled by aggiebean and possibly ChatNoir, I agree that everything written by Kurth is a lie and unusable as a source. I agree that it should either be worded as I have just worded it; again, I agree that Kurth be omitted due to his BOOK and present attitudes being in question. Does that make everyone happy?


 * Now, I will state here that aggiebean has been reported at the admin's talk page for false accusations and for sock puppetry. Sorry, if you're going to come after me like that again, I'll defend myself again.


 * Here's some proof, note it:75.21.124.148 (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not the only person who thinks you're a sock and I am not afraid of your accusations since there is no way to prove you are a sock since few trolls and aliases use the same IP, at least once they find out what one is. Your IP means nothing to me, I have said many times before as mod on other forums it's not the IP that gives a person away but their identical rhetoric and behavior. I have known people to carry 3 ISPs, use IP bounce and/or hide programs, use dialup connections from other states, etc. It does not prove if you are or are not a sock. But this has no place on the AA page if you have junk like this to say put it on my page(or better yet don't put it anywhere). Your imput on this site is unnecessary, unproductive and disruptive.Aggiebean (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Aggie, and whatever other it is who "believes I'm a sock", this identity question is never going to be anything except what YOU want it to be, no answer good except yours. But I understand you, I understand why you would be angry with me and confused as to who I am. THE MODS ARE NOT, don't think the info's fake just because you were not allowed into the loop. They know who I am, and who I am not.


 * My posts are impatient, they are blunt and I made it clear when I 'interjected' posts between yours--something you used to love doing. So don't point accusing fingers at me. And I've made it clear there is ONE specific post here not mine. It is the post that accuses you of a simple attitude toward Kurth's book. I've told you all what I am willing to agree to regarding his fraudulent book. Take it or leave it.


 * Why, why do you insist on all this? I know why. My recommendations don't fit your strange opinion about yourself and your knowledge of this subject. For some reason you have become so hateful and paranoid that YOu are the one who will never allow consensus here. Just know that your efforts against me will not be so easy this time around, because I am innocent of your charges.


 * You know, there was a man, a loser who somehow found a little platform. He took this and ranted, and no one else could rant except him--unless he allowed a "sock puppet" to rant in his place. Soon he ran out of people to silence, as he had already silenced everyone, so he began searching for more people to silence, and began inventing enemies. He might have fit right here on this talk page.


 * He was Adolph Hitler.75.21.124.148 (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Back to the real issue here, and that is that we need a factual article. What you call my 'strange opinion' is actual proven scientific fact. This isn't about 'what I want' and 'what I agree with', you see, I have the facts and reality on my side, and they should not be questioned. Finneganw has stated the same, it is not just my view, and he has spoken out more against Kurth's book than I have. The fact is most of the book was based on the writings of people who turned out to be wrong or fraudulent. This disqualifies them as a valid source. It's as simple as that. As for the speech you made about Hitler, search yourself. You are making this far more dramatic and over the top than it needs to be. And I never interjected in the middle of anyone else's posts, and the history page will bear this out. Anyone reading this mess, if they bother, will be able to see where the true problem lies.Aggiebean (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Tone
I have no idea what the drama is about but for an article that lists over 200 sources this is written in a sometimes very unencyclopedic tone. Use of words like ludicrous, phrases like infamous insulting letter and starting sentences with Of course is inappropriate. Normally I'd fix such things myself but this article looks like a mine field so I'm posting here instead. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Idiocy, pure idiocy on my part, but I will tell you what is happening if you ever return here. This page is supposed to be a simple, short biography of a fraud commonly known as Anna Anderson Manahan. She claimed for most of her life that she was the daughter of Czar Nikolas, the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna Romanov.


 * The username aggiebean corresponds to a clearly uneducated student of Anderson Manahan's fraudulent past--and aggiebean would be the poor researcher who is ruining the entry with the bad writing as well. This is clear from her posts here. She claims 30 years of study on this subject... a few years longer than a more recent fraud who wrote Anderson Manahan's so-called biography.


 * The username finneganw is someone who appears sometimes as aggiebean's shadow and other times as aggiebean's herald. Both of these users want to own this page, and see it couched only in their terms and on their demands. Any departure from their view is condemned as rule-breaking, vandalism, etc.


 * Only the username ChatNoir24 pushes an agenda that Anderson Manahan was actually Anastasia. The rest of us almost reached consensus about how this article should be presented. Once I added my consent and agreement, aggiebean and finneganw began their vicious rants against me. They commonly post on this page using one tone, but a very different tone is used on administrators' pages.


 * Also, the two abovenamed users have a history of wikihounding editors they do not like (here I stand). I am not one to hide my errors, as they like people to believe, but I am not one to take their insults laying down... . There you have the problem with this page: usernames aggiebean and finneganw. The former is a phony-baloney Anderson Manahan "scholar", while the latter is a slavish sort of aggiebean shadow. It would not surprise me if aggieean will soon claim to be a Romanov. She has claimed almost everything but that.75.21.124.148 (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Re-editing to correct a typo.75.21.124.148 (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Rev, why don't you ever just stop these ridiculous and unfounded rants? Finneganw is not my 'shadow', if you check the archives you will see he was here a year or even two before I ever came to wiki. If anyone wants to see an example of my 'bad' and 'uneducated' research and writing you are free to judge for yourselves by looking at my website,. The problem here is the inaccurate info and sneak attacks and vandalism of 75.21.124.148 and/or "ChatNoir." We are currently trying to get admin intervention and the situation will hopefully resolve soon. If things remain as they are, there is no hope for the article.Aggiebean (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. The same query about ridiculous behavior could be asked about you. Talk about a major impediment that will render this article hopeless! You're the Number One player in that field and I think everyone's seeing that right now.


 * 2. I've seen your website. Nothing there that impresses me, that I might expect from a scholarly journalist or expert. So it might have helped if you stopped throwing your weight around exclusively. As for me, I only wanted to assist in the re-structure of the page.


 * 3. Accuse ChatNoir24 by name all you like, I'm with you on that. But you are doing no service by ranting about my IP range, and you guys never learn, you were lectured more than me about sock puppetry accusations and dredging up old usernames. Will you stop your behavior? I thought not.... Aside from the things I've done openly acknowledged, I have done nothing else... and you guys know it.


 * 4. It would help if any of you could actually read. Does anyone read the posts I put here? You sure like to wrongfully accuse me and put 'words in my mouth'.


 * I have no fear of the admins, if they are fair. So far they only seem scared and incompetent. And I've been monitoring your sneak attacks at other talk pages, always shadowed and supported by finneganw. So I rest easy about all this, because I've done nothing more than coming here like a complete tool, editing when I should be enjoying my vanishing.


 * I have you to thank for that.75.21.124.148 (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I never claimed my site was a scholarly piece of literature, only that it proves I am not a bad writer/researcher incapable of contributing to this article as you accused. I do not know where you get the idea I want to take over the article, actually I'd rather someone else write it so I don't get the blame for it, but I want it done right with the correct information. I don't know what your beef is and why you are so upset if you really don't care about the topic or article. You are a major disruption to every talk page involved and you serve no useful purpose in the goal of improving the article. You keep saying goodbye, but you're still here. Why?Aggiebean (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

why I'm still here?

 * Still here because you are still here, aggiebean--or better put, I'm still here for the same reason you are. Why are you still here if you won't write the thing? What possible use are you? You and finn have already killed the consensus I THOUGHT had been reached. Bookworm is the same way: petrified of you and finn, too scared to try to post anymore, let alone write anything. Good enough?75.21.124.148 (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

forgot to add...

 * Please stop asking why I "keep saying goodbye". Yes, you and finn disgusted and abused me successfully so often that I had said goodbye, but I haven't said any such thing lately. In fact I'm saying, "Hello, let's fix this mess of an entry and get it done right." Why are you still here, and what exactly are you saying? You wish to dictate this entry precisely, but you won't write any of it? I'd suggest you learn how a correct encyclopedic entry is presented and write your information using that.75.21.124.148 (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Anna Anderson concerns brought to your attention
You will have seen the bloodbath at the admins' notification page concerning the abuses and hounding, occurring at Talk:Anna Anderson. "Alexius Horatius" has referred this to you. I am here to call to your attention the need for either moderation, arbitration or someone to step in, review all facts and delete Anna Anderson as it presently stands. Since a consensus was nearly reached there, two particular troublemakers began the insults and wikishouting all over again: aggiebean and finneganw. Soon enough you will be aware of my identity. Please help that mess! That is all I have to say.75.21.124.148 (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Editing to correct factual error.75.21.124.148 (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC) [FROM ADMINISTRATOR'S NOTICE PAGE CITED BY ALEXIUS. GOOD LUCK EVERYONE. ~A.H.]75.21.124.148 (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

wow

 * I like that move that was just performed. THAT will help this article for sure!!07:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)