Talk:Anna Anderson/Archive 2

message: just thought everyone should know. Not one amount of truth in here.
Please explain, those are heavy accusations without the support of conflicting research, or at the very least examples of your opinion.--Caspere 22:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: officially the worst article on wikipedia

message: :Most of this seems to be discussion of the article, which belongs here, not in the article itself – Gurch 02:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from article 

message: This is not true. If it was then we'd all have heard about it, and it would deserve more than just a throwaway line. In fact the hair matched the other samples, proving that she was Franziska - as had been known all along. Why does this article persist in trying to cast doubt on this? TharkunColl 12:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hair matches Romanovs?

message: Hi. What's with this edit? I just came across this article, by clicking on links, and started reading. However, that edit has ALL CAPS text, pov, unsourced material, and actually removed sourced material. I usually remove this type of vandalism, but I wanted to check first. Should it be removed? That user currently has no messages. Should he/she be warned, if indeed it is vandalism? Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001(T+C+U) 22:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  missed vandalism? 

message: It's fine the article acknowledges AA as an imposter
It is NOT "fine."  Because even if you want to believe that was not Anastasia, and even if you want to believe that she was really a "Polish" factory worker who could have pulled all this off, you are doing a great injustice to the person concerned.  No one who knew her, on either side of the quarrel, ever doubted that she was sincere in her own belief.  So "imposter" is not the word.  Anastasia's body was missing from that mass grave in Russia (NOT "Siberia," Russia) -- nobody (except those who do) knows what happened to her.  I mean, it's no wonder even under-educated teachers steer their students away from this site!  pk
, but that's no reason to ignore historical facts, nor is it any reason to say as a fact that Anastasia is dead. The term should be "presumably executed". There have been many who claimed to see AN after the murder night and her body has still not been located after nearly a century. That is not a proven death no matter how you look at it and it's very sad that Wikipedia has endorsed the agenda of those who don't care about presenting both sides of the matter.
It's not fair to state only what the executioner's say but not the man who saw Anastasia in the house across from the Ipatiev House wounded but alive. Besides, Anastasia's death isn't even relevant to the issue of Anna Anderson. Obviously whoever wrote this article has doubts about AA not being AN or otherwise they wouldn't need to try so hard to prove Anastasia died and could simply deal with the DNA tests. Wikipedia is losing its credibility more and more every day anyway because of people with an agenda who ruin all of the articles. My own teacher has said not to trust wikipedia as a reliable source because anyone can edit it. What a complete piece of shit this site is.
There's no better support for my theory than the fact that the links at the bottom of the page don't even have correct information. It's all nothing but an agenda to keep the truth from unsuspecting readers. I just hope they are wise enough to pick up a book and find out the truth for themselves because you won't find any of the crap in this article in any book, and if you do, it atleast presents the other side of the arguement.
While Anna Anderson was not actually the daughter of the Tsar there are some important aspects of the mystery and debate over her identity that are omitted from this article. I agree this article takes too much of a concrete stance on the fact that Anna Anderson and Franziska Schanzkowska are the same person - this may have been referenced somewhere else in the discussion page, but I think a vital point to include is that Franziska Schanzkowska was documented as being three inches taller than Anna Anderson, this seems like an essential piece of information and is documented in Frances Welch's Anderson biography entitled A Romanov Fantasy. Any thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.237.37 (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is completely one-sided

message: This constant reverting is getting silly, people.  Couldn't the two of you just take a deep breath and start rationally discussing your differences with this article? LordCo 09:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough is Enough 

message: I deleted Peter Kurth's opinion on the matter because it is his opinion, but I did add this and the source for it is "Tsar: The Lost World of Nicholas and Alexandra" by Kurth, Radzinsky, Christopher."
Would the thing you deleted of Peter Kurth's be the same Peter Kurth whom you then go on to cite?  Seems so.  pk
The vast majority of "Tsar: The Lost World of Nicholas and Alexandra" by Kurth, Radzinsky, Christopher is in fact by Peter Kurth and remains his opinion. 
You're quite wrong here, although I understand why you wouldn't know that.  The vast majority of "Tsar" (and its continued vast popularity) has to do with the photographs -- the text was just filler.
"Tsar" was a commissioned book -- not my own idea -- all the chapter outlines were laid out for me precisely and I was obliged to follow them to the letter, and to get it done within 3 months.  They made me repeat, for instance, the preposterous story of Rasputin's murder, as recounted by Prince Yussupov (it has always amazed me that people are willing to believe that UTTERLY fictional account, at the same time inisting that "no one could have escaped Ekaterinburg alive!") -- and I did this, as I was paid to do it, and on a very short deadline, but my price for repeating that pack of lies was that they give me 3 pages or so to recount, as briefly and objectively as I could, the role of "Anna Anderson" in the "Aftermath."  They didn't want it, but I insisted:  "If you're going to make me repeat Yussupov's fantasies about Rasputin, then you're also going to put up with a little bit about AA."  And they couldn't argue with that, otherwise I'd have quit the job and they'd have been stuck ... pk
Only the small introduction is by Radzinsky and Christopher's only contribution are wonderful photographs
His "only" contribution?  They are the MAIN contribution.
, but no text, so the book is basically by Peter Kurth whose name is given the greatest prominence on the front cover. 
Wasn't my idea ... I didn't even see what they'd put on the cover until the book came out.
Finneganw 15:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition

message: I don't even care about this article anymore. Its crap, has an agenda, is completely one sided, and Wikipedia is kissing their asses and picking favorites. Everytime I add something with a source, it's erased and then Wikipedia locks it so I can't add it again. This whole website is shit. In fact, any website that allows people to edit the articles themselves is absolutely ridiculous.
I agree whoever wrote this article is twisting and distorting the sources used to suit their own purpose it is also full of mistakes
Theosophica (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia

message: Why do you write about the "pulses being checked" but yet you don't mention that in this same book cited as a reference it also states that Anastasia and Marie woke up AFTER the pulses were checked and screamed. This is intentionally misleading and unacceptable, as is this entire, one-sided, fact-free article. -Caleb G.
I've just re-read this article and it is still dreadful.  I could spend all day listing its inaccuracies but I don't have the time and there is obviously no point since none of those previously advised have been altered.  I do, however, have one question - why is such prominence given to Dmitri Leuchtenberg's letter to Vorres?  The Leuchtenberg family was split on this issue and if you are going to mention his opinion, you should also mention the opinions of other members of his family.   Dmitri's letter is full of factual errors, but then so is the whole article.  I appreciate you don't want this to be POV (which it is, by the way) but you can't even get the date of birth correct.  Liz  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrymansdaughter (talk • contribs) 13:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So dig out your books and make the corrections yourself, citing your sources. I know the article is horribly written with a lot of inaccuracies, but sadly, this is what happens when you have an article written by a number of people who hold violently opposing opinions. I believe the additions you object to were made by Finnegan, so you might want to take it up with him. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question for people who wrote this article

message: I see that the article is locked.  That is a shame.  It needs a serious going over for grammer, wikilinking to other names (such as Felix Yussupov), making subheadings and correcting references.  What's the deal here?  Anyone care to enlighten us?  As is, the article is rather hard to follow.  Some judicious editing by an experienced editor without a dog on whatever fight is going on would be helpful.  Might I suggest that you break out the complete Anastasia survived theory from Ana Anderson's article and go into all the various ins and outs there?  It might give everyone a chance to document their side of it without freezing the Ana Anderson article.  LiPollis 12:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was locked because people on both sides of the dispute over Anna Anderson's real identity can't seem to integrate both sides of the story into the article. Therefore, the page has been locked until an agreement can be reached. Trusilver 15:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I took OUT the paragraph about the murder of the Romanovs and added the phrase "by most accounts" when referring to her death with her family. I also removed some of the more inflammatory statements about Anderson, the Botkins, etc., 
Well, good for you, and I'm glad you did.  Because it was slanderous in the extreme.  pk
while still leaving in enough to make it evident that the Romanov family members and cousins and courtiers failed to recognize her and viewed her as an impostor
Which ones?  Not Grand Duke Andrew, not Princess Xenia, not Shura Tegleva (Mme. Gilliard, ANR's nurse from babyhood), not Lili Dehn (one of the empress's closest friends, who was with them at Tsarskoe Selo at the time of the revolution), not ... not ... not even the tsar's sister, Grand Duchess Olga, who believed in AA absolutely but was "bullied" out of it by powers greater than she ... [Source:  Kurth and innumerable others].
, while others found that Anderson did resemble Anastasia. 
"Others" in fact INSISTED she was Anastasia, including, for instance, Capt. Felix Dassel, who had lain as a wounded officer in the hospital at TS under the patronage of the two youngest grand duchesses, Marie and Anastasia -- thus he had seen her at a much later date than most of the extended family did.  (Oddly enough, the little "orderly" there, running around with food and bedpans and such, was Serge Esenin, who later became "the Poet of the Revolution," after marrying Isadora Duncan and then hanging himself in 1925) {Sources:  Kurth and Kurth and Duncan and many others].  During his hearing at Hamburg (April 1958) Dassel's testimony was read back to him, as is normal there, and the judges had said, quoting him, "I believe she is the Grand Duchess Anastasia," wherepon he leaped to his feet and shouted back:  "I did not say `I believe.'  I AFFIRM it.  I AFFIRM that she is Anastasia Nicolaievna."  pk
I'm not done editing this article by any means, but I made the edits that seemed most urgent. What needs to be done is adding citations with page numbers and cleaning up the grammar, sentence structure, etc. There are still some major problems with the writing style. --Bookworm857158367 12:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article in need of some serious format editing - so why is it locked?

message: Bookworm - You have done a really great deal of excellent work on the article. I have already reverted it once to where you left it after it was vandalised by User:209.136.71.163 who reverted it back to the unsatisfactory situation. It should be very clear to anybody that you have tried extremely hard to sort everything out. I congratulate you. This discussion page shows there was consensus for you to carry out the work. I believe the article may need to be locked if those who cannot accept verified material keep on vandalising it. Perhaps senior administrators will have to be notified. Let me know if I can help as I have basically all the books in the reference list. I think the comments from Schweitzer come from a video program which contained an interview with his wife and Peter Kurth after the DNA evidence was revealed. 
And Nancy Wynkoop -- daughter of Princess Xenia. Please, don't forget Nancy's contribution to these silly, half-baked documentaries.  "Well," she said, "how do you tell a judge that she scratched her ear exactly like Aunt Tillie?  And how do you tell them that her voice was the same as all of the cousins?  There are so many `positives,' but if you refuse to see the positives, you will conclude she was a fake.  She was not."  pk
Somewhere I have it although it will require an extensive search. Finneganw 10.26, 10 July 2007
I should think it wouldn't take TOO much of a search, Mr. Finnegan, as the whole thing is available online.  pk
::I think semi-protected status might be warranted to keep unregistered editors from editing. I started working on the article, but it's still going to need a lot of work to get it up to standard. 
"Standard" what?  The usual BS? -- pk
I'm going on vacation for a few days at the end of the week and won't be able to work extensively on it then. More work needs to be done to present both sides and to make sure the citations are correct. I don't have the info with Schweitzer's comments, but they may have been in Massie's book Romanovs: The Final Chapter. I'd suggest using one of the Feature Articles as a pattern when citing references and page numbers. It should include the author's name, then the full title of the book, year of publication, publishing company, ISBN number, page numbers and similar but slightly different formats for magazine articles or television programs. One of the things I noticed with the last anonymous editor's edits was misspelled titles and grammatical errors (errors in sentence structure.) --Bookworm857158367 12:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I Agree. User 209.136.71.163's edits are somewhat unproductive. i commend Bookworm857158367 on his efforts to repair the page. it looks fantastic. Best wishes, Onopearls 15:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit war here is continuing. Two users are making edits and reverting other people's edits. I'm not sure how the heck to resolve this without asking for the page to be locked again. --Bookworm857158367 04:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The additions you have made were all "point of view" and are decidedly not helpful. 
I'm going to say it again:  what the hell do you mean by "point of view"?  Let's say I was sitting in the Presidential box at Ford's Theater in Washington in April 1865, and I happened to be the one who noticed JW Booth coming in (which no one did, by the way) -- and let's say that later I was interviewed under some modern technique of interrogation, and I might say, "Well, it was Booth, and there was no reason to expect that he shouldn't be there -- this was his own turf.  We couldn't have known that he might pull out a pistol and shoot the President in the back of the head." Is this -- would it not be -- "POV"?  This "POV" crap seems to me to be a great excuse for not getting the facts right.  I have no idea how you people might decide what is "POV" and what is not.  I only know that your article about "Anna Anderson" is filled with lies and worse -- "unsubstantiated" material.  pk
"Reportedly" is grammatically correct; not "reportably." 
Depends on what you mean.  Both words are real words, with their own meaning.  You plainly know nothing about writing -- words are chosen for their precision.  pk
It is the prevailing opinion among most historians that she was probably Franziska Schanzkowska. 
Who are these "most historians" -- I would like to know.  It was never the case that "most historians" took AA seriously at all, but it is also the case that "most historians" never bothered to look into it.  I know perfectly well that "History" (based on DNA tests) will conclude that she was FS.  But this is no different from what "most historians" had already decided -- not just that AA was a fake, but that none of it matters in relation to the greater history of Russia (with which I agree entirely -- it does NOT  matter).
The other side's opinion is already well-represented. The description of Schanzkowska's photo is also from one of the many Anastasia books. 
?????????
I have seen it. The photos that you keep inserting are not attractive the way you have them laid out. A photo of a person turned to the left should usually be placed on the right; a photo of a person turned to the right should be placed on the left. This way they are "looking into" the page instead of out of it. Newspapers follow the same layout. A photo of Anastasia as a child is also not an appropriate photo to include. If you must, use the most recent photo of her as a teenager so that comparisons might be made between Anna Anderson and the teenage Anastasia. I don't think the photo is necessary. Sign your statements, please. --Bookworm857158367 11:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm aware of Prince Christopher's back story. 
I doubt it -- pk
I think you're responding to Quest for Anastasia's unsigned comment above. I couldn't revert his additions outright without violating the three revert rule. --Bookworm857158367 12:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If there are things that you find wrong or incomplete, then edit the article, but CITE your source, including author, title, page number, publication date, etc., and explain why you're making the relevant changes on the talk page. Don't remove the information you disagree with, but go ahead and add whatever it is you think will add to your side. If dates are wrong and you can prove it and cite your source, go ahead and change them. I don't want to start another edit war over this page. It'll help if you discuss it first. I have the Peter Kurth book, have read it numerous times in the past 20 years, and I've read his web page. I know what he thinks. On the other hand, this article cannot be only based on Peter Kurth's book. --Bookworm857158367 22:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations to Bookworm on Anna Anderson Article

message: I have, with a tolerant attitude, watched silently as the whole dog and pony show has gotten into full gear again. But I just got finished sending a request back in for page protection. Bookworm has done a superb job with this article, but it's all for nothing if individuals who refuse to participate in reaching a consensus are allowed to keep vandalizing the hard work that's been done. I was hoping this wasn't going to happen again and I was hoping that certain individuals would be reasonable about reaching a middle ground, but oh well. Trusilver 04:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of protecting the page, Riana just  blocked QuestforAnastasia, which basically serves the same purpose for a lot less trouble. Once again I'm just having an attitude of good faith and hoping that when he comes back he's willing to work toward consensus. Trusilver 06:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Long past time. The edit war on this article is getting ridiculous. He/She does have a point about the paragraph describing the photograph of Franziska Schanzkowska. I have reworded it so that it says something like "people have described the girl depicted in the photograph as bright eyed and intelligent." I don't have the European History Journal article referred to, but I have seen similar descriptions of the Schanzkowska photo, particularly from her opponents. I've also added a claim from Kurth's book saying that the photo has been retouched several times and provided a page number. This way both opinions are represented and hopefully Quest for Anastasia will leave it alone or will at least discuss any changes he wants to make on this page before he makes them, in a civilized manner. This edit war cannot continue or the page will have to be blocked from editing indefinitely. --Bookworm857158367 12:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also noted that User:Vidor continues to add the sentence "Seventeen-year-old Anastasia was murdered with her family ..." and to remove the phrase "by most accounts," Anastasia was murdered ... Anastasia's death on July 17, 1918 is not a confirmed historical fact. Her body is missing; there were reports she and one of her sisters survived the initial attack and sat up moaning; and there was eye witness testimony at one of the Anderson trials about Anastasia being treated for her injuries in a house directly across from the Ipatiev House. She certainly COULD have died, but there is no proof that she did. Let's avoid coming down too hard on one side or the other here. I've reinserted the phrase "by most accounts," which is accurate. "Anastasia was murdered" is not an accurate statement. --Bookworm857158367 13:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's a real possibility that the two missing bodies of Anastasia and Alexei were simply burned and buried elsewhere in the forest, but there have been yearly searches of that area for close to twenty years and they haven't turned up remains. It would have been impossible for them to completely destroy the remains by fire, given the materials and time they had. That is an argument that has been made by several historians. I also give some credence to the testimony of the tailor who lived in the house across the street from the Ipatiev House and testified that he saw Anastasia receiving treatment there immediately after the murder. If she survived, it doesn't mean she lived long, or that she was necessarily Anna Anderson. Maybe she was one of the crazies who keep turning up in Russia claiming to be her. We simply don't know one way or the other. --Bookworm857158367 13:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The truthfulness of Yurovsky's account has been questioned, however, and there are still two missing bodies. There are also reports of Anastasia's survival. That's why the phrase "by most accounts" is most appropriate. --Bookworm857158367 14:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  although the article looks good in its current form, removing information that is added isnt productive. there is a better way to go about thing. just because you like a page the way it is, that doesnt give you the right to remove what another editor adds to keep the page looking the same, Finneganw. thanks, Ono 21:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed.  You can find some crackpot to "question" anything. Vidor 15:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And it should be noted that it is by no means certain that the missing daughter is Anastasia.  I think the best guess of the scientists is Marie. Vidor 18:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no. The Russians said the one missing is Marie; the Americans said it was Anastasia. The Russians identified Anastasia using a computer program that interposed photographs of Anastasia over the skulls found at Ekaterinburg (most of the skulls were missing large pieces of bone, which meant the Russians had to do a lot of estimating regarding length of jaw, width of cheekbones, etc.). The Americans found this method inexact. They identified Anastasia as the missing daughter based the height of the present skeletons and the likely ages of the young women based on the maturity of their backs, collar bones and pelvises. Anastasia was by far the shortest of the sisters and none of the skeletons found had immature backs, collarbones or pelvises as they would expect to find in a seventeen year old. I'd say it's far more likely that Anastasia is missing. Heinrich Kleinbuetzl, the tailor who lived across the street from the Ipatiev house and testified during the Anna Anderson trial, did live where he said he did. They found records proving it and his work delivering clothing to the Ipatiev House. It's quite possible that most people disbelieve his testimony, but he was who he said he was and did what he said he did. His testimony is on record in the Anna Anderson trial. I didn't go into this sort of detail in the Anna Anderson article because the article is about Anna Anderson rather than Anastasia, per se. However, it's why I want to leave that qualifier "by most accounts" in the paragraph about the murders. I think there is some reasonable doubt, however slight, which is why both sides need to be represented. User:Questforanastasia is complaining on his page that he wasn't allowed to quote people who did recognize Anderson as Anastasia at length. Perhaps the quotes from Lili Dehn, Grand Duchess Xenia (the second cousin) and Grand Duke Andrei should be added, with proper sourcing, to provide better balance. They're all in the Kurth book.  --Bookworm857158367 23:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, anything Peter Kurth says is worthless, since he is still pimping for Anna Anderson years after the DNA tests showed her to be an impostor.  And please, let's not clutter up the article with a bunch of crap from another one of Kurth's crappy books.  If we must, a line or two saying that those people thought Schanzkowska was Anastasia really should be enough. Vidor 00:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kurth belongs in the article just as Prince Christopher and some of the others do. He wrote the most comprehensive biography of Anna Anderson. I still have a lot of respect for him and for the research he did. Not including the quotes from his book would result in an unbalanced article. Lili Dehn and Grand Duke Andrei both were believers that Anderson was Anastasia. Whether they were correct or not, that's still fact and quoting them would add something to the article. I also have the book by James Lovell, Anastasia: The Lost Princess that includes some detail about Anderson's life during World War II and some of the crazier stories she told about what happened to the Imperial family. Lovell was far nuttier than Kurth and his book is badly written, but it covers territory about Anderson's life that probably deserves mention in this article. I'm on vacation for the next several days and don't have time to add all this at the moment. If someone else has the same book, maybe they would like to attempt it. --Bookworm857158367 01:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to the circus 

message: I don't get how her supporters could not know when and wher Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna was born.She was born on June 18,1901 in Peterhof.That date should be on top of Anna Anderson's real date and place of birth instead of unknown.I am changing that.
--Robors (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit assumes that Anderson was Anastasia, or at the least that some people still believe she was.  I doubt that anyone still believes that, because her DNA didn't match that of the royal family and DNA doesn't lie.  As to whether she was Franziska, that's a more contentious issue.  It's very likely, but some will not agree.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 Birth dates 

message: DNA confirms IDs of czar's children, ending mystery
"The remains of their parents — Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra — and three siblings, including the czar's youngest daughter, Anastasia, were unearthed in 1991 and reburied in the imperial resting place in St. Petersburg.
"Rumors persisted that some of the family had survived and escaped. Claims by women to be Anastasia were particularly prominent, although there were also pretenders to Alexei's and Maria's identities.
"It was 99.9 percent clear they had all been killed; now with these shards, it's 100 percent," said Nadia Kizenko, a Russian scholar at the University at Albany, State University of New York." Ruth E (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's still a question of whether she was FRANZISKA. Whether she was Anastasia or not hasn't been in dispute for awhile. As for the recent DNA tests, I think the remains they just identified were Alexei and Anastasia, not Alexei and Maria as the Russians continue to insist. They buried a body using Anastasia's name in 1998 that was too tall and too physically mature -- mature collarbone, mature pelvic bone, teeth, etc.) -- when it was probably actually Maria. Maria was 19; the girl they identified yesterday was 16 to 18 -- Anastasia was barely 17. Not that it matters now since they have all seven of them.  --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNA Confirms 100% that all were killed 

message: Please, the author of this article has made a mistake. Alexandra Tegleva, the nurse of the tsar's children had never been the wife of Me Gillard. I do not want to change the article myself out of respect to its author, but do make the necessary correction. 
Regards, Zoe  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.143.68 (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong. Shura Tegleva was indeed Gilliard's wife, as has been noted in the multiple books about the Romanovs and Gilliard and cited in the article. I suggest you do some reading on the subject. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistake

message: This entire article is extremely POV. While it has a lot more information than before, the information is extremely one sided. An example of this would be the Religious issue mentioned in the letter from Luetechenberg, where he argues that Anna Anderson is not Anastasia because she behaved like a Catholic. According to every biography written about Anderson, she claimed to have converted to Catholicism in 1919 when she supposedly married her rescuer.
There is also no mention of the fact that the Grand Duchess's all knew german,which was one of the languages they were tutored in - no mention that the investigator for the Danish royal family concluded she was Anastasia - no mention of the two handwriting tests which concluded she was who she said she was - no mention of the scientific evidence in her favor - no mention of the Romanovs who did in fact acknowledge her such as Princess Xenia Leeds in New York - no mention of the fact that she did in fact speak Russian when she was institutionalized at Daldorf mental institution ect .  .  .
Having the evidence contradicting her claims is fine, and the fact that it is actually sourced is appreciated, but it is neither helpful, nor scholarly to not include ALL the information, from both sides.
Furthermore wikipedia is not a place to make assertions such as that she was an imposter, or could not have been Anastasia, ect .  .  . it is a online encyclopedia that presents the facts and allows its readers to come to their own conclusions. While it is apporpriated to cite articles saying that she is now regarded by many scholars as a imposter, it is not apporpriate to make these claims, as this POV.
Also just reading through this page I noticed theres a major edit war going, while I'm one who loves a good war, there really is no need for it here. This is a simple biography and all that has to be done is include sourced facts for which there is a wealth of them, so chill. ````  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.11.133 (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Have declared they have oh so miracolously a century ahead discovered the remains of the last two children, of all people dead, buried, dispersed, become mud etc. they have found the bones of the two kids and the dna test conclusively proves it....someone has got to be an absolute naive moron to believe these claims but so be it. Anyway cover ups never happen right?
91.132.224.196 (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  So a couple of biologists from the states and a few russian ones...