Talk:Eugenia Smith

Untitled

Eugenia Smith's article does NOT belong in the Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov catagory. She was not a member of this family, therefore does not belong there, unless there was a specific reason for it being placed there. Morhange 22:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

She is one of the many Anastasia Impostors, like Anna Anderson, that's why she's here.--Sophie-Lou 16:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

EVGENIA SMITH (SMETISKO)

The case of EVGENIA SMETISKO/EUGENIA SMITH is of interest as SHE claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia. She never submitted to a DNA test. That in itself does neither refute nor affirm her claim.

Some Romanovs have rejected DNA sampling on principle; other individuals might reject sampling as it would dismiss their claim and expose them as frauds. WE can only say that there is NO published DNA evidence of anything at all in the case of SMETISKO. All else is editorialization and conjecture.

She IS buried in Orthodox fashion on the grounds of an Orthodox monastery.

She was NOT cremated, as was Anna Anderso. Cremation is in direct contradiction to Orthodox teaching and practice.

She WAS artistically inclined as was the true Grand Duchess.

History, research, investigation etc will offer more information over time. Or perhaps it won't.

The Wikipedia entry is beneficial as it gives basic information as to EVGENIA SMETISKO's life, her claim, her bibliographical references, her death and burial.

Any Wikipedia entry should neither REFUTE nor AFFIRM her claim. It has no mandate to determine the fate of the Romanovs or that of the woman known as "Evgenia Smetisko/Eugenia Smith." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JOHANNFROEBEL (talk • contribs) 18:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Her claim was ridiculous, and any article that fails to point that out is incomplete and misleading. If you can locate a historian who states that he believes her claim, feel free to add that citation to the article. - Nunh-huh 01:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Response: Whether we opine that her claim is anything it is just that- An opinion. Whether any historian "thinks" her claim is anything has nothing to do with basic facts. Wikipedia is meant to inform about fact, not report conjecture. I do not wish to state what I think about E. Smetisko. Perhaps some researcher, anthropologist, forensic scientist, etc will someday solve the riddle of Grand Duchess Anastasia. That would clarify our knowledge about E. Smetisko. Until that time, what we know about Anastasia is what we know, and what we know about E. Smetisko is what we know. There is no agenda. There is no speculation. People are free to enjoy their own ruminations on the subject. - unsigned

What historians think of Smith's absurd claim is a basic fact, and that's why an informative encyclopedia article will leave no doubt about it in its readers' minds. - Nunh-huh 23:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Historians are STILL thinking and STILL researching. Some elements in the Orthodox Church do not even accept 100% that the reinterred remains of the Imperial Family are even theirs. We must be careful to report that which IS known, and allow reseachers to continue with the best tools at their disposal. Researchers are interested in what others believe to be sure. They are not fettered by opinions that are offered as canon. Wikipedia does a great service by providing data which can be used by others. The date of Evgenia Smetisko's birth may be refuted by the majority. The fact is, however, that it WAS placed on her grave marker, which does NOT carry the name GRAND DUCHESS ANASTASIA, but rather EVGENIA SMETISKO. It will be fascinating to read what later research tells us about the final journey of the Tsar and his family. Until then allow researchers to know about the data available so that they can get clues to refute, establish, confirm or debunk."Informative encyclopedia articles" have no mandate to affect readers' opinions.They need only inform without agenda. - unsigned

If we don't know who carved it there, it's unattribued, and it doesn't belong. -Nunh-huh 03:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether it belongs or does not is for each visitor, researcher, etc to decide. It is, however, the date which is on the marker for all to see. It would seem to be part of the mystery not of Anastasia, but of Evgenia Smetisko.JOHANNFROEBEL 03:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)JF

Unadorned propaganda without explanation has no place here. You have added it back in, so I have re-added the explanation. - Nunh-huh 03:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please add

How she met Michael Golenewski and said he was her brother, then switched and said he wasn't because her editor told her it would mean she would have to admit to lieing in her manuscript. Could you also add how both forensic experts and graphologists concluded she could not have been Anastasia way back in 1963! I'm getting the impression whoever wrote this article believe Eugenia was Anastasia because there is no mention of the many cons but plenty of the pros.

Perhaps as the "cons" are ostensibly in the majority from all known world sources and commentators. If anything which seems to be a "pro" is mentioned it is merely as a "Denkanstoss" and is not meant to affirm or deny any claim at all. It is, rather, meant to add points to ponder as we all have "hunches," or "intuitions," or what we believe to be almost "gospel truth" to one point of view or the other. There are some interesting factors in the case of Eugenia Smith, just as there were with Anna Anderson. At the very least, they allow us to revisit history, learn, and expand our horizons, even if they were not necessarily the people they purported to be. All the comments from all the submitters are thought provoking and fascinating to read, no matter which direction they take. That in itself is positive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JOHANNFROEBEL (talk • contribs) 04:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)