Talk:Pierre Gilliard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Russia / Science & education / History (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and education in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
 

Old talk[edit]

Several questions exist with respect to the dates. Sokolov left Siberia for France aboard a French ship, so Gilliard did not work with him there for three years. Gilliard lived in Paris probably in the same buiding as Sokolov, and may have been married to his wife at that time, although the date and location of his marriage are often given as 1922 in Switzerland where they clearly lived for the rest of his life. 74.139.195.138 02:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC) T G Bolen

Hi Why indicated that Gilliard married Tegleve in 1919? For all internet-sites said that in 1922. Is there any authoritative source? (Or, in favor of 19 or 22),. I could not find .. Sorry for the terrible english.Google Translator ...SergeyA. (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the date of 1919 has been taken from: http://www.alexanderpalace.org/2006pierre/bio.html DrKiernan (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link.

But eating a lot of sites where specified in 1922 (I can only bring in Russian http://www.hrono.ru/biograf/bio_zh/index.php http://feb-web.ru/feb/rosarc/ra8/ra8-436-.htm) Where do these dates come from? They did not site owners come up with ... In this case, you need written authoritative sources. I partially translated this article into Russian, but what to do with the year? :)SergeyA. (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Pierre Gilliard article[edit]

The current article is very POV re Pierre Gilliard and Anna Anderson. The vast majority of references used are by Peter Kurth, a lifelong supporter of Anderson and not a true reflection at all of the opinions of Gilliard and his wife about Anderson. Gilliard in fact fought Anderson as an imposter for most of his life. He knew the real Grand Duchess Anastasia extremely well over many years, unlike Peter Kurth who never met the real Grand Duchess. Kurth only met the imposter Anderson who has been genetically proven to have no connection whatsoever with the Romanov family. Finneganw 08:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Also referenced are Gilliard's own books and Robert K. Massie's. It is not a biased portrayal. If you would like to add further references, perhaps from Gilliard's False Anastasia or from his book about the family, go ahead. I didn't because this article is about Gilliard and most of the books I found by him were about the Imperial family rather than about Gilliard himself or his own background. I'd love for someone to add info from a biography about Gilliard himself. His personal background and life after World War I needs to be fleshed out. Kurth's and King's books are the only ones I could find that gave any information about what he did after the war, but they included the information about Anna Anderson because that's the subject of their books. Nonetheless, I am comfortable that the article itself is not POV. I have removed your tag. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
As I said above, Kurth's book is a valid, published reference. The claims in the article are sourced. If you would like to add additional references about Gilliard from his books or from a biography of him, it would add greatly to the article, but I do not agree that it is POV as currently written and do not agree to the tag you have placed on the article. I have, therefore, removed it. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Your opinions Bookworm are well-known about Peter Kurth. He is an avid Anna Anderson supporter and as such is extremely POV. An article about Pierre Gilliard for wikipedia needs to be objective and sourced with primary source information and not second hand POV allegations not found elsewhere. Sadly Kurth is unable to be objective. His POV rants are well recorded on the Anna Anderson discussion page. The article on Gilliard is supposed to be about Gilliard and not Kurth's biased allegations. Please do not expect an article about Gilliard to be taken seriously on wikipedia if the majority of sources are from Kurth. Please do not remove the tag. Finneganw 13:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I have removed the tag for the reasons I described above. If you want to add more quotes about Gilliard, by all means do so. It can only improve the article. I can't find any more biographical information about Gilliard's life following the war, but maybe some of your books have such information. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with finneganw the article was very unfairly biased against Gilliard and endorsed only the viewpoint of Kurth, and Rathelf, from whom he got his information. I have added sourced quotes from another book that tells another side of the story. Bookworm, while you are a good writer, I have noticed that all the articles you write about those connected to the Romanovs and AA are incredibly biased in favor of AA. I don't think this is right to paint these people with a tar brush because of your axe to grind over AA.Aggiebean (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You also have a clear bias against people who supported Anna Anderson and genuinely believed her story and against Kurth's book, which is ongoing on the Anna Anderson debate page. I used the references I had and made it clear that he wrote books calling Anderson an impostor. Kurth's work is a published reference and it's legitimate to include it in the article. If you have other references that talk about Gilliard's life, great. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have with your use of Kurth as a reference is that always he is the only viewpoint presented. Since he is obviously biased in favor of her and against those who opposed her, it's not really fair to write an article about a man Kurth despised and frequently calls a 'liar' using only Kurth as a source. Yes, I added other information, but the point is, why would you write an article just to use Kurth's information to make this man look bad because of the Anderson case? You did the same thing to the Buxhoeveden article and it's very sad that these people have become only remembered essentially for being 'villains' in the AA affair. If that's the only way you wish to describe them why even write an article about them? On the AA page, there is plenty of Kurth, but if I try to add something that disagrees with Kurth or Rathlef he deletes it, and that is wrong. The article is now frozen, thanks to all the fighting.Aggiebean (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I used all the references I had that mentioned them. Wikipedia is the sort of site where people add to articles from their own sources. If you have other sources, go ahead and add to the articles and balance them out, so long as you don't remove already cited material. Wikipedia is intended as a quick general reference to point people in the direction of better and more in-depth material. It's not a site that is taken seriously by scholars and shouldn't be used by students as a main reference. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is a little snippet from the Hamburg trials that clearly shows Gilliard being a liar: Werkmeister: You have previously stated, Monsieur, that the Plaintiff did not speak or understand Russian. Do you wish to amend your previous statement? Gilliard: No. Werkmeister: Monsieur, may I remind you that you are under oath? I again ask if you wish to correct your previous statement? Gilliard: She spoke only one sentence, to my wife. I do not consider that linguistic ability. Werkmeister: We are not going to argue semantics, Monsieur. I believe that portions of the conversation in question took place in Russian? Gilliard: Yes. Werkmeister: And the Plaintiff did not engage in this conversation? Gilliard: She would answer certain questions posed her, but only in German. Werkmeister: Were these questions posed in Russian, or in German? Gilliard: Both languages. Werkmeister: Did the Plaintiff answer questions posed her in Russian in German? Gilliard: That is so. Werkmeister: And you say she answered these questions? Gilliard: Only in German. Werkmeister: But they were posed her in Russian? Gilliard: Yes. Werkmeister: So she understand Russian? Gilliard: She would not speak it. Werkmeister: That is not the question, Monsieur, and you have already conceded that she spoke it with your wife. Now, did she understand the Russian language? Gilliard: Yes. Olga Alexandrovna also stated in court that the unknown patient spoke some sentences in Russian to Mrs. Gilliard. 38.103.61.100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC).

File:Pierre Gilliard.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Pierre Gilliard.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 18 December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Pierre Gilliard/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Well-cited ans well-researched, but, in order to go higher that start , it needs further expansion IMO.--Yannismarou 11:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 11:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)