Talk:Oswald Rayner

	Biography portal 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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Biography / Intelligence / British / European / World War I C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Intelligence task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War I task force

Photograph

There's a photo of Rayner all over the web (e.g. [1]); can anyone figure out the origin, date and/or copyright? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits being deleted , told they are "disruptive", concerned that I am not being allowed to edit this highly subjective article which contains factual errors

My real concern is this: On 19th April, Director of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Maria Zakharova stated in the Russian parliament that Rasputin was killed by an English Mi6 agent by the name of Oswald Rayner. I go to Wikipedia to look up the article on Rasputin and find a balanced article where this "theory" is given a balanced treatment, then to the Wiki article on Rayner, which is highly subjective, contains factual errors, cites quotes which do not exist in historical books which do exist and looks like it was written by a Russian troll. I tried to provide alternative quotes from alternative sources, to balance this one-sided article, and not only are my edits immediately removed, but I receive a warning from Wikipedia for "disruptive" edits. What is going on here? We have a genuine need for balanced information on these matters, but it seems that I am being prevented from providing alternative accounts from alternative expert historical sources. At no time was I rude or insensitive to the original poster, I simply want to draw attention of the Wikipedia community to what is happening here. Sorry, I just saw your comment that you added just now at the bottom here. I will do ask you ask, and very much appreciate your patience and help. NSM.

There is evidence that Rainer was involved in the plot but it is by no means proved that he fired the bullet which killed Rasputin. Please see Furhmann: Rasputin:the Untold Story p. 229 and p.231. Also, the existing Wiki article states :" There were two officers of the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) in Petrograd at the time. Witnesses stated that at the scene of the murder, the only man present with a Webley revolver was Lieutenant Oswald Rayner, a British officer attached to the SIS station in Petrograd, who had visited the Yusupov palace several times on the day of the murder. This account is further supported by an audience between the British Ambassador, Sir George Buchanan, who knew about an assassination attempt before it happened,[6] and the Emperor Nicholas II, when Nicholas stated that he suspected "a young Englishman who had been a college friend of prince Felix Yusupoff, of having been concerned in Rasputin's murder ...".[7] Rayner knew Yusupov since they had met at University of Oxford.[8] The second SIS officer in Petrograd at the time was Captain Stephen Alley, born in a Yusupov Palace near Moscow in 1876, where his father was one of the prince's tutors. Both families had very strong ties so it is difficult to come to any conclusion about whom to hold responsible."

Apart from the highly subjective tone of the writing, it is highly misleading on the fourth line to state that "Witnesses stated that at the scene of the murder, the only man present with a Webley revolver was Lieutenant Oswald Rayner". This assumes (falsely) that it is a known fact that a Webley revolver was used in the murder. Not only this, but there is no source whatsoever for this statement, and comes across as simple conjecture by the article author. The author also implies that the fact that Rayner "visited the Yusupov palace several times on the day of the murder" implicates him as the assassin who fired the final bullet, not the simple fact that Rayner and Yusupov were close friends who had been at College together. The next sentence references p.48 and p.51 of Sir George Buchanan's book: Buchanan, George (1923). My mission to Russia and other diplomatic memories. London, New York: Cassell as the source of quotes by Tsar Nicholas that he "suspected a young englishman who had been a college friend of prince Felix Yusupov, of having been concerned in Rasputin's murder". These quotes are nowhere to be found, not only on these pages referenced by the author, but in the section on Rasputin which starts near the end of the book after page.200. Also, even if Nicholas has said this, to be "concerned" in Rasputin's murder suggests "involved in the plot", it does not imply he thought he was the actual killer.

I will add more later, these are just the first parts of the article which need attention, editing and if authors are falsely attributing quotes which do not exist, censure.

Nightsoilman (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nightsoilman (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightsoilman (talk • contribs) 20:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nightsoilman (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nightsoilman (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What was disruptive was that you were edit warring to restore controversial edits after being told more than once to discuss the edits on the talk page. Please read WP:BRD and WP:EW. At least one of your edits was malformed and broke an existing reference, and the way you were wording some of the material was not appropriate for an article. Continuing to restore your material as minor edits was particularly inappropriate. It wasn't a minor edit he first time and it is never minor to restore.

We are not saying that none of the material should be in the article or that the viewpoint is wrong. We are simply asking you to discuss the material on the talk page so that editors can reach consensus on what should be included and how it should be stated. Meters (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate this last comment because you took some time to explain to me, but I was not "warring". I am just a brand new user, and cutting my teeth on this. I want to learn how to add my edits properly, and genuinely thought I had done. By adding those smaller edits later on, I was not trying to slyly undermine, but really it was out of frustration that my bigger edits kept disappearing and I didn't know why, I thought I had properly inserted the <Ref> tags and cited the author , book and page I was trying to quote. We really do need to look again at this article, and I appreciate your patience with me, sorry again for reacting personally in my previous posts.

Nightsoilman (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:EW. You inserted the same claims three times while ignoring repeated requests to discuss the edits. That's edit warring. Being a new user only gets someone so much slack. If you had continued you would have eventually been blocked.

I'm going to let this sit for a while so other editors can look at the material. I have 15,000 pages on my watch list and I've spent enough time on this one page for today., Meters (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're saying, and appreciate you spent a long time on this, but my reverts were not intentional or warring, I didn't understand why my text had disappeared, and when I was sent to "Talk", I didn't see any actual 'contact button' to speak to someone, so really this is just about me getting used to the interface, really no intention to war or annoy you. I feel at least some kind of process of checking this has started, thank you. I feel nervous about editing anything now, because I messed up with my first efforts, which kind of makes me feel like a kid in my Dad's car "Don't touch any buttons or knobs". But sincerely, all I wanted to do was add another source/author ( Jjoseph T.Fuhrmann) who had another opinion than the author about whether Rayner shot Rasputin, and believes he did not. All I tried to do, with my clumsy newby fingers, was insert the REF thingy, and then the quote from the book, inside quotation marks. I'm afraid to go near the page now, in case I mess up again. If I do make a mistake, all I ask is that you understand I have no interest in warring, I just want this article to be more balanced. thank you Meters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightsoilman (talk • contribs) 03:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nightsoilman, your nervousness about editing the live article is understandable, and maybe even appropriate. But you have much more freedom in what you write on this talk page. If you want to get your views across effectively, I recommend:

state, briefly, what it is you want changed
then state, briefly, why, giving references.

Hopefully a rational and constructive discussion will follow. Maproom (talk) 08:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maproom, thank you, I will do as you say. Some historians and authors do support the article author's view, but while it is the consensus that British intelligence were involved and that the outcome was favourable to them, it is by no means the consensus that Oswald Rayner pulled the trigger. My concern is that even the sources quoted by the article do not support that view, and that they are including quotes which, when you go to the pages they reference, do not in fact exist in the source. I would ask editors to check this especially. I will make more detailed notes here soon. I lived in Russia for many years and alarm bells started ringing when the Russian minister M.Zackharova last week referred to the shooting of Rasputin "by the British", at which point I checked the Rasputin Wiki entry, which at least has some sense of balance, but the Oswald Rayner article really does need attention for fact-checking, false attribution of quotes and the overall assumption of Rayner's guilt when this is only one theory and not the consensus.

Thank you. Nightsoilman (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Four months later and still no followup on user:Nightsoilman's statement that he "will make more detailed notes here soon." Considering that the editor has not edited anywhere else on Wikipedia either it seems unlikely he will see this, but pinging him just in case. Meters (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]