Talk:Grigori Rasputin/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Line seems really out of place for any factual account

"At first sight Rasputin looks like a symbol of decadence and obscurantism, of the complete corruption of the imperial court in which he was able to float to the top." This seems really out of place and more opinion, than any factual account even if attributed. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello mr 96317752. Out of place is rather exaggerated, opinion ok, but the Rasputin discussion is about these topics. Besides the article is full with facts. I don't see your problem. Is it the "complete corruption" that disturbes you? Taksen (talk) 13:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Are you only active on talk pages? I will ask around, if it really necessary. thx.Taksen (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this (and certain other lines) is that it's written quite informally and seems biased towards Rasputin. It sounds like something that would come from a narrative rather than an encyclopedic article.70.66.253.198 (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2014

Popular culture section:

Rasputin is now the focus of a major new musical theatre work[207] Rasputin, Ripples to Revolution a musical by Peter Karrie

implies that the citation verifies "Ripples to Revolution" as a "major new musical theatre work." In fact, it only verifies the existence of the production, and its subject. Proposed edit:

Rasputin is the subject of a musical theatre production "Ripples to Revolution", by Peter Karrie[207]

Jupiterberry (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Done Technical 13 (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Seasons

Dear Mr Afterwriting. Discussions about the content or style of an article should be on the talkpage, and not at a userpage. I asked you in the beginning to explain your clarifications on the talkpage, now the information on WP:SEASON is somewhere on your userpage. It is obvious you like to hurt instead of asking yourself if you did the right thing. Your talkpage is almost empty and there is no archive. Nobody can see with whom or about you were discussing. It seems this "fight" will go on for the next few days and I suppose it is better to move the article to my website and go on there. The whole world knows when it is winter here, it is Summer in Australia, and I was not not aware, this is a problem for some Wikipedians. Taksen (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You continue to make gratuitous and unjustified offensive comments. The MoS principles on seasons were explained to you on my talkpage as you first started the discussion there. To then copy my initial reply on this page without asking my permission for this is completely unacceptable. You have a lot to learn about how to go about things on Wikipedia. It also seems that you have adopted an unacceptable WP:OWN attitude to this article. If you don't want other editors to improve the article and to make corrections and improvements then you need to rethink whether you should be on here in the first place. Your very silly comments about me wanting to "hurt" and that there is a "fight" going on are further indications of your problematic attitude to how Wikipedia articles are developed collaborately. It was you who thought that you should lecture me in a condescending manner on my talk page. You do not own this article and other editors can make improvements and corrections as required. Like all editors I sometimes make mistakes, as I inadvertently did with changing a quotation. I am open to understanding and accepting editing mistakes when they are pointed out to me. You, however, seem very unwilling to do the same. Afterwriting (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2014

I have enjoyed a beer by the name of "Old Rasputin" that I thought would be worth a mention in the popular culture section of this page. I would be inclined to say something along the lines of "Rasputin is the name of a Russian Imperial Stout produced by North Coast Brewing, located in Fort Bragg, California." Sevenyspecial (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Sevenyspecial [1]

Sevenyspecial (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Technical 13 (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

In the bullet points below "In Popular Culture"

Change X

"With the aim of casting Leonardo DiCaprio as Rasputin, Warner Brothers have bought the rights to a screenplay by Jason Hall.[234]"

to Y

"With the aim of casting Leonardo DiCaprio as Rasputin, Warner Brothers have bought the rights to a screenplay by Jason Hall.[234]

Old Rasputin is the name of a Russian Imperial Stout produced by North Coast Brewing, located in Fort Bragg, California."

Sevenyspecial (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Sevenyspecial

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sam Sailor ^Sing 07:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sevenyspecial (talk)

Change X

"With the aim of casting Leonardo DiCaprio as Rasputin, Warner Brothers have bought the rights to a screenplay by Jason Hall.[234]"

to Y

"With the aim of casting Leonardo DiCaprio as Rasputin, Warner Brothers have bought the rights to a screenplay by Jason Hall.[234]

Old Rasputin is the name of a Russian Imperial Stout produced by North Coast Brewing, located in Fort Bragg, California. Old Rasputin is listed as a beer produced by North Coast Brewing Company on this Wikipedia page about North Coast Brewing Company.Sevenyspecial (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Sevenyspecial

 Not done - No changes requested. X = Y ("With the aim of casting Leonardo DiCaprio as Rasputin, Warner Brothers have bought the rights to a screenplay by Jason Hall"). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Awkward/biased sentences

During my reading of this article, I happened upon several lines that seem to have come out of a narrative:

"At first sight Rasputin looks like a symbol of decadence and obscurantism, of the complete corruption of the imperial court in which he was able to float to the top. And so he has usually been treated in the history books. The temptation to wallow in the rhetoric of the lower depths in describing him is almost irresistible. And yet the truth is somewhat simpler: Rasputin was only able to play the part he did because of the dispersal of authority which very much deepened after Stolypin's death, and because of the bewildered and unhappy isolation in which the royal couple found themselves."

"Most of Rasputin's enemies had by now disappeared. Stolypin was dead, Count Kokovtsov fallen from power, Theofan exiled, Hermogen illegally banished and Iliodor in hiding."

"It has been claimed that this story was fabricated by Dzhunkovsky in order to discredit Rasputin.[102] A Moscow governor and Stepan Beletsky verified that Rasputin never visited the Yar restaurant. According to Nelipa he was petrified of going to an unknown restaurant, and partying with an 78-year-old woman with whom he stayed in Moscow and only left her house to attend a church is not very credible. The police did not interview any witness in the restaurant; an unreliable report was presented a few months later. Another explanation is from Tatyana Mironova. She came up with a Rasputin look alike."

"he Emperor got rid of those of his Ministers who were at best half-hearted about the war, Ivan Shcheglovitov and Vladimir Sabler, as the head of the Holy Synod, and replaced them by men who had the confidence of the country. In September the Duma was sent into recess and would not gather again till February 1916. Vasily Maklakov published his famous article, describing Russia as a vehicle with no brakes, driven along a narrow mountain path by a "mad chauffeur", a reference to the Tsar."

"Alexandra then persuaded her husband that all the ministers who had, so to speak, struck work against Premier Goremykin should be replaced as soon as possible."

"Protopopov was a questionable politician and showed signs of mental disorder. He was fanatically convinced that he had a mission to save Russia."

"A gramophone in the study played interminable the Yankee Doodle, when Rasputin came in."

"(Yusupov was keen on describing Rasputin as a monster, that did not die from poison. So he could hide the real course of events, and become the "Savior of Russia")."

"The nervous Yusupov clubbed his victim severely."

"It seems members of the new Cabinet were worried, that the place of the grave of Rasputin would become widely known and provocations could be expected there."

"This discovery may significantly change the whole premise and account of Rasputin's death."

"Fuhrmann thinks it is not very likely a Webley and an unjacketed bullet was used; its impact would have been different."

Seriously, is this supposed to be a formal, unbiased article? The above examples are very informal, biased towards their subject, and (some of them) are quite awkwardly worded/have incorrect grammatical tenses - basically, it's like reading a puff piece. I suggest a rewrite of the article to condense and remove any frivolous details.70.66.253.198 (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply on 70.66.253.198

Hello Mr 70.66.253.198. I have been checking your changes since August 2013. You seem to be an expert on South Korean Girl bands, right? None of them is on a historical subject. It hard to take your advise seriously, but I will take a look at it. At least you did what is expected from a "non-expert", to make clear on the talk page what is problematic. Thanks.
The quite awkwardly worded phrases and incorrect grammatical tenses are easy to solve, just wait, but some of the items you mention above are very true and it would be strange to leave them out. You need to have very good arguments to undo some of the quotes. May be you are not used to quote? Everybody can check which book, article or website they came from, and what is their context.
Rasputin is the most difficult subject I ever have been confronted with. There is a lot of material and there a lot of views. After hundred years it is still not clear not happened exactly. How can you expect from me to explain clearly, where M. Nelipa needs 600 pages to explain what she discovered. She is only one of the many authors. This article is not finished, and I doubt it will ever be. The subject is just too difficult. I started a year ago reading about Rasputin, and I am still busy. (There are quite a few books waiting on my desk.) In my point of view studying a subject and writing an article is a process, and your views on the topic change. I added to the article what I thought was interesting without changing the wording. Where I changed the wording I also made mistakes, so I stick to my idea of quoting where I used more than one sentence from the author.
Did you compare the article with what was here a year ago? You will notice it was very bad, worse than it is now. For the earlier authors it was impossible to give a reliable account on Rasputin. It was full with nonsense and inaccurate information. My English is limited, so a lot of times I used the original wording of the authors. I asked an Englishman to check my grammar and he will come up soon with more. He checked the first half.Taksen (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Since a few weeks I started to check Wikipedia articles on Russian politicians from the early 20th century. Many were very bad, and without any references. Quite a few had a template, that they needed to be improved, also with information from the Russian Wikipedia. This article had templates, dating from 2009! It seems to me for many people it is too much work, or they don't like to study a subject for a certain amount of time. If you don't like my point view on Rasputin, and I am not trying to defend him, honestly, you should go to the articles on Vladimir Purishkevich, Mikhail Rodzianko, Alexander Guchkov, Pavel Milyukov, Alexander Trepov, Alexander Kerensky, Grand Duke Dmitri and add information there, that would help. I am busy on Felix Yusupov, which is an article with a very romantic inaccurate content. I have never heard Wikipedia is known for its (well written) articles and style or reliable content. Many articles on the English Wikipedia are poorly written, I assume by native speakers and more important unreliable and extremely superficial.Taksen (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Errors

This article seems to lack structure and contradicts itself in a pretty bad manner. e.g.

"There was alcohol (cognac according to Kossorotov) in his body, no water found in his lungs[197][198] and no cyanide in his stomach"

"There is no evidence that Rasputin swallowed water after being pushed into the Neva or that he had freed his arm to make the sign of the cross."

"It could not be determined with certainty that he drowned, as the water found in his lungs is a common non-specific autopsy finding"

Was there water, was there not? Correction and/or clarification, please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.189.127 (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2014

Grigori Rasputin is a Fire Pokemon and could therefore only be harmed by water. 189.177.5.252 (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 02:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2014

Under Assasination, with regard to the statement that the British .455 Webley was the only large caliber handgun firing a soft lead slug in use in the theatre at that time, the assertion is incorrect. The Russian military adopted the 7.62mm Gas Seal Nagant as its standard side arm in 1895. The Nagant replaced a variant of the Model 3 Smith & Wesson single action which was manufactured by the Tula Arsenal, among others, under license from S & W. The variant was known as the "Russian Model" and was in use as the standard Russian military sidearm from circa 1872 to 1895. Many of those pistols remained in service as second standards into and beyond WW-I. The Model 3 Russian fired a cartiridge developed by S & W for the Russian military known as .44 Russian. The developement was well received and both the pistol and cartridge became commercially popular both in Russia and the U.S. While more powerful than the .455 Webley, the ball for the .44 Russian is approximately the same size as the Webley ball and is soft lead. Accordingly, since Grand Duke Dmitri Romanov and a local army officer were present the night of the assasination, it is more likely that any large caliber pistol ball would have been fired from a Russian Model Smith rather than a Webley. The facts regarding the Model 3 Russian can be verified in any number of references on WW-I era military firearms.

71.62.43.200 (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please provide the citation or a web link to a reliable source per WP:BURDEN Cannolis (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Holy fool

a holy fool

You have six footnotes on three words. What do you want to prove? Are you starting a new sect? Do you need members? The Guardian has a foolish article on Rasputin, I am sorry for them. The Alexander Palace forum, an authority on Rasputin, hardly mentions it. The Russian Wikipedia on Holy Fools does not mention Rasputin at all. The article on [2] mentions Rasputin twice, but nothing very interesting. It is blablabla, by a student. You are exaggerating with your references. Let us see what other people think, instead of dumping your information here. I told you before to add it to the article on Holy Fools and improve the article there. That is where it belongs. Taksen (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Taksen (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

---

• (edit conflict) Why do I have six footnotes? Because you removed the first with only one footnote, right. So I added more to cover the topic. Now there are too many for your taste? And since when it is forbidden to exaggerate with your references?. Is there a such policy? So you removed all six footnotes. Why do you remove referenced material? Twice? Is this because those references does not correspond your own view of Gregory Rasputin? Not willing to extend your views further too also comprehend a different view? This is edit warring. Also please be civil, because your comments are not exactly civil. Are you starting a new sect? Do you need members - well, this is irony and bad faith. I am not starting a new sectstudy (as you formulated) at all, but I do study theology at the Lund University. And think WP:Ownership of articles.

And this? [3] Holy Foolishness in Russia: New Perspectives. Priscilla Hunt and Svitlana Kobets, Bloomington, IN. Mentions Rasputin sa Holy fool on line 27. Svetlana Kobets is not a bla bla student, but a Ph.D. from the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures from University of Illinois,

What exactly it is wrong adding holy fool to an article that already presents him as a prophet, a mystic, a psychic a faith healer and a starets? ... The starets are (citation) :spiritual fathers, charismatic spiritual leaders whose wisdom stems from God as obtained from ascetic experience. It is believed in Russia that through ascetic struggle, prayer and Hesychasm (seclusion or withdrawal), the Holy Spirit bestows special gifts onto the elders including the ability to heal, prophesy, and most importantly, give effective spiritual guidance and direction. What is the problem?

Students don't get their papers put up online without being checked by teachers. The Alexander Palace forum, an authority on Rasputin, hardly mentions it? I was barely mentioning it, but got that removed. Maybe the definition of holy fool does not correspond with the Western way of seeing Rasputin as a man of scandals and controversies a politically disgraceful and unpleasant shocking horrific awful person. But he and his religiosity is part of the specific Russian Orthodox spirituality, an extended Russian spiritual tradition.

This is the definition: " Holy foolishness for Christ's sake", Holy fools or iurodstvo, a peculiar form of East Orthodox asceticism, whose practitioners feign madness in order to provide public with spiritual guidance but eschew praise for their saintliness, an uniquely Russian notion of holiness ... By his feigned madness the holy fool opts to say that the lowliest of the low can be not the poor wretch he appears to be, but a holy one and God's prophet. He shares his power and authority with all the weak, mocked and despised thus symbolically destroying clear-cut distinctions between the profane and the sacred." Rasputin and his behavior seen in a secular Western specific way don’t give a good understanding of his conduct. Holy fools and Fools for Christ often employ shocking, unconventional behavior to challenge accepted norms, this conduct was widely known and respected behavior by the traditional Russian spiritually. Rasputin did demonstrate a shocking, unconventional behavior in many ways during his controversial life that did challenge the conventional view of his times and certainly when anyone judging him from a secular point of view..Yes, it has its place here. Hafspajen (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit summary

User Taksen. You also tell me in your edit summary: you dont seem to understand. Moynahan did not call him a fool. It does not belong here. Is Moynahan the only source that is valid here? Moynahan is a former European editor of the Sunday Times of London and author of a Bestseller book on Rasputin, THE SAINT WHO SINNED. He describes Rasputin as a drinker, thief, womanizer, from the medieval past . . . tattered, black-clad, muttering. Is his view the only one that is accepted by you? I gave you various sources, three of them are from different University presses, below. If I would put those references back into the article you would remove them again in two seconds, but you do not want to discuss and respond here. Why do you just ignore this discussion? You do not want to acknowledge the references above. Hafspajen (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Reply by JJ: This section is a bit confusing now. Anyway:

• "This tradition continued within the Russian Orthodox Church - the most successful recent holy fool to profit from this mystical aura who springs to mind was Rasputin." Manfred Pfister (2002), "A History of English Laughter: Laughter from Beowulf to Beckett and Beyond", p.39
• "Rasputin was a wandering “holy man,” a Strannik (pilgrim) in search of God in the tradition of many Orthodox Russians. He was known alternately as a Starets (unofficial spiritual guide) and a Yurodiviy (holy fool)." Spencer C. Tucker, ‎Priscilla Mary Roberts (2005), "The Encyclopedia of World War I: A Political, Social, and Military History, p.967

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

foolsday

April Fools' Day (sometimes called All Fools' Day) is an informal holiday celebrated every year on April 1. Popular since medieval times, the day is not a national holiday in any country, but it is widely recognized throughout European cultures and celebrated as a day when people play practical jokes and hoaxes on each other, called April fools.Taksen (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes...? Did you got the impression that the Holy fool was an April fool joke? Hafspajen (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Goodmorning, I like the idea Rasputin was a sort of psychotherapist for Alexandra, but you will not be able to add much that proves it. The same is true for Rasputin as a holy fool; there are no or almost no facts; there is a resemblance with fools. Quite often, in almost any book, Rasputin is called a Man of God by Alexandra, but I would be very surprised if she ever referred him as a Holy Fool. She would have made herself ridiculous, don't you think? Kerensky or Guchkov would have used it against him or her. May be you can add your stuff to Alexandra, though. Royalty and religion go together very well. I tried and I hoped I did, to stick to the facts in the article. Good luck.Taksen (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• But please, have you seen all those references that do call him part of the Holy fool spiritual tradition? The Holy fool is a special Russian religious figure in the Russian Orthodox Church. Holy fool is not a fool, but a kind of eccentric religious figure, a crazy-wise person. Like Blessed John of Moscow the Fool-For-Christ who was walking around with chains and Basil Fool for Christ who was walking around naked. Basil used to break in to wealthy peoples shops and steal food and give it the poor. He also was quarrelling with Ivan the Terrible, because Basil thought he was too bloody cruel (and so he was). Not exactly a life insurance those times. The Tsar would probably kill any other man criticizing him, but he left Basil alone; because he was a holy fool. The Saint Basil's Cathedral is named after this Basil. A popular thing this, in Russia, called Foolishness for Christ. There are quite a lot of different sources. It is kind of hard to overlook those. (Unless you mean that YOU are the one joking about this)... This is about theology not insanity. This is what he is called, because he is part of this religious tradition, this is what I mean. I don't want to add that like an opinion of or some of Alexandra's ideas about him. And I never said that the Tsar or Alexandra called him holy fool. It was actually you who moved that part so now it looks like it was her statement. Hafspajen (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Taksen: Have you got any idea what's being meant with "holy fool"? Have a look at Yurodiviy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Childish handwriting

The arguments are very strange. There is nothing offending calling the Rasputin's handwriting childish. He did not attend school, and was an alphabet until the year 1892 or may be later. It is not known when and where he learned writing.Taksen (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC) Rasputin used pre-printed requests around 1915, just because he had problems to write. The Tsarina and Vyroubova helped him and rewrote the text of his pamflets. Taksen (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Plausible, but we can't engage in original research - such writing pattern may be caused by various anomalies in the brain or wrist of an adult. Materialscientist (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Materialscientist, do you think I was the one who invented this? Rasputin's handwriting is mentioned in most of the books. To begin here [4][5][6]. You may change it to awkward and use these references.Taksen (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you just let people decide and say his handwriting? Why do you want to use NPOV words? You want to call him childish and awkward. I think that Rasputin and his person have been accused of various unpleasant things already. His affiliation with the Russian Tsar gave the Tsar's enemy plenty of possibility to influence the history and try to make Rasputin into a monster. One has to be careful about history writing - who is doing it? Are the winners or the losers? In this case Rasputin was the loser, he got killed without no trial (does anyone mention this simple fact?), and his obvious faults and his name have been dragged through the mud. Are we going to go on with this in an encyclopedia? To write articles from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of the absolutelly most fundamental principles of Wikipedia. The other pillar is WP:Civility, and this edit summary of yours, Taksen: You are not an expert but a bureaucrat is not exactly what we call civil. Hafspajen (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Warning: there are well defined policies for this, and prefer nonjudgmental language is one of them. Also if you go on reverting it again you will be in an edit war, see here Wikipedia:Edit warring.

Reply by JJ:

• [7]: "awkward habdwriting"
• [8]: "a hardly decipherable handwriting"
• [9]: "It is clear to any historian that the “diary” is not written in Rasputin’s handwriting."
• Google Books Rasputing "childish handwriting": zero hits

So, nothing about "childish handwriting". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Analphabet and illiterate

[10][11]

• The reaction of you both is exaggerated on something that is not untrue, but there is a solution now. ☺
• This caption needed some explanation because it was written not in English but in Cyrillic.
• Last but not least, this page is not meant for elongated attacks on authors, but on the topic. Keep it factual.Taksen (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sigh... That is what we say too. Keep it factual. Illiterate means he can't read or write, so your caption is a bit surprising now. Joshua Jonathan gave you some sources. I think if you can't leave it alone, as it was, Rasputins hadwrinting - then Joshua's "a hardly decipherable handwriting" is the most appropriate (also properly sourced). As it is now, it is saying: here is the handwrithing of a man who can't write... Hafspajen (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• 3 of 4 sources Jonathan mentioned came from me, remember? He just copied them with a lot of empty spaces around it.
• Rasputin referred to the royal couple as "Mama" and "Papa." The word childish is not completely out of focus.Taksen (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I got your point, Taksen. But man, you can't put that into the Wikipedia, we have rules here. We are writing an encyclopedia not a novel. Hafspajen (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead I

It is very important to mention there is a lot of nonsense written on Rasputin. The readers should be warned before reading the article. By removing this information or moving it to the notes, leaving sentences out it that clarify it, this will not be understood by the reader. Adding nonsense as "guru" or "holy fool" makes very clear what I am talking about.Taksen (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Woo. Now, we had a discussion here above before, and "holy fool" is quite well backed with sources and not nonsense. It was added by Joshua and you go an remove it. Guru, I don't know. That is a Sanskrit term for "teacher" or "master", and how did it got in here, I am not aware of. Hafspajen (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I rewrote the whole article and added two hundred references, what Jonathan did is changing the lead, so his information, two words and one one reference, would not look ridiculous, and n.b. his note comes first. Because Alexandra read a book on Holy Fools does not mean Rasputin was one.[12] You cannot proof he was a holy fool, it is your believe. He is mentioned only once in these books [13], [14] None of them has any detailed information on Rasputin. Some characteristics [15] don't fit at all: shouting, crying, either going naked or in rags. Holy Fools assume folly or madness.[16]. It is difficult to connect Rasputin's flamboyant lifestyle with holy fools "purifying themselves in introspection and prayer, leading a physically gruelling life, homeless, dressed in rags or in nothing at all". I don't see why the whole introduction had to be changed so your "information" would fit in better. Taksen (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Taksen, do you think that your point of view on this is the only that matters? It looks like that to me. You are disrupting things by going after your own head. You ignore other editors, references, discussions. Have you heard about Wikipedia:Consensus? What do you mean You cannot proof he was a holy fool, it is your believe? I did give you a couple of references, so did Joshua. It is nothing we believe. Not all holy fools was dressed in rags, there is no holy fool fashion-style craving they should do that. They are not necessarily homeless either; there are plenty of homeless in rags without being a holy fool at all. But above all there are no lists of holy fools, you can start checking. Some of your requirements you have. Rasputin did pray. He was religious. He has been seen mumbling for himself and looking wild. He had the gift of a healer and he made one or two prophecies. Rasputin did demonstrate a shocking, unconventional behavior in many ways during his controversial life that did challenge the conventional view of his times and certainly when anyone judging him from a secular point of view. He did behave quite irrational, but maybe not the way you would expect it. Grigory giving up drinking, smoking, and eating meat. When he arrived home he had learned to read and write and had become a zealous convert. Rasputin was said to possess the ability to heal through prayer (kind of holy...) from the article. This part might fit some of your demands. But the problem is that we just jump ower the religious part. You yourself are often confused by his behavior but you just say: he was childish and awkward, a drinker, thief, womanizer...whatever. Hafspajen (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It nice to meet an expert [17], but I don't see why your view on holy fools in Russian history (part of recent or on-going research) should be mentioned in this biography. It does not make it easier to understand Rasputin, on the contrary.Taksen (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Taksen you are looking at the man from the outside, not the inside. You could have here a clue to his personality, but you WANT to see him in your own way from the outside. You wrote in the article :He was obsessed by religion[5] and impressed many people with his knowledge and ability to explain the Bible in an uncomplicated way. Right. He was religious, but you want to disregard this fact and treat him as something weird and secular. Taksen, why are you obsessed with this person? Do you want to see him as a monster like an exotic Draculas or a human beeing? Are you obsessed by the cruelty in this history? The rudness? Or you just think of him like a person who was weird? Hafspajen (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• The citatons that follow are from your reference, Taksen, that you gave as a proof that he isnot a holy fool, and that you are not convinced by those references: Some caracteristics as you say (ref 13), doesnt fit? Tr ref 13: Eva Binder page 144

  The holy fools were presumed "holy sinners" regarded as simultaniously pure and impure, they belived to sin "for the sake of humility rather than than for personal advantage"

[18]

Another seminal characteristic of the fool in Christ is that, as a liminal figure, in the cultural as well as the social sense the holy fool is simultaneously oriented towards sacred and profane values, norms, and models. Moreover, through his appearance, discourse, and behavior he simultaneously affirms and challenges the stability and the very reality of the existing social order and its values.

[19]

The claim that the whole of Russian culture, as well as the Russian people’s collective sense of self, had been markedly influenced by this phenomenon, has been advanced on several occasions.

[20]

On the one hand the great variety of holy foolish types described in early Byzantine texts did not become outdated and accounts for the contemporary holy foolish types just as well. On the other hand, as a live phenomenon enduring in changing socio-historical circumstance, holy foolishness cannot but change and assume new forms, both in liturgical and artistic spheres. When we talk about the types of holy fools, evolution of this cultural paradigm and the phenomenology of holy foolishness in general, we have to keep in mind that fools for Christ of late antiquity, of the medieval period, and even of early modern times are available to us only through their textualizations--mostly hagiographic portrayals.

[21]

Since we are talking about the holy fools today, I would like to note that the iurodivy is presented seemingly only in hagiographies whereas in real life it is always a controversial, sordid, and even appalling figure, which does not make acceptance of his message easy for the onlookers.

(Sordid synonyms: notorious, repugnant,distasteful, wretched, disreputable; appalling synonyms: dreadful horrendous awful )

[22]

The iurodivyi is indeed a madman and a sage, a prophet and a pariah who always vacillates between sacred and profane realms. ... By presenting himself to the world as a feeble-minded, marginal individual, the holy fool exposes himself to society, to its cruelty or mercy.

.All this could make you think (your reference).

• This article presents him like this: At first sight Rasputin looks like a symbol of decadence and obscurantism, of the complete corruption of the imperial court in which he was able to float to the top. And so he has usually been treated in the history books. The temptation to wallow in the rhetoric of the lower depths in describing him is almost irresistible. And yet the truth is somewhat simpler: Rasputin was only able to play the part he did because of the dispersal of authority which very much deepened after Stolypin's death, and because of the bewildered and unhappy isolation in which the royal couple found themselves Again, a citation that shows a view from the outside. It was the others that made him to something, he himself is nothing.

You can't really see this person in a secular way. The article is much about murder, politics and presenting Rasputin as obsessed. With religion. Religion is presented as an obsession, a pityfull weird thing that is an opium for the stupid. Hafspajen (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"Holy fool" is well-sourced. The meaning is clear. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hagiography

I left out all the nonsense on hypnotism, etc. and scandals (where Rasputin was involved with women). On purpose, it would become almost a novel. In stead I put more attention to the politics or politicians before the downfall of the empire, something that was completely missing. Now you like to change the article in a hagiography? Rasputin was murdered for political reasons and not for his beliefs. I think Rasputin is best regarded as a strannik, a pilgrim, and not as a starets or a iurodstvo, a holy fool. I hope I made clear Rasputin was not a fool, and not holy. P.S. I like psychology, but I would not dare to explain his inner life here. There is no movie, no recording, where we can see the expressions on his face or hear him talking. It is dangerous what you do and could be classified as original research. Taksen (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you like religion? (Once again a holy fool is not a fool. It is a specific Russian religious tradition, and all of them are not shouting, crying, or going naked or in rags. You are looking for something that can explain things for you but it is not about the rags or the shouting.) And it is NOT ORIGINAL RES. No way. You got like nine references on it. What I am talking about it is the complex personality of the holy fools, which if left out it shows a secularized picture of a strongly religious man's inner motives. Holy fols are an uniquely Russian notion of holiness. This article is treating Rasputin's religiousness in a superficial way. It is NOT a hagiography mentioning this. I am not making him a saint. It is a way of explaining some of his behavior that otherwise is weird and curious. I am only trying to give him a fair trial. I m trying to put him into a context, into a religious background that determine, specify and clarify his personality and actions. i am trying to add a bit of the puzzle. I added this because I have the knowledge of this sort of things, and also Jonathan, indeed. I think that many people in this secularized world disregard things. Fine with me, it is something personal and people have the right to believe what they want. But when it comes explaining a highly controversial persons inner motives that has on top of everything as I wrote above was compromised by his enemies. His affiliation with the Russian Tsar gave the Tsar's enemy plenty of possibility to influence the history and try to make Rasputin into a monster. One has to be careful about history writing - who is doing it? Are the winners or the losers? Alexandra, like Rasputin obsessed with religion, is the only thing here that appears all the time. This sounds like religion is something unpleasant and dangerous. I don't agree. This is the socialism and Karl Marx and F. Engels way of looking at religion. I think the Russians are indeed very religious people, and it is part of their identity and soul. It is quite different from the more secular parts of Europe. (You are Dutch, Taksen, right?) And being religious is not automatically means that one is a saint, that is quite a superficial way of seeing it. Hafspajen (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, you changed the referenced text to something you added back like this: Alexandra saw him as a holy fool. Nobody said so, and this is not what the references say either. You want to disregard this because or you simply don't understand it or don’t like it. I don't know how much religion history or theology you read, but it is weird that you simply remove something that got plenty of references, and declare that you don't believe them. And you don't let anyone edit this article; this is the only accepted version for you, written by you, in your sandbox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Taksen/sandbox Hafspajen (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC

Jonathan changed to his version again. He deleted sentences with references, and changed the content of sentences which have a reference. This is unacceptable. His note is bigger than than the information he added into the article. I don't trust that. If tomorrow two people think Rasputin was a beatnik, a hippie or punk it should be accepted, because they are in a majority? I know many Wikipedians think that it is the possible, but this is not my point of view. Jonathan changed the lead and in a brute way, without using the talk page. Someone added information on Rasputin beer, but Rasputin never drank vodka or beer, only dessert wines or champagne. It will become a mess again within a few weeks, when we allow everybody to put his ideas on Rasputin here. Besides your English is bad, as everybody can see. I don't trust it. Taksen (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

My friend,

• You restored your preferred version of the lead diff, without discussion, deleting sourced info. So don't accuse me of the behaviour you're displaying;
• Editing is not about voting, it's about WP:RS; in your case, WP:RS versus WP:IDONTLIKEIT;
• The "Rasputin beer" is not in the lead; so what are you talking about? Please use proper arguments;
• My level of English is good enough for Wikipedia; this statement of yours is an ad hominem attack. Please refrain from that kind of behaviour

In sum: use proper arguments. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

(Note from outsider:) Jonathan, it looks to me like Taksen was criticizing Hafspajen's English, not yours. It's rude in any case, especially in reference to talkpage posts where perfection is not required, only communication. (And comes a little oddly from someone who for instance writes above "You cannot proof he was a holy fool, it is your believe".) What's not to "trust"? Bishonen | talk 11:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC).

Oh, I see. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, this much for the nonjudgmental language. About that beer, it was a beer that was called Old Rasputin, that somebody added. (Not me.) Nobody said he drunk that. Nobody said Rasputin was a beatnik, a hippie or punk either. And we should allow everybody to edit Wikipedia, that is the whole idea. You may want to read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Hafspajen (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The holy fool references

a holy fool

• +[23] Holy Foolishness in Russia: New Perspectives. Priscilla Hunt and Svitlana Kobets, Bloomington, IN. Mentions Rasputin sa Holy fool on line 27. Svetlana Kobets is a Ph.D. from the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures from University of Illinois,

• + "This tradition continued within the Russian Orthodox Church - the most successful recent holy fool to profit from this mystical aura who springs to mind was Rasputin." Manfred Pfister (2002), "A History of English Laughter: Laughter from Beowulf to Beckett and Beyond", p.39
• +"Rasputin was a wandering “holy man,” a Strannik (pilgrim) in search of God in the tradition of many Orthodox Russians. He was known alternately as a Starets (unofficial spiritual guide) and a Yurodiviy (holy fool)." Spencer C. Tucker, ‎Priscilla Mary Roberts (2005), "The Encyclopedia of World War I: A Political, Social, and Military History, p.967

Shortening the lead

I think that this additon should be removed again; too specific for the lead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I've shortened the lead again; all those details are a hinderance for outsiders. Just the essentials. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

For whatever it may be worth, I think you did an outstanding job. Well done. - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Perception

I guess I understand the idea of this section, but a bullet-list may not be the best way to present this info, I think. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

LEAD

Rasputin in his salon among admirers; his father (the 4th from the right) in early 1914, photo by Karl Bulla

According to WP:LEAD

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.[2] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, but the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows. Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate."

Mr. Jonathan, I want you to discuss this! No doubt there would be rule to tell you to do this. Some requests are better fulfilled than in your version. Taksen (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"Mr." Jonathan? Getting sarcastic? Anyway, this sentence says it all: "The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, but the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows." Being a relative outsider, I can tell that the longer version turns me off, while the short version gives all the essentials that are needed. Developing detailed arguments in the lead is not attractive. Apparently, others agree with me on that. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday I asked several people to advise me in this case. Please leave it in this state for a week. You forced me to rethink it and that is okay, but the lead should contain information on the article and tell the reader what he or she can expect when going on reading. Your version is too short, because you did not study the subject and prefer to leave the details out. I suppose it will possible to improve these three paragraphs in those days. I need some help, not by someone who boldly deletes. Who are the others by the way? Take a look at excellent articles and you will see many have a lead consisting of more then two paragraphs. Can you show me a good lead, according to the requirements and interesting enough to go on reading?Taksen (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Grigori Rasputin#Shortening the lead, and "the usual (other) suspect), Hafspajen. You're right, some leads are very long. Have a look at Hinduism, which is huge, resulting from long quarrels on the origins of HInduism. The point is, here, that the longer lead centers on the political influence and the assassiniation of Rasputin. This may be of interest to involved readers, but it's clueless to uninvolved readers. It will just turn them off, while there is a lot to read. So I think it's not a matter of "improving", but of limiting. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:53, 8 May 2014(UTC)

I am very upset, you changed it again without giving any other the possibility to react. It is a bad attitude. As you are an outsider it seems to me the lead is the only section where you can push through your ideas without studying the subject. The lead became boring and the idea of the political circumstances in Russia before the revolution is gone. I can imagine people became Russia tired in between, but the struggle between the Tsar, his government and the Duma on democracy seems very important to me. I guess I am not the only one here. Besides you showed me a bad lead as I did yesterday with Lawrence Summers. Why not a good lead? It cannot be so difficult. Taksen (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't be upset, Taksen. One of the Wkipedia's main idea is that everybody can edit it and people working on Wikipedia have to learn to cooperate with each other and tolerate each other. Hafspajen (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "the struggle between the Tsar, his government and the Duma on democracy seems very important to me", I think I get your point. Though it might also be worth asking: is that the topic of this article? though a counter-question could be: how relevant would Rasoutin have been without these struggles? Hmm, tell us more, please, if you like. I'll have another look at the article; no need to make you upset. Wikipedia should be fun, not upsetting. Vriendelijke groet, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I took another look. To be honest: I think the article might be split into a "general" biography, and an article on Rasputin's political influence. With due respect to all the efforts you took for this article, which no doubt are outstanding, the article is very detailed on his political role, which may not be of the greatest interest to the common reader. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

This is what I expected, your secret agenda, politics out and religion in. The level of the article has to go down to what common people understand. Education is a waste of time.Taksen (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh Taksen come on! "Secret agenda", that's not nice. I'm very sceptical about religious claims, as many Wikipedians can confirm. Education definitely is not a waste of time, but yes, there is an average understanding. Imagine a 17-year old high school kid who wants to know more anout Rasputin; what woould he/she like to know? What opportunity does this provide to you to educate someone you'll never meet, but nevertheless can give some of your knowledge and insight? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

A school kid does not need to know about the circumstances before the Russian revolution, I hope you are not working as a teacher. Your English became bad also. I am not sure if you can wait till other people did speak out. Taksen (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

TSss. But Taksen, has anyone SAID anything about religion this time? Joshua was actually trying to be nice, telling you he appreciate your work and the historical point of view, and also asked about other possible points of view, because you are an expert on Rasputin's life, wha? Don't bite us all the time. Hafspajen (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The murder on Rasputin had a political background. I will never forgive you when you succeed in leaving that out.Taksen (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Who, me? Hafspajen (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"The murder" is a missing line now in the lead. "Rasputin was murdered murdered on 30 December [O.S. 17 December] 1916[A. Kerensky (1965) Russia and History's turning point, p. 182.] by ... because of ...". Previous there was a line saying "The murder of Rasputin...", but the main line ought to be "Rasputin was murdered". Taksen, this is where you know most; what's to be written on the ... ? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

History

In between I checked Jonathan's history. He is a specialist on Hinduism and sects, even Dutch one's; he added guru in the lead. I am quite sure viewing Rasputin as a sectarian does not explain enough, except his behavior. It is just one of the labels you can put on him. After removing pro-peace Stürmer from government he was succeeded by Trepov and Pokrovsky. To the "German party" also belonged Alexandra, Protopopov, Rasputin and at some extend Vyrubova. I tried to make clear which views existed or decisions were made to get rid of the so-called German party. The Russian army would never reach Constantinople, as they were losing ground in Rumania in December 1916. At the same time there were talks on an independent Poland and not in favor of Imperial Russia. On 12 December (N.S.) the German Chancellor, Bethmann-Hollweg, in a speech in the Reichstag, offered to open negotiations with the Entente in a neutral country. The conspirators had to make haste getting rid of their opponents. Locking up Alexandra, getting rid of Protopopov and the murder on Rasputin should be viewed in that light.Taksen (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Now the outsider Jonathan wants to delete the section on the government, the duma, etc. At least half of the world likes to know on the moment what is essential in Russian politics. If one does not study its history one will never understand. Taksen (talk) 08:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete history? Delete the section on the government, the duma, etc? That sounds quite weird. Are you sure that is that he wants? Joshua Jonathan strike me as a sensible editor. Hafspajen (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I wrote that it might be a good idea to split the article; I didn't even propose to do so. And yes, half the world is interested in Russian politics - contemporary Russian politics. My, this reminds me of the "Internationale Socialisten". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)