Talk:Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia/Archive 2

Russian family in Sydney
There is a family in Sydney the Taylors, based on the north shore who have mentioned, although not published they are related to the Russian Tsar. This family's father, is definately Russian, and the two girls (now about 45) look amazingly similar to the girls from the Tsar's family. Investigation is required to clarify this. One girls name is Carolyn Taylor, (now Taylor-Smith) and was from Frenchs Forest, moved to Hornsby and then up the coast. Very credible information but needs investigation.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.175.194 (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2009‎ (UTC)

Family in Sydney
RUSSIAN FAMILY ON SYDNEY'S NORTH SHORE: The other girls name is Diane / or Dianne ...their father was about 65 in 1984 approximate years. There is speculation that there was a family name change from the full Russian name to English. There is also talk that the father was titled.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.175.194 (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2009‎ (UTC)

Lead image
Hi all, I noticed the image of Anastasia was quite nice (though a little dirty at full size) so I prepared some edits that might stand a chance at featured picture candidates. If any of them strike your fancy, feel free to use them in the infobox.


 * What do you think? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of "executed"
It seems to me this article skirts the issue by saying the Tsar's children were "executed" with their parents. They were murdered. It might have been an execution-style murder, but the children had not committed any crimes and were not guilty of anything except being the Tsar's children.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwnewton2196 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 17 July 2013‎ (UTC)

"Strongnat"?
Why is the date format in the article mdy? What is the US connection? It ought to be the international format. Strange that nobody thought of that before it became a featured article.

HandsomeFella (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "International format" is ISO 8601 which is neither. Barring that, the article's main author has and should have a lot of leeway to do it whatever way they prefer.  There are US-centric articles that use DMY, and European articles that use MDY.  Everyone knows what is meant. SnowFire (talk) 09:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant the dmy format (which I think you knew), and yes, there are US-centric article that use dmy. Many of them are military-related though, and thus they should use dmy. Non-US-related articles (not only European-related), except for Canadian-related articles, that use mdy are in the wrong format, and should be corrected per WP:STRONGNAT. I assume you don't mean that WP:STRONGNAT means nothing. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Date formats are arbitrary; no format is "wrong." Thus it's precisely the thing that the guidelines should discourage people running around to "fix," similar to ENGVAR in neutral topics.  I personally see the linked guideline as a good rule of thumb for what to do in a dispute with a heavily trafficked article without consensus on who a primary author is.  Otherwise, who cares?  Let the author's pick decide so long as it's consistent.  I've written articles on European history using MDY with no loss of precision, and if a British editor wants to write an article on non-military American history and use DMY, that is equally as valid and should be respected.  Otherwise it's just a burdensome rule that potentially annoys content-creators.  SnowFire (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ranks of princesses
From the article:
 * Anastasia's title is most precisely translated as "Grand Princess," meaning that Anastasia, as an "Imperial Highness" was higher in rank than other princesses in Europe who were "Royal Highnesses."

Is this still cited to Zeepvat, (2004) like the next sentence? And... I have no doubt that there *are* complicated this-rank-corresponds-to-that-rank tables people have compiled, but do they have any actual *standing*? e.g. would a British princess "know" if she read up on protocol that she'd have a lower order of precedence at an international event for seating or whatever than Russian grand princesses, who are just so damn special & grand? I suspect that any formal conception of a unified "rank" across all nobility is very, very misty and probably adjusted by mutual consent at any event that mixes different nationalities' royalty, which is the only scenario that it'd matter. Basically, I think this comment should be more explicitly cited and what exactly "higher in rank" means clarified. e.g. "at the Paris Conference of 19xx, Russian Grand Duchesses were treated as equivalent to the British title of duke, while English princesses were considered equivalent to Marquess, a lower rank, and Italian princesses were considered even lowlier as equivalent to insert-Italian-title-here." This may end up wordy and better snuck off into a footnote, anyway, since as already noted I doubt this meant much even if it is true. SnowFire (talk) 09:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit (Paizo Publishing)
Re this material. I think that this section is for the person's influence on culture, not for every mention in the media/every book written about her. The issue should be discussed here on the talkpage and consensus gathered from the editorial community about how to proceed before the material is added/reverted again. Shearonink (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I quite agree with your view above. This unregistered editor has again reverted your deletion. I have left a message on their Talk page, pointing-out that Wikipedia deals in confirmed facts and not pure fiction, plus that if they continue to edit war they are liable to be blocked. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My thoughts are that not every work of fiction or media representation about Anastasia can be shoehorned into this section, but the Paizo Publishing issue needs to be discussed here before any further edits/reversions. Other editors might disagree with my thoughts on the subject and that's fine, but consensus should be gathered and the material *discussed* otherwise WP:3RR could be violated (if it hasn't already). Shearonink (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

As the character of Anastasia, the page's subject, is a primary antagonist in the referenced work of pop culture, and the "Influence on Pop Culture" section is assigned for just that purpose, it seems a bit heavy-handed to pass the judgment that the reference should not stand. The section may not exist for "every mention in the media," but user zimmerwald saw fit to include it, given Anastasia's important to the plotline of the referenced work of pop culture, and it should be respected and stand. If said user starts lilnking to "every mention in the media" then requisite action should be taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.248.80.57 (talk • contribs)  19:54, 17 July 2013‎(UTC)
 * Zimmerwald1915 has, judging by their edit history, no other contributions other than adding the above information to this article. Therefore, his or her opinion is probably not the most informed one here, and there still does not appear to be much consensus. Furthermore, product websites are not considered to be reliable sources, as they usually advertise their product in order to give it a greater appearance of desirability, and do not give an accurate indication of mention by third parties. Per the above, the passage should probably not be included unless you are able to find multiple news articles from third-party sources that mention the book. See WP:RS for more information. -- SamX‧☎‧✎  20:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm observing a double standard here and a bit of rules cherrypicking in regards to what constitutes acceptable user contributions to wikipedia and what does not. There is an established standard in wikipedia page formats for "In Popular Culture" and "Influences in Pop Culture" not subject to this amount of scrutiny, featured article or not. I cite the page for Rasputin himself in this regard, which not only includes a healthy "In Popular Culture" section with references no less important than Zimmerwald1915's attempted inclusion, but even its own separate page for an expanded list, which includes no less than 100 references of the historical character's use in film, fiction, comics, and music. So someone tell me how it is acceptable in that regard, but not here, particular with a historical figure who has been the subject of a pile of depictions in fiction and a host of conspiracy theories in her own right?

There's simply a double standard being applied. Furthermore, why are the films listed in this section an acceptable form of fiction to cite in regards to Anastasia's influence on culture, but not books? User Daniel J Johnson seems to think these inclusions are exempt from his judgment that this section is "not representative of every work of fiction or media representation" that have been "shoehorned" here, but another user's contributions are an example of "shoehorning." If that's the case, remove a film reference and let the user's new contribution stand. It is a valid contribution to the section. At least it adds a spark of variety rather than an exhaustive list of film depictions. And would user Zimmerwald1915's contributions be acceptable if the citation wasn't toward the primary source on the publisher's website, but rather any number of third party reviews and discussions that even a cursory google search can uncover on this work? fleece66 (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I suggest that you at least quote my name correctly and the quotes you mention are not mine. My point, which you appear to have completely missed, is that whilst the films contain fiction - they are based on historical events. The Rasputin "story" is complete fiction. I don't see why the article should contain such trivia. Either Wikipedia is an encyclopedia or just a place to insert any work of fiction. I know which I prefer. David J Johnson (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the quote confusion, David, but the point stands. Why is an expanded In Pop Culture section acceptable for the referenced Rasputin page, but unacceptable here? Just because you "don't see why the article should contain such trivia" (did I get the right quote this time?), doesn't mean other users agree with you. Again, I cite the healthy cultural references of the Rasputin page as evidence. Will you take your crusade there next? Your sole opinion in that such references are not preferable doesn't rightfully trump the contributions of other community members. You don't see it that way, but others, including myself, do. That's why the section is there. And the cited work isn't just "any work of fiction." It is obviously a work of fiction in which the subject of the main page in question is a featured character. By your qualifications, the 20th Century Fox film Anastasia from 1997 shouldn't be listed here, particularly after the liberties it takes with the film are referenced. So, where's the line of demarcation for you on inclusion? --Fleece66 (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As I already explained to you, a high standard is being applied to this article because it is a featured article. Rasputin is not a featured article; in fact, it has multiple "citation needed" tags dating back to 2007 and an original research tag. DrKiernan (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

DrKiernan your explanation still doesn't change the fact that the user's contribution was well within the accepted wikipedia guidelines for contributions to Influence in Pop Culture sections: POPCULTURE The section is well-maintained and is not presented as an exhaustive list, both primary and secondary course citation for the entry's relevance to the page's subject exist, the entry was not poorly written, it is not a passing reference, the entry "contained facts of genuine interest to the reader," and the information--describing the page subject's depiction as a major character in a work of popular fiction--was not trivial. And furthermore, the above claims that the excluded work is any more a work of fiction than films depicting Anastasia's survival after her murder are not relevant and not a wikipedia standard for inclusion--the cited work contains the historical character as a main protagonist, which is more than relevant enough by the standards for Pop Culture sections. So the real question is, whose "high standard" is being applied here? Because by Wikipedia's own, it is a valid entry, and by following those guidelines, makes the entry more than acceptable even by featured article standards. I only see opinions of the content's exclusion being applied here, not wikipedia's own rationale for what makes acceptable and worthy content.--Fleece66 (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I would be curious what the consensus is on, say, the featured article on Samuel Adams, which under the "In Fiction" section, includes an entry about his featured appearance in the popular Assassin's Creed III video game. Valid? Or does that go against a featured article's seemingly-arbitrary "high standards?" Daniel Boone's featured article includes healthy pop culture references in both "Fiction & Film" and "Television" sections. The Guy Fawkes featured article includes references to the mask worn in the *gasp* comic book V for Vendetta. Stephen Hawking's featured profile includes reference to his cameo on The Simpsons. Fact is, there is a standard for Pop Culture references on Wikipedia, even for works of whole-cloth fiction and even in featured articles. Zimmerwald's entry abides by the standards for inclusion, and should stand.--Fleece66 (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And NOW the ENTIRE section has been removed by User Editor E, under the pretense that the section was "unsourced?". How about letting the "citation needed" form do its job until someone cites to IMDB references? I think even David and I can agree that the section was relevant, serving the intended purpose of Cultural Influences sections. David-I apologize for calling you heavy-handed...*that's* heavy handed. --Fleece66 (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I undid Editor E's removal of the section and added source reference material for relevant films, since the cited reason for the section's excising was that entries were unsourced. Note that out of respect for discussion and process, I did not add additional fiction materials currently under contention, even if some already there are based on the fiction of Anastasia's survival.--Fleece66 (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Image sandwiching
It seems like this article ignores the manual~of style for images, which states the text should not be "sandwiched" between images. This occurs heavily in the article. Could be prevented in part by removal of size forcing, and adding the "upright" parameter to vertical images. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Circa
When I wrote the original article, I used "ca." as an abbreviation for circa. Either c. or ca. is correct. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

re Helen Rappaport's book
Am editor is wanting to add this material, which is sourced to Helen Rappaport's book Last Days of the Romanovs, Tragedy at Ekaterinburg. I'm not too sure about this.

Passages such as "only to be met with a bullet in the back of the head, courtesy of Yurovsky" seem too florid. I don't have the book, but it sounds like it might be lifted directly from the book, which we don't want to do. If it's the editor's own words, constructions such as "courtesy of Yurovsky" and so on are too informal for an encyclopedia IMO.

Beyond that, I'm a little skeptical of Rappaport's work, which appears to be a "historical narrative" rather than truly scholarly work. here we have an anonymous person saying that Rappaport writes in the afterword "At all times I have stayed with historical truth in so far as it has been possible to substantiate the facts in the face of much contradictory material, but there have, inevitably, been moments when I have had to take my own leap of faith as a historian and come to my own conclusions" and "The priority was to create a strong historical narrative that did not enter into academic digression...", and that there are no source notes. Again, I don't have the book -- someone who does can confirm or rebut that this is true -- but if it is true this makes me kind of leery of using the book for details.

The actual execution surely was a confused situation. We already have a lot of detail about it. I don't know if, in the interest of adding more details, we want to take the chance of saying anything that we are not quite sure is true, and on this basic I reverted the edit.

We can talk about this though. I'm not sure we can't use some of this, and though I'm skeptical of Rappaport's book I'm willing to listen to evidence supporting its use. Herostratus (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As someone who does own the book, I can confirm that Rappaport does indeed include this disclaimer in her afterword and that the book lacks inline citations, but a quick search through my digital copy verifies that the passages quoted here are the work of the editor in question only rather than a direct quotation (though I do agree that, either way, the language is too florid and informal for Wikipedia). Shvybzik (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * These details should be in Shooting of the Romanov family. It is unnecessary to expand on them in this article, which should be about Anastasia herself. DrKiernan (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

"Sympathy For The Devil"
A few minutes ago User:Phoobahr posted the following paragraph into the '‎Influence on culture' section of the article:


 * ''The 1968 Rolling Stones album Beggars Banquet featured the song Sympathy for the Devil which contained the lyrics "I stuck around St. Petersburg when I saw it was a time for a change/Killed the Tsar and his ministers/Anastasia screamed in vain".

Seeing this, I deleted it with the edit summary "revert - a mention in passing in song lyrics is trivia". 

User:Herostratus then restored the paragraph, with the edit summary "Reverted to revision 595363859 by Phoobahr: It's a passing mention, but it's also one of the most famous songs in the Western musical canon, so I'm not sure it doesn't belong. Discuss on talk if desired. (TW)"

Though I agree that "Sympathy For The Devil" is indeed "one of the most famous songs in the Western musical canon" (and one of my personal favourites for that matter), I would still argue that the fact that it mentions Anastasia is of limited relevance to a section in this article concerning Anastasia's influence on culture. The Stones' mention many things in "Sympathy...": Jesus Christ, Pilate, the Czar and his ministers, Anastasia, tanks, generals, blitzkrieg, stinking bodies, the Kennedys, traps for troubadours, Bombay, cops, criminals, sinners, saints, 'you and me', and of course Old Nick himself. Should we add a similar paragraph to articles on each of these subjects? I think not. Song lyrics need to be analysed and understood for what they are as a whole, not cherry-picked as evidence for 'influences' that Wikipedians assert is there without further evidence from reliable sources actually discussing the subject. Frankly, with further consideration, my objection (beyond the obvious lack of any source asserting an 'influence') is that this cherry-picking of a word from the lyrics actually trivialises the lyrics themselves. There is much more to them than a literalist assertion that Beelzebub was responsible for Anastasia's death. The paragraph doesn't belong here not so much because it is trivia concerning Anastasia, but because it trivialises "Sympathy...". AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with Andy's comments above. It is trivia. David J Johnson (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Complete and utter trivia. The song name-drops some of the largest events in history, and this instance has not been the subject of any academic discussion in relation to Anastasia herself. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well no, but. If we're going to use academic discussion as the rubric, why are Ingrid Bergman and Meg Ryan in there? The section is "In popular culture". Actually for some reason it's named -- misnamed I would say, and contrary to usual practice -- "Influence on culture", as if are now going to discuss masterpieces of art or broad cultural movements. But we don't, and indeed its like most other "In popular cultural" sections. We provide a full paragraph on a middling Hollywood Yul Brenner/Ingrid Bergman costume drama loosely based on Anastasia, then there's shorter bits on a (pretty bad) Disney cartoon movie, a TV miniseries, and such. All this is fine, it is "In popular culture" after all and helps to buttress and flesh out the "False reports of survival" section to emphasize one of the more important things about this person who was otherwise basically a pampered teenager of no discernable accomplishment: the long-lived middlebrow popular fascination with her.


 * Which is why Mick Jagger brought her into his conversation. Ogla and Tatiana also screamed in vain, but Jagger didn't mention them. Of course not: the reference would have been entirely obscure. But everyone knows who Anastasia is. I daresay Jagger couldn't even have gotten away with "Killed Nicholas and his ministers" without risking a "who dat?" reaction from too many. Jagger doesn't even imply that Anastasia escaped (rather she "screamed in vain") -- he doesn't have to. He fame no longer depends on that.


 * So Jagger's image is not of Cinderella-Anastasia; rather Jagger uses her fame, leverages the reference that everyone will understand, into an even darker theme: outraged innocence. The child screamed in vain as the shots rang out -- what was she screaming at? A shot to the head or the heart doesn't make you scream, it makes you stop screaming. What makes you start screaming? Mommy and Daddy dead on the floor in a pool of blood. it's one of the most chilling lines in the song, which is #32 on the Rolling Stone''s list of the greatest rock and roll songs. The article Sympathy for the Devil gives it a full-on literary treatment as if it was a Yeats poem or something.


 * Sure it's just one line. But we have entire articles about single lines in poems, we ought to be able to spare a short paragraph for this one. We're talking about quality not quantity here. Besides which, the whole point of "In popular culture" is to demonstrate the person's position in popular culture. The fact that two Hollywood movies were made demonstrate this. That the Rolling Stones included her in a song with the implicit assumption that their audience (mostly kids and headbangers at this time, mind you) would understand the reference also demonstrates this.


 * Yeah we probably wouldn't reference Jagger's song in articles on the blitzkreig or the Kennedy brothers and so forth. Those are all big topics. This teenage girl isn't. The material's appropriate. Herostratus (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "We're talking about quality not quantity here" - Well, needless to say, an unreferenced blurb is not quality by Wikipedia policy. This smacks of trivia, as it is a single line, in a single song, no matter how popular it were. If the entire composition was about Anastasia, perhaps. And how is Anastasia not a big topic? You spent half your post arguing that she was a big topic, in the context of popular culture. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * By quality I meant the quality of the line. It's worth more artistically, certainly, than Disney's Anastasia which -- besides being only very loosely based on history (it featured the ghost of Rasputin and an anthropomorphic bat, for instance) was lousy, even for a Disney cartoon. It was much longer than Jagger's line, but so? The line in the song is worth more artistically and is much more famous too. I believe that same applies to most of the other stuff in the section.


 * She's not a big topic compared to other things in the song, such as the Kennedy assassinations. World War II, for instance, was a very large and important and complicated event and there are a lot of things to say about World War II, and the article is probably very long and full of many interesting details, and so it's probably too much detail to include "World War II was mentioned in Sympathy for the Devil" in the article World War II. That does not apply to this short article. I explained this once before.


 * Not sure what you mean by unreferenced blurb. Are you contesting the lyrics of the song? It's easy enough to find a ref.


 * Here's another thing. Sympathy for the Devil is probably the literary work that most people would recognize as being associated with Anastasia, by far. The Bergman movie's forgotten, and the Disney movie pretty much also, except for being somewhat recent; the mini-series and the musical and other movies I've never heard of and I doubt many remember them. Notability counts for something.


 * You could make a case for removing the entire section. I don't think that'd be a service to the reader, but you could make a reasonable case I guess. The case for removing the material in question and keeping the rest is weaker, IMO.


 * Meh. I wrote a fairly cogent defense of the material. I get the vibe that your mind's made up and you only read it looking for things to pick apart. If that's the case, why not remove yourself from the conversation -- this is not a vote -- and let those who are actually willing to consider the case on its merits work this out? Herostratus (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Biography
This article is a biography, therefore a section titled "Biography" is nonsensical. Please consider changing it to something more appropriate. Rklawton (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not really a biography even though the article title is a person's name. The main point of interest for Anastasia is her death and rumored survival, her biography before that is distinctly secondary. It would be reasonable to name the article Death and rumored survival of Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia, just as we name some articles Death of Caylee Anthony and so on. However, I think the that longer title would be unwieldy, royal princesses commonly have articles under just their name, and there's no real reason to change it, although you can propose it if you like and maybe you'd be right. Herostratus (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Primary photo
I find it disappointing that of all the Tsar's children, only Anastasia has a featured image. Are there any high quality photos of Olga, Tatiana, Maria & Alexei that are comparable to Anastasia? All I can find is Olga, though it's from a 1910 photo session. Anastasia's photo was in 1913/14.

Wolcott (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

New person who is rumored to have been Anastasia
Since 2012, it's been rumored that a Russian immigrant who lived in the Philippines (and clearly stood out like a sore thumb) is possibly the youngest Romanov Princess. She definitely looked A LOT more like the Grand Duchess than Anna Anderson did. However, unlike Anderson and all the other Anastasia impostors, she never revealed her identity. She went by the name of Tasia and when her granddaughter visited Russia after (years after Grandmama Tasia died) to try and find her Russian family, they apparently found an address to where she'd find her Grandmama's family, and it lead her somewhere near The Romanov's. She noticed a striking resemblance between her Grandmama Tasia and The Grand Duchess Anastasia. The granddaughter has made a website about all of this but has not claimed or denied the possibility that her grandmother is the youngest Russian Princess. This is a big part of media right now, it's not as big as Anderson's claim because the granddaughter still hasn't claimed her Grandmama is Anastasia but is looking for some evidence to discover things, so shouldn't we add this to the article? If you want specific details about the situation, here's the article by the granddaughter.

http://www.peacefortasia.com/News.html

--DisneyFan3 (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources, and not on partisan random websites pushing nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Totally agree with AndyTheGrump, this is just total nonsense. David J Johnson (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna Crisco edit letters removed.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna Crisco edit letters removed.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 18, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-06-18. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050824094901/http://www.struggler.org:80/GlorificationOfTheRoyalFamily.html to http://www.struggler.org/GlorificationOfTheRoyalFamily.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Burial place
The infoboxes on this page and that of Maria state that Anastasia is buried in the Peter and Paul's Cathedral and Maria is yet to be buried. However, whether or not the bones belong to Anastasia or Maria is a source of debate among experts. Shouldn't this be taken into account in the info boxes so as not to appear biased toward one study over another? ~ Iamthecheese44 (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree! Russia believes that Maria is the one that was the missing body, but other countries, like America, believe that the missing Romanov Princess was Anastasia. So since it's the Russian church and scientists doing this, they assume that they're doing the tests on Alexei and Maria, even though it hasn't been conclusively proven which Grand Duchess was the missing body. So it's only fair to add the same case reopening for Anastasia. While I wouldn't call this a reliable source, there is a woman claiming that her grandmother was lost princess, by the name of Grandmama Tasia, who did (now being deceased) resemble the Grand Duchess more than any of the Romanov impostors. Here's a picture of the woman. That's not to say that Anastasia survived for sure, but if tests prove that the body isn't that of one of the Russian Princesses, it could be possible that the woman might have been Anastasia. But that is all just a theory. Either way, it only seems fair to add it for Anastasia, seeing as how it was never proven which body was Maria or Anastasia. Only doing it for Maria kind of shows biasness. --DisneyFan3 (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There are two bodies that are conclusively and unambiguously verified as those of Maria and Anastasia. The problem is that Maria and Anastasia cannot be distinguished from one another, not that one is still missing. DrKay (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. The thing is that if the female body is proven through testing to not be one of the Romanovs, it could be possible that one of them did survive, but let's not count the chickens before they hatch. The point is that there isn't a way to prove, as of yet, which bones belonged to Anastasia or Maria. Therefore, who the Russians think is Maria is who Americans believe to be Anastasia. Whether or not the bones are that of one of the real Grand Duchesses is to be proven through more DNA tests, but since there is no way to prove which one of the princesses bones it was that were found with Alexei, it's only fair to have the reopening of the case added to Anastasia. --DisneyFan3 (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * With respect, you are not reading DrKay's comments above. The remains have been conclusively and unambiguously verified as those of Maria and Anastasia through DNA testing. The only problem is which body is which.  There is absolutely no need to reopen the Anastasia debate, or alter the article page. David J Johnson (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070107143111/http://www.curiouschapbooks.com:80/Catalog_of_Curious_Chapbooks/Victoria_s_Dark_Secrets/body_victoria_s_dark_secrets.html to http://www.curiouschapbooks.com/Catalog_of_Curious_Chapbooks/Victoria_s_Dark_Secrets/body_victoria_s_dark_secrets.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070107143111/http://www.curiouschapbooks.com:80/Catalog_of_Curious_Chapbooks/Victoria_s_Dark_Secrets/body_victoria_s_dark_secrets.html to http://www.curiouschapbooks.com/Catalog_of_Curious_Chapbooks/Victoria_s_Dark_Secrets/body_victoria_s_dark_secrets.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070808133840/http://www.bnr.bg:80/RadioBulgaria/Emission_English/Theme_History_And_Religion/Material/Gabarevo.htm to http://www.bnr.bg/RadioBulgaria/Emission_English/Theme_History_And_Religion/Material/Gabarevo.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Haemophilia carrier
In the absence of conclusive scientific evidence, I have made a slight modification to the "Life and childhood" section concerning her status as a carrier for haemophilia. At this time, we are unsure who was buried with Alexei; first-hand evidence from Olga Alexandrovna concerning Maria's tonsillectomy in 1914 seems to indicate that she may have been the carrier instead. Given the absence of absolute archaeological indication concerning identity, these changes are intended to reflect neutrality. Should firm evidence come to light given current DNA tests being undertaken, this may be subject to change. In the meantime, this neutrality aligns with the interpretation of the archaeological record given in Maria's own article.

142.0.155.106 (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050824094901/http://www.struggler.org/GlorificationOfTheRoyalFamily.html to http://www.struggler.org/GlorificationOfTheRoyalFamily.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed Chronicles: Russia Trivia?
, How is she appearing at the 2016 game Assassin's Creed Chronicles: Russia a trivia? She is a playable character possessing assassin's ability. She was not only a damsel in distress.Supermann (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not an article that should or does include every single reference to Anastasia Nikolaevna in books, film, video game or song. It's a featured article, not a list of pop culture references. Of course, you could start a separate article -- List of references to Grand Duchess Anastasia in pop culture -- if you are so inclined. But please do not keep adding the video game reference to this article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Could she have a lot of references in films, video games though? I find that hard to believe. There is no sign of her influence in games at all. Adding mine shouldn't hurt. Movie wise, they are not award-winning and outdated. Despite its so-called feature status, the Influence on culture section was marked "needs additional citations for verification." It's time to come up with a way to remove that message and display the variety of her influence. Supermann (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not appropriate in a featured article. It's one of dozens or hundreds of such references and they can't be listed. This has already been debated and the consensus is not to include them. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you pls point me to that archived discussion on consensus? Plus, consensus could change.Supermann (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It was when the article was up for Featured Article status and was edited accordingly. Other people tried to include video game appearances and it was edited out by consensus. Look, this is trivia and just not important enough to include. There are lots of video games or pop songs or children's books with Anastasia mentions. I'd suggest that you start a separate article that does list pop culture references to the Romanovs. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Why don't you start if you have access to all that data? Pls find me the other folks who have tried and I could simply add in the 2016 one. They must know more than I know. Plus, are you suggesting a LIST article would be subject to less scrutiny? Many thanks.Supermann (talk) 03:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in compiling the information for that article and I don't think it's important. If you do, a separate article would be the way to go about it. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw the discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Grand_Duchess_Anastasia_Nikolaevna_of_Russia regarding the removal of a 2004 book. But I haven't seen discussion of games which could be far more engaging. On this particular talk page, it says, "Even so (that it's a featured article), if you can update or improve it, please do so." Now, why don't and  chime in here and take the initiative to move forward on their original suggestions?? Do we really have a lot of references of Anastasia across books, films, games, or song that should and could have been unearthed? Supermann (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I dont think inclusion of the video game character is useful here, although it should definitely be mentioned in the Assassins Creed article. "In culture" sections are notoriously difficult to balance, to find the correct pitch and convey the extent to which the topic has permeated a wider culture is hard; then there is the matter of which examples to choose that are significant and appropriate to the topic. I get where you are coming from Supermann - it was with heavy heart that I voted exclusion of The Pogues "Rum, Sodomy and the Lash" album cover from the The Raft of the Medusa, but in that context it fell under WP:TRIVIA; there were better egs to use. The problem is that unless inclusion is not woven to a more general presentation of the influence left behind by a life or work, you are left with a disjointed "and x also" bulleted list. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the example you have given. I learn new things every day. But I don't know how to weave the game into the article without being original research and violating copyright. The tough economic reality facing journalists is real. That's why we have fewer sources to cite these days. If we don't house stuff on wikipedia, things will become more difficult to find for the ordinary folks. I don't want to go back and forth on this since my experience told me that people who cite policies, style guidelines here will be less inclined to IAR. But could you please guide me how to create a list for major Anastasia appearances so that the collection could exist somewhere? Many thanks. Supermann (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah grand. You had better read WP:COI however, and reflect on how wide and far a shoe-horning attitude might get you. If you don't mind me saying, your attitude towards Bookworm857158367 sucks, and you come across as a user, which you now above freely admit. Wont get you far here. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What COI did I have here? Extremely confused. Could you pls elaborate? Thanks. Supermann (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you are saying you have a single interest in this article - to put in mention of Assassin's Creed. But look at it from Bookworm's point of view; she put in the countless hours tracing sources and probably forking out for books, reading them all and then editing it all together to bring the page to where it is now. Probably you are talking in the hundreds of hours. So grand. But. Because the subject matter is widely known there are drive-by editors, like you, wanting to insert passing mentions in books, TV Series, album art covers or video games, or whatever. Some are well intentioned fans, some employed by the video game company, but in 99% of cases they are unskilled in wiki editing and could care less about the target article, so rather than contextualise the addition you get stuff like: 'Anastasia also appears for 1 second in splash screen of the Atari (I'm 103 years old) version of Wrestler Psycho Sid Vicious video game', etc etc. And this get bolted on, in disjointed sentence fragments, ad naseum, day after day, year after year. You used above the rational "She is a playable character possessing assassin's ability.[2] She was not only a damsel in distress!" - first of all you seem to be confusing actual reality with the universe of the game, second of all...who cares, except for enthusiasts of the specific game.


 * And there is a whole bunch of other mentions of her through pop culture - do we devote half the article to getting in as many as possible - the obv solution is that the article presents a summary view, that she has "permeated the culture" and spin out the list as a sub article that people can add to their hearths content for years to come.


 * I hope I'm not being too hard on you Supermann, its good that you are talking here and not edit waring; I'm just presenting how it seems for the point of view of the article writer dealing this stuff. Ceoil (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just a well-intentioned fan, after finishing the game under 15 hours. It was my first dabbling into the Assassin's Creed series after watching Michael Fassbender's movie of the same name. I started off with the Chinese episode first and then India and then moved on to Russia and eventually found out about Anastasia which harks back to the China one. I really feel like learning a lot about history in a fictional setting. And this is how new readers of the articles could get interested in figures decades old from their generation. Don't belittle games because you don't play them. Moreover, pls look at the range of my other contributions and you will know I have no COI, although I lament the fact that my earlier years weren't as active as these past two years and only most recently got educated a lot on policies and style guidelines. Of course I appreciate Bookworm's creation, but I don't like people being too territorial. I get where you guy are coming from and it has really been my observation that WP:IAR wasn't used as frequently as I had hoped. So as a gesture of compromise, if everyone agrees a cultural list could be made for Anastasia, I feel like I could at least contribute on that particular game. But I don't know enough about other works involving her, given you have just removed two other paragraphs under. So that's why I had asked if a list of more than say two items could indeed be generated without being subject to speedy deletion. I really encourage you to play the game and you could skip the India episode. Don't use 103 years old as an excuse since playing video games could only help improve your reaction time. Supermann (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you only interested in this particular video game? If so, mention it in the article on the video game and link it back to the main Anastasia article. If you want to do a list of references to the Romanovs in all media, that would probably interest other people. Start a stub article, with appropriate citations, and other people who know more about other references in movies, books, songs, TV shows, video games, etc., will eventually add to it. There are a couple of other spinoff articles about the Romanovs because they don't fit in the main article. One is on Romanov impostors, one on canonization of the Romanovs, etc. I am a newspaper reporter. I am well aware of the problems facing journalists worldwide. But I doubt a video game would get a mention in anything other than a specialty magazine/blog these days, anyway. It just doesn't belong in this particular article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That particular video game is the only Anastasia encounter I have had. And Anastasia is already linked there. See Assassin's Creed Chronicles: Russia. I don't have access/knowledge of all the Romanovs appearance across all media. That's why I am hesitant to begin the list creation. But if more experienced editors take the lead, I could at least take care of that particular game. As long as the list gets mentioned in this particular article, that's good enough for me.Supermann (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * A see also could probably go at the head of the culture section in the main article. I don't have time to write that list but someone else probably could. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd support a dedicated spin off article, prominently linked under the "influences" header on this page. Its first incarnation doesn't have to be fancy. Ceoil (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Life and childhood
The second paragraph gives one of her nicknames as "shvybzik" stating that this word is of German origin with the meaning "little mischief". I am sure this word is NOT standard German, nor is the combination of letters/sounds possible in standard German. Even the Duden, the dictionary of general German does not know the word.

Maybe this word is of Jiddish or Polish origin.

Ciao Pentaclebreaker (talk) 06:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This appears to be vandalism from an edit at 10:20, 26 June 2018. It became the present form with an edit at 07:46, 30 June 2018. Given that there is no word Shvybzik in German, this claim is demonstratably false and cannot be present in the source given. The original claim (that it means "imp" in Russian) is unsourced, so I'm removing it entirely.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've confirmed that Shvybzik is a Russian word. Now someone just has to check whether it was actually a nickname for Anastasia and give a better definition than the tentative one I got by asking a Russian native speak: "a small, deft person".--Ermenrich (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is given on page 103 in Four Sisters: The Lost Lives of the Romanov Grand Duchesses (2014) by Helen Rappaport, which reads "Anastasia, whom she nicknamed Shvybzik (a German colloquialism meaning 'little mischief')". Your accusation that I lied about a source is uncivil and false. Matthew Hollinder defines it as German for "loose cannon" in The Romanov Sisters: The Life and Death of Royalty (2015). DrKay (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I never claimed you lied. I asked if you could verify that your source makes this claim, which is incorrect. Your hostility is quite unwarrented.
 * The book you listed is not on the current sources for the article. Perhaps you should add it. I intend to go look at it myself now.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Four Sisters is the same as The Romanov Sisters (note 5), the book has different titles in different markets. DrKay (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The source does indeed say that. I guess by policy we have to leave it in even though it is demonstrably wrong, unless someone can find a better source or somehow prove that Rappaport isn't reliable. I don't really have time to look into this any further.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've decided to refer the matter to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia. Maybe they can at least explain if the etymology of the word is German.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Funny. . . the German Wiki article on Anastasia gives a nickname „Shivzik“ and state this as of Russian origin. . . (albeit without giving any concrete source) Ciao Pentaclebreaker (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The word is clearly a Russian transliteration of "schwipsig". This adjective does not appear in German dictionaries, except in a dialectal one, where it means "tipsy". The standard German word for "tipsy" is now "beschwipst". There is a modern German word "Schwips" which means "tipsiness", so it would be grammatically conceivable to add the adjective ending -ig and produce "schwipsig" or "tipsy" (such a construction simply sounds cute and childlike in German). Russian royalty often intermarried with German royals, and the German language was a standard part of royal education in eastern Europe (alongside French). There was also a large German minority in the Russian Empire, whose members often formed part of the Tsar's court, government and military leadership. So it's certainly not impossible for Russian royals to use German words. Much more likely than Yiddish, since Jews were banished from Russian cities by law until 1917, being were relegated to towns (shtetl, cognate with German "Städtl" or "Städtlein", mean "small town"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.132.232.211 (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Shvybzik is an English transliteration of швыбзик, which is a Russian transliteration of schwipsig. I have added Rappaport's 2008 definition of schwipsig to the article. DrKay (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Great! Sorry I doubted you. It still looks like the use as a noun is a Russian invention, though.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, according to German grammatical rules, the noun would be either "der Schwipsige" (masc.) or "die Schwipsige" (fem.); neither is a standard German word, but both would be perfectly understandable as a cute neologism. It's not really a big leap from the adjective to the noun; even in English, it's easy to go from "she's tipsy" to then making a nickname, e.g. "Hey you, Tipsy, come here."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.132.232.211 (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the mistranslation of the German word happened much later in biographies of Anastasia, when someone failed to understand the German source of the Russian nickname and simply made an educated guess from the context. In no way does "schwipsig" mean "merry little one" or "little mischief" in German, despite what English biographers say.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.132.232.211 (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * perhaps the sentence should read: ..."Shvybzik", meaning "merry little one" in Russian, derived from "schwipsig", meaning "tipsy" in German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.132.232.211 (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Per No original research, that wouldn't be appropriate. DrKay (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I imagine there must be a reliable source that says something to that effect somewhere. It might not be in English though. But for the time being, I think the current version at least partially satisfies any concerns about the word.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC).

I have found schwipsig in a German dictionary here: http://www.woerterbuchnetz.de/PfWB?lemma=schwipsig, definitely meaning tipsy, I have even seen it hashtagged to mean this.

Verify unskilled administrators
I see that an administrator restored and protected the version of the article claiming that the execution of the royal family was a murder regardless of the complex political context. (23:45, 17 July 2018‎ Ritchie333) May I suggest Wikipedia to better screen those named as administrators? Completion of at least the high school should be a requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WornOutCog (talk • contribs)
 * This kind of talk is unlikely to win you much sympathy, regardless of whether you're right or wrong.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The article itself is not inspiring a lot of sympathy. It feels like the usual american propaganda that seeks to transform every discussion involving politics in an angry exchange of fanatic positions.
 * Actually it is much more than the mere reference to murder. The description of the execution contains a lot of details that were probably invented later, the official reports were not so detailed and the soviet leadership tried to hide as much as possible. However those details are very useful to create an emotional connection between the victim and the reader. The whole article seems carefully studied to obtain the desired effect.
 * WornOutCog 18 July 2018
 * I don't think adding completely out-of-the-blue Antiamericanism to your comments here is likely to inspire anyone to take your side.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep stating that I am looking for sympathy? WornOutCog 23:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Do multiple reliable sources state that the killings of the Romanovs were or weren't murders... Shearonink (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a small issue with your argument. Most of the content of the article already comes from unreliable sources. WornOutCog 23:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Then prove it, and provide better ones. Until now you've only made accusations and, for unclear reasons, anti-American insinuations.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "anti-American insinuations": I'll try again and explain. Purpose of the fine details is to create a vivid picture within which the reader can create an emotional connection with the victim. However those fine details are made up, the Soviet government for sure didn't have any interest in releasing them and only they know what happened. The biggest source of those details are the books written by Rappaport, if you have a look over the internet you'll find a big network of self referencing western media and western criticts hailing those books as valid historical accounts. WornOutCog 11:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So this is your opinion and dislike of a particular viewpoint, both of which are fairly subjective. If I remember correctly, some of the accounts came from soldiers who had been at the scene and knew the Romanovs in captivity and told their stories years after the event. I spent a fair amount of time on this article years ago and I have read the books and added the citations. You can always find other published sources and add to the article if you choose. The question of whether to use murder or execution has already been debated and murder was chosen. The subject of the article was a 17 year old girl who was killed along with her equally innocent siblings and the parents who had been heads of state. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "some of the accounts came from soldiers who had been at the scene and knew the Romanovs in captivity and told their stories years after the event." No. None of them gave any account of the execution, however in Rappaport books and in the related articles on Wikipedia there are details of the execution the knowledge of cannot be justified. "The question of whether to use murder or execution has already been debated and murder was chosen." Basically you restrict the debate to the early readers and you close the door to different opinions. "The subject of the article was a 17 year old girl who was killed along with her equally innocent siblings" Innocent or not there was an army that was fighting to free them in order to have a symbol under which they could have could have mustered more support in a civil war. Furthermore the decision was taken after a trial. As I wrote in the beginning the murder assumption is totally oblivious of the historical context, beyond supporting extremist views. WornOutCog 13:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There was no trial. The stabbing of unarmed children to death in a basement is a war crime regardless on whether or not there is an army fighting to free them. Your view is akin to: "It was OK for the Nazis to execute Jewish children because there was an army fighting to free them." Wikipedia is not under any obligation to promote offensive or fringe views. DrKay (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's saddening to see users with administrator rights carrying out a discussion with nothing else but rhetoric tricks like straw man arguments and stereotyping. WornOutCog 10:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The statement "the stabbing of unarmed [and unconvicted, innocent] children to death...is a crime" can only be labeled as a rhetoric trick by reference to it as a truism. Even so, it remains true. DrKay (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Burial date
The infobox says she was buried in 1998. The article says her remains were discovered in 2007. Clearly, at least one of these dates is wrong. 209.179.98.115 (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

date format
The current date format throughout her article is incorrect. Russia uses the dmy format. There needs to be consensus to change it, however, so does anyone agree? —Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As we aren't in Russia, there's nothing incorrect about the current date format. So no, there is not consensus.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How is not being in Russia applicable? I'm not in the United States, but that doesn't mean I can change every mdy format to dmy. —Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You've hit the nail on the head as to why there's no reason to change it. The article uses that format. Its also written in American English. What they do in Russia is irrelvant. This is long-standing Wiki policy.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But British history articles are written using dmy format, regardless of the nationality of the contributors to them. I'm not sure I understand why 'we're not in Russia' is a valid reason for using the American style of mdy if the correct Russian form is dmy?ScarletRibbons (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the English-language wikipedia not the Russian-language wikipedia. What people write in Russian is irrelevant here. DrKay (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see how Wikipedia being an English-language website is a valid explanation. Is there actually a WP policy that you can link to? Not all English speaking countries use mdy anyway (England uses dmy). Articles are written in the format for whichever country they relate to, e.g. American English is used for American celebrities, British English is used for British celebrities, etc. I was under the impression that it was the same with date format, e.g. mdy for American celebrities, dmy for British celebrities, etc. Since Anastasia was Russian, I though that the date format used in Russia would be correct. Nicholas II of Russia, for example, uses dmy format, as does Anastasia's mother Alexandra Feodorovna, and many others.. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * MOS:ENGVAR, MOS:RETAIN. DrKay (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But does she not count as an exception because of strong national ties to Russia? (MOS:DATETIES, MOS:DATERET) Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No. MOS:TIES and MOS:DATETIES only apply to topics relating to English-speaking countries. It states that explicitly in the guidelines. DrKay (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I also think we should change to using dmy dates for this article. More so because all of her siblings Wikipedia pages, and her parents, use dmy dates. This stands out as a clear outlier for no reason and should be changed for consistency and continuity. Helper201 (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The problem in this article
The problem in this article is with names / titles? Quote: "daughter of Tsar Nicholas II, the last sovereign of Imperial Russia, and his wife, Tsarina Alexandra Feodorovna." 1) The name of the Russian tsar was Nikolai, not Nicholas; 2) The title of his wife was not Tsarina; 3) The word Царина did not and does not exist in the Russian language (as an exception - it may be a last name). The Russian tsars called the tsar's wife "Царица" (in Russian). Transcription in English: Tsaritsa. Where 1st and 2nd letters are the same with 5th and 6th. Avedon (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Country (Russia) in this period was called "Российская Империя", - in English should be called "Russian Empire" (like British Empire) or "Rossiiskaya Imperiya" or may be "Empire of Russia". But not "Imperial Russia" - "Имперская Россия". In Russian - Имперская, Императорская, Империалистическая - different words Avedon (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Anastasia's title is most precisely translated as "Grand Princess". "Grand Duchess"". Her title was called "Великая княжна", where word княжна (knyazhna) something like a princess. Also in Russian княжна (knyazhna) - it means diminutive word from knyaginya (Princess). It means: young or little girl - daughter of knuaz or duke or tsar. From 0yo to marriage. )) Avedon (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why you are suffering under the delusion that this article is written in Russian. It is not. It is written in English. Hence the "en." at the beginning of the URL. 1) In English, the last Russian Tsar is called Nicholas, 2) Tsarina is the standard English word for the wife of a tsar, 3) Imperial Russia and Russian Empire are simply different stylistic choices - they have the exact same meaning, 4) Grand Duchess is the normal English form of the title borne by Anastasia.
 * I understand everything and do not suffer from anything. 1). Proper names are not translated, but transliterated. For instance: Николай Гоголь - Nikolai Gogol. And the tsar was called the same Name: Николай - Nikolai. Not Николас - Nicolas. You're understand? More: Nikolai Vavilov and finally we look here People having the single name Nikolai. 2) The names of the status of persons of the tsar, royal and so on kind are usually not translated. Why does the article wrote "Tsar" (царь), but not "King", and here in the same time wrote "Grand Duchess"? Somewhere here the logic is lost. Sad but true. And you are hinting to me that I am a Russian idiot who confused EN.Wikipedia.org and RU.Wikipedia.org. I don't care what will be in this article - even a picture of a bear in an earflap with a balalaika and vodka. Mistakes in English Wiki a'nt my problems. Good luck! PS: Romanization of Cyrillic letters https://i.imgur.com/C09JLsM.png Avedon (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * These aren't mistakes. They are standard English usage. Sometimes English usage translates names and titles. Sometimes English usage transliterates names and titles. There is usually no underlying pattern, you just have to learn which instances use which approach. --Khajidha (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nicknames
"Other family nicknames for Anastasia were "Malenkaya", meaning "little (one)" in Russian, or "Shvybzik", meaning "merry little one" or "little mischief" in German. Anastasia's pet dog (which died in 1915) first had this name. Anastasia started signing herself as Shvybzik or "Shvybz" during the First World War." 1) "Malenkaya", meaning "a little" in Russian, in that case meaning "the little girl". Words "Shvybzik" or Shvybzik or "Shvybz" - do not exist in Russian or German. This means that they do not exist at all, despite some "authoritative" sources like Rappaport. PS: In Russian there is a colloquial slang word "Shibzdik" and have Jewish origin. Avedon (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Already resolved at Talk:Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia/Archive 2. DrKay (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that in that discussion. Just in case, a quote (in Russian): "Четвертую дочь Анастасию дома звали «маленькой», «Настаськой», «Настей». Как свидетельствовал генерал М. К. Дитерихс, участвовавший в расследовании убийства царской семьи: «Великая княжна Анастасия Николаевна, несмотря на свои семнадцать лет, была ещё совершенным ребёнком. Такое впечатление она производила главным образом своей внешностью и своим весёлым характером. Она была низенькая, очень плотная, — «кубышка», как дразнили её сёстры». Анастасия, как и все Романовы, очень любила животных. Ее первая собака была шпиц по имени Швыбзик. Кстати, также называли и ее за подвижность и шаловливость - «швыбзиком»." Sources in Russian: Игорь Викторович Зимин. Взрослый мир императорских резиденций. Вторая четверть XIX – начало XX в.; Буксгевден С. Венценосная мученица. Жизнь и трагедия Александры Федоровны, Императрицы всероссийской. М., 2006. С. 249 Avedon (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)