Talk:Anna Anderson/Archive 3

Ok, I admit it, this was very detailed! Arno 08:01 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. Better to have the details, that way there's less to argue about in case any Andersonians come along. Plus, this way it gets all the Anna Anderson stuff off the Anastasia page, leaving the Anastasia page actually about, you know, Anastasia. john 08:19 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Okay, how do we know Anna Anderson was 72 when she married Mr. Manahan? Is this the age that Ms. Schanzkowska would have been? Because we can't be absolutely certain that she was Schanzkowska. The DNA test merely indicated that she was probably Schanzkowska. john 06:20 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

True, mtDNA can't be used for identification, but since the null hypothesis being tested is that her mtDNA should specifically match the Schanzkowska mtDNA it increases the odds that she WAS Schanzkowska dramatically. This is an instance there the scientific result was predicted before the test occurred, rather than a DNA result obtained first and then cross-indexed against random archived sequences. It's a much stronger result than most people realize. -- Someone else 06:32 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)~

Yes, I agree with you that she was probably Schanzkowska, but I don't think that the identification is certain enough that we can identify Schanzkowska's age with Anna Anderson's as a matter of fact. john 06:42 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Her own family identified Schanzkowska! Their claims were supported by the DNA tests. This sounds like reasonable proof to me. Arno 07:16, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that some members of the family identified her, while others did not, or were uncertain. At any rate, that part of it was inconclusive. The DNA test said that there was a very high chance she was a mitochondrial relation of Schanzkowska (and thus, presumably, Schanzkowska), but doesn't prove it. At any rate, I've encountered enough Anna Anderson supporters to want to be careful. I think the article as written would lead any reasonable person to believe that Schanzkowska and Anderson were one and the same, because that's what the facts as we know them indicate. There's no need to prejudice it with POV statements, because it's obvious to anyone whose mind isn't already made up. john 08:58, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I missed your reply completely until now.

Do these supporters still believe that their Anna is Anastasia?? How do they account for the DNA tests?? Also, you say that the tests don't prove that Anna was Ms Schanzkowska. Well, no, but they certainly disprove that she was Anastasia. The tests, and the identifications, certainly seem to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she was Ms Schanzkowska. By casting too much doubt over this, you are succumbing to the supporters' POV, which is certainly prejudiced. Arno 07:40, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Franziska's own family did not recognize Anna Anderson as their sister. DNA tests done on remains that cannot be proven to be 100% from Anna Anderson cannot be considered the conclusive evidence.

Material moved out of article

This is of interest, but belongs in a different article, to which this one and Anastasia could link to:

• The Great Romanov Deception - Gives an account of Alexis and Anastasia Romanov escaping to the United States and living as Joseph and Magdalene Veres. Includes various photographs.

---

I think we can't say that Anna ANderson was not Anastasia. I'm doing a persusive projct on this.

I have to agree with you. Anna Anderson was not Anastasia, but I think it's also fair to say that Anna wasn't sure of it all herself. I don't think she was Anastasia though, despite everything. The DNA test was enough for me, but also I feel she didn't look like Anastasia. There are features on her face that are vastly different from Anastasia. To be honest, they are entirely sure it *was* Anastasia's body that was missing. I've heard more people tend to believe now that it was in fact Maria.--80.193.19.191 16:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, we can say this. The DNA proved that she was not a mitochondrial descendant of Grand Duchess Alice of Hesse. If she had been, her mDNA would have matched that of the Duke of Edinburgh, Anastasia's maternal first cousin once removed. john k 15:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe AA was Anastasia. It's nice to believe that one of thre Tsar's daughters escaped death, but I think that they all died. Besides, it is widely thought now that the two bodies missing were Alexei and Maria, not Anastasia. Alexei and Maria's bodies were probably burnt, I'm not sure why but that's what I believe. There was a Russian woman living in South Africa called Alina who told her husband's family there that she was a Russia noble whose family were murdered at that she barely escaped with her life. She talked about events that happened to the Tsar's family long before they were revealed to the public. When word came out that one of the Tsar's family had escaped, she was always nervous when police came around, guard etc... Her family began to think she was Anastasia, though she never claimed to be one of their family. After her death, when the news came out about the missing bodies, that one of them was Alexei and the other was either Anastasia or Maria (Thought to be Maria now), her grandson started to believe that Alina was Maria. I took an interest into his story and though I still believe all the children died, I believe in Alina over AA anyday. --Camblunt100 11:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

-The only people who ever supported the theory that Marie's body was missing were Dr. Abramov and his team of Scientists. US and UK scientists always thought it was Anastasia. Also, if Anna Anderson was Franziska Schanzkowska, then why were her opponents constantly coming up with lies to support their theory? It dosen't make sense unless Anna Anderson was Anastasia and the royal families are still trying to cover it up.

Category

Anna Anderson's article does NOT belong in the Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov catagory. She was not a member of this family, therefore does not belong there. Morhange 22:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

She claimed to be one though and is likely to be searched by those interested in the family. User:Dimadick

LOL, now those who don't believe her will oppose her being included in the Romanov category, while those who believe her will oppose her being in the Pretenders category. This article manages to annoy both sides. :-) Alensha 16:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It would annoy them more if they could not find the article about her. Categories are for search purposes mostly. Her placement there makes no statement on the accuracy of her claims. User:Dimadick

She was not a member of the Romanov family. This is not a matter open for dispute - a DNA test showed that she did not share her mitochondria with either the Duke of Edinburgh or the remains of the Imperial family, which she would have done if she had been one of the Grand Duchesses. It is a clear NPOV violation to include her in a category which she does not belong to. john k 14:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

It is very much open for dispute. These DNA tests are suspect and not as valid today.

"Ten years later, Greg King (author of The Last Empress: The Life and Times of Alexandra Feodorovna, Tsarina of Russia and co-author with Penny Wilson of The Fate of the Romanovs) adds for the record:

One needn’t believe in conspiracies or ascribe incompetence to those who conducted the testing to have doubts about their continued validity. Two distinct methods of DNA testing were used to show support for the hypotheses that Anastasia Manahan or Anna Anderson 1) Could not have been a child of Nicholas and Alexandra; 2) Did not match the mtDNA Hessian profile derived by Gill and used to match four of the female Ekaterinburg remains to the profile derived from HRH The Duke of Edinburgh; and 3) Matched the mtDNA profile of Karl Maucher, lending support to the hypothesis that she was Schanzkowska.

Both nuclear and mitochondrial (mtDNA) testing was done. Nuclear testing is preferred as it renders better results and is considered more accurate, while mtDNA is less discriminating. Nuclear DNA tests showed that AA could not possibly have been a daughter of N and A, yet changes in the science make the 1994 verdict obsolete. Gill used a 6-point Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis of the nuclear DNA to arrive at these results. Within four years of these tests, 10 point STR testing was being done, and when results of 10 point STR testing were compared with 6 point STR tests, the 6 point analysis was shown conclusively to give both false positive and negative results-in other words, conclusions based on 6 point STR tests were proved faulty. In 1999, the testing had gone from the 6 point STR tests of 1993-94 and the 10 point STR tests of 1998 to 12 point STR tests, the accuracy of which further undermined 6 point STR test results. Gill admitted this in a statement released in 2000, adding that FSS had changed from the old 6 point STR method to the 10 point STR method in 1999. In 2000, the STR tests were up to a 14 point system; in 2001, it was 16 points, and by 2002, the industry standard worldwide in STR testing was 20 point STR tests. Scientific studies have repeatedly shown that 6 point STR tests are unreliable and result in false matches and exclusions. The 6 point STR nuclear DNA tests that showed Anastasia Manahan could not have been a daughter of N and A, therefore, are now meaningless.

The mtDNA match to the Maucher profile is also now known to be less reliable than everyone believed. In 1994, mtDNA matches were believed to prove identity, and to be unique to related individuals. Last year, an extensive UK study showed that out of a random 100 persons, four completely unrelated subjects shared exactly the same mtDNA profiles; extrapolate that here, on a board with 400 members: of the 400 of us posting here, 40 of us-unrelated to each other-would have identical mtDNA profiles, thus "proving" that we're related. The odds of a random mtDNA match between the Manahan sample and the Maucher profile are indeed considerable given the size of the world’s population and the numbers involved. I suspect, based on the continuing evolution of the science, that future studies will show mtDNA profiles to be even more common than this.

My reservations about regarding the 1994 DNA tests as absolutely conclusive in the matter of Anastasia Manahan, therefore, rest on the advances of science. Two of the three planks in the DNA case against her have now been shown to be either unreliable or less than compelling in a mere ten years. Her exclusion from the Hessian mtDNA profile remains, and while the methods used to obtain the exclusion remain in practice, given the above changes I hesitate to presume that they, too, won’t be challenged as the science evolves; already in the last 2 years there have been two substantial challenges to the DNA testing done on the Ekaterinburg remains, and I suppose there will be more in the future that may or may not be valid. This makes it theoretically possible -- given the facts above about the first two DNA planks in the case -- that ultimately in another generation none of the DNA identifications/exclusions in the Anderson case will matter-and the case will fall back to where it always rested before the DNA -- to examination of physical traits, memories, recognitions, etc.

It seems to me, whether one wishes to believe in Anna Anderson or not (and I don't wish either way, incidentally), it’s best to keep an open mind and at least examine the facts as known now in the DNA case against Anastasia Manahan -- as three separate issues -- rather than repeatedly refer to ten year old tests that, taken as a whole, have lost two-thirds of their validity."

POV dispute

There are so many inflammatory phrases inserted into this otherwise well-written article that I hardly know where to begin...it appears that the most recent editor has some sort of axe to grind on this subject, so should I put up the POV check or simply attempt to edit? A Runyon 19:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The article seems to be fine now. I've removed the POV tag. If anyone disagrees, feel free to undo. Give a reason though. Ikh 10:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

conspicuously missing info: "Anderson"

If she was a "Miss Unknown" who claimed to be a Romanov who married a Tschaikovsky and then a Manahan, where does the name "Anderson" come from?

She started using it in the 20s, I think. john k 17:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Gleb and Tatiana Botkin

They were not 'close childhood friends' of the Imperial Family. Mstislava 15:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

-Yes, they were.

Meeting a few times over the years would not make them close. Mstislava 13:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

-Why don't you read 'The Real Romanovs' by Gleb Botkin and see they were playmates of the young children. They were closer to the children and the family than most of the other members of the Romanov family.

They were not playmates, occasional visitors yes, but not playmates. Gleb and Tatiana would not have been considered 'suitable'. You should know that Alexandra Fyodorovna actively discouraged her daughters and son to have friends. 15:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

-But Alexandra was very fond of Gleb Botkin.

She was also fond of Grigori Rasputin and look where that got her. Tatiana and Gleb did have contact with the Imperial Family, but not as much as Gleb makes out. Just because of who their father was does not mean they were at the Alexander Palace all the time. Mstislava 15:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Additions

There's been a lot of stuff added that supposedly contests the validity of the DNA test results. Most of it is a long block quote. I've never read anything from anyone who's not an Anna Anderson partisan (like Greg King, for instance), which has suggested that there is any doubt that Anna Anderson cannot have been the daughter of Nicholas and Alexandra. But yet, there we have a long, detailed, technical discussion of DNA testing that seems to say, in fact, that the DNA tests which were done were worthless. What is to be done about this stuff? Is there any kind of recent neutral discussion of the subject (i.e., one not by someone who was a personal friend of Mrs. Manahan?) john k 20:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

-Greg King is not an Anna Anderson supporter, and he never met Anna Anderson. The DNA tests have lost much of their validity over the past decade. It's a fact.

1) The nuclearDNA tests are no longer valid. 20-point STR testing is now done instead of 6-point STR testing. 6-point testing has shown to result in false positive and negative results.

2) mtDNA is no longer used in court cases. It can be contaminated by simply touching or breathing on a sample. One scientist estimated that 50% of samples which are not supposed to give results do.

3) mtDNA profiles are not the discriminating factor they once were. Recent studies have shown that 40 of a random 1,000 people share the same mtDNA profile.

Whether or not King knew her personally, he is most certainly a supporter of her claims (you can find plenty of evidence of this in the usenet archives, if you want to). As to whether it's a fact, can you provide a source that says this other than Greg King? Beyond this, my understanding was that while mtDNA can be contaminated, this is only likely to result in false positives, not false negatives. That is to say, we can't prove that Anna Anderson was Franciska Schanzkowska, but mtDNA can prove that she wasn't Anastasia. If 40 of a random 1,000 people share the same mtDNA profile, why didn't Anna Anderson share one with the Duke of Edinburgh or with the remains of the Imperial Family? At any rate, I want a source on this that is a DNA expert, not a biographer of the Romanovs. King is not qualified to discuss the DNA issue. john k 11:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

-King has stated he does not care either way if Anderson is or is not Anastasia. What he said is truth. It dosen't matter either way if he is a supporter, because you show this to any scientist and they'll approve its validity. If mtDNA is contaminated, it will not give the right results. King many not be a scientist, but he is a reliable source as he has studied the science. We cannot say that Anna was not Anastasia when you consider the doubts surrounding mtDNA. I think the nuclearDNA should be reexamined.

Wikipedia is not the place to test DNA, but to report results of DNA tests published elsewhere. Likewise, Wikipedia, strictly speaking, is not the place to publish (as first publisher) criticism against certain DNA test case, but to account for criticisms of that DNA testing case that are published earlier elsewhere. If we are strict, every criticism which is not based on a published source can be edited away from.
Of the specific question of mt, of course any mt is quite common (= shared with manypercent of human pop) - in the world, there are only a limited number of haplogroups, and variants tend to be quite close, as mutations do not make total overhauls. Please remember what mt actually is: it is almost like cloning, as paternal and maternal material do NOT mix in every generation, actually they never mix. However, that makes it yet clearer that false negatives are next to impossible to obtain by mt test - John is correct in stating that. As Anna Anderson's mt does not even distantly resemble her alleged mother Alexandra Fyodorovna's mt, Anna cannot be Anastasia. Were she to be a daughter of Alexandra, her mt needs to be at least close resemblance to Alexandra's: as I said, we cannot expect a total overhaul in one generation. Marrtel 23:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, mtDNA can easily be contaminated. There exists a great probablity that the mtDNA of the intestine was contaminated. Wikipedia should be a place for facts, not simply what old out-modeled DNA tests report.

It is also important to note that this is in the 'Supporters Cling to Hope' section, not in the 'DNA results' section.

A long quote from a Romanov biographer on the subject just isn't appropriate to this article. What we would need are 'geneticists who agree with King, and have commented on this specific case. At most, we should simply note that Anna Anderson supporters have disputed the DNA testing as unreliable or contaminated. john k 16:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)