Talk:Grigori Rasputin

Rasputin with prince M. Putyatin, since 1911 Head of the Palace Board and colonel D. Loman on the rightside, photo by Karl Bulla, 1907 or 1908?

Too much cruft

A lot of this article (especially WW1 section) is filled with a bunch of crap that, while being interesting and informative, doesn't have a lot to do with Rasputin. Of course someone would say "all that stuff has to do with Rasputin!", and it may tangentially, but it's way too unfocused. There are multiple paragraphs that don't even mention Rasputin. If these sections stay, they should be edited to have more references to Rasputin, or should be trimmed down a lot. I read wikipedia all day and know when an article is going off the deep end. MERC OUT Mercster (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

You have no profile, and your talkpage is not very convincing, rather the opposite. I cannot check your contributions and see if you are an expert of WWI. Rasputin is mentioned in every section, but not in every paragraph. (Who said it should?) I don't think I will change much, you have to become more precise. Actually you seem to be one of those guys that think what I don't know is not true or unnecessary. A big problem on Wikipedia.Taksen (talk) 10:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This page is a major case of WP:OWN.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I respect the work they've put into this, though it is. In their own words: "Finally, it is also unpracticable [not a word; probably met "unpractical"] when two people work on the same article at the same time, it is a source of irritation." 2600:8801:2E0A:B100:ECFF:9592:5484:19E (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I happen to be the only expert here, greetings from Amsterdam.Taksen (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC) Do you think Wikipedia should be owned only by people with average knowledge?Taksen (talk) 11:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Critique of Grigori Rasputin

The article itself is well written, however, there may be historical bias in the beginning paragraph. By emphasizing Rasputin's influence on the unpopularity of the Tsarist regime at the time is oversimplifying an otherwise tumultuous historical period for Russia. A good idea may be to find articles from Russian records or eastern european records that are less prone to romanticizing the influence of Rasputin during Nicholas's rule. Also, the first link to a video is no longer functional under the resources. Hns246 (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello I missed your comment and only see this today. Do you mean the lead? It was very difficult to write a short lead that is correct. I will look at video, but the lead is ok now. One Wikipedian rejected my longer explanation already along time ago. I cannot satisfy everybody.Taksen (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The Vast Confusion Regarding Rasputin

Who can make sense of all this? I would suggest Alex de Jonge. His biography seems to be the most coherent and complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.25.115 (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Your comment starts with a mystique statement, but I never read Alex de Jonge, if that is what you mean. Who says it seems to be most correct and complete? I never heard that before. According to the NYT: His is a dull, shoddily written book about an extraordinarily interesting subject. And : Everything goes into Mr. de Jonge's pot - half-truths, errors, rumors, gossip, speculation, innuendo, snickers. [1] The biography looks to me quite complete without Alex de Jonge. Taksen (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

Dear Mr JDNightMhalelOsamaGhobhadi. I suppose you read only a first chapters in Smith's book. Pretty soon you will come across more information where he disagrees with other authors. I hope you will not confuse the readers with minor, questionable details. If for example Smith didn't find if there was a Dmitri, I would suggest to leave Dmitry out. (I did not know Feodosia was a questionable sister and have to find a solution.) Please stick to facts; this is an encyclopedia, not a review of certain recent books. Welch wrote a novel with interesting details, but I decided not to use it. It seems to me Smith mentioned in his latest book everything he found, even unreliable stories. So he ends up with 800 pages. Also Nelipa wrote an extensive book, more than 600 pages. I tried to avoid all stories, conversations and possible explanations. So the reader here is getting a quick overview on Rasputin! I like your attempt but will keep an eye on all the additions you make that will confuse. When you arrived at the Spala incident, it will become very complicated to add these details/explanations into the article. The same will happen, when you would try to describe Rasputin's political power when it comes to appointments. (I left out most uncertain details, and only mentioned them where I thought they were interesting and need a better explanation.) The article should not become twice as long and I don't think you should mention Welch or Smith where ever they disagree. I tried to stress only the author who has the best explanation, and left out all the others with a different view. Finally, it is also unpracticable when two people work on the same article at the same time, it is a source of irritation. I hope we get this right, preferably here on the talkpage. Taksen (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

After all I think it not worth mentioning his brothers and sisters, none of them were important in Rasputin's life. It is better to leave them out, including Feodosiya.Taksen (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

"I suppose you read only a first chapters in Smith's book." Hi. That's a vast assumption to make. Anyhow, this is fine. The article is cleaner this way. I don't think Welch is a completely unreliable source where she published previously unpublished memoirs, diary entries and letters from multiple figures; a lot of her information isn't new, however, just presented in a more intriguing, prose-like way; her book wouldn't apply as such to the rest of the article, I don't think. Though Smith, as you know, went out of his way to conduct a lot more extensive research that dispels a lot of opt-repeated myths. As you say, he is one of the authors whose explanations are generally the "best," I agree.

"(I did not know Feodosia was a questionable sister and have to find a solution.)"

I only came across this possibility through Smith's book; this was news to me too. And the "pure fabrication" (in his words) of Dmitry's death. He has a right to disagree with other writers. You're right; it should be left out. Anything beyond his early life, I don't intend and didn't attempt to touch. There were just a few facts Welch mentioned that are sourced to her bibliography. Regards, JDNightMhalelOsamaGhobhadi (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

School, census and sexual insolence

I have strong doubts there was a school. His father was a well-to-do-peasant, who would have send him there as Rasputin was intelligent. Around 1910 Maria Rasputin, his daughter was sent to a grammar school in Kazan.Taksen (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The article looks generally good, though there's still no citation of whether or not there was or wasn't a school in Pokrovskoye at the time. "[A]s there was not one in the area" is not mentioned in the sources (D. Smith and Naumov) provided. 2600:8801:2E0A:B100:ECFF:9592:5484:19E (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The article became good as I left out all the sex, so the political issues became more clear. I added two links which can be read by using google translate. Who is Naumov? Taksen (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. In response to this: "His father was a well-to-do-peasant, who would have sen[t] him there as Rasputin was intelligent."

Here's some information on Siberian peasantry education at the time (not that this needs to be included in the article, it's excessive and seeing that you added additional sources to confirm that there wasn't yet a school in Pokrovskoye). This merely explains why his father, even if there was a school, wouldn't have sent him:

"In 1827 [...] only five rural schools in the entire Empire" existed. By 1865, "rich peasants [like Efim] often bought their children out of these schools" as "peasants often regarded enrollment in the state schools as a form of conscription." Under the authority of Nicholas I, the Church was heavily involved in rural education. There were 9,283 Church schools for peasant children by 1861, rising up to 21,420 in 1865 "until only 4,000 schools survived" by 1881, although these figures have been disputed; Church clergy often inflated numbers under pressure from the Church and government. "An investigation in 1849 revealed that many state peasant schools only existed on paper." Under the Ministry of State Domains, 2,754 schools for 132,582 peasant children were established in 1866 according to new reforms, though like before, this figure is disputed as many clergy were not interested in teaching, recruiting orphaned boys and girls instead to fill up seats of pupils. Education for Russian peasants prior to 1864 is unfortunate; the MNP published in 1838 that "58 percent of all students could be found in only sixteen provinces," by 1857, "a child's chances were 1 in 138" of receiving public education compared to the eighteenth century and by the 1860s, "one of every fifteen peasants and one of every forty-eight subjects in the Empire was enrolled in school" (Eklof 28-35). Eventually, Tsarist educational policy of 1887 claimed "that poor children shouldn't be educated beyond their rank in society" as educating peasants was perceived as perilous for the upper-classes (Eklof 67). As a result, not too many children of peasant status attended school under such a regime; only 5 percent of the Siberian population at the time was literate (Hutton 49).

Eklof, Ben. Russian Peasant Schools: Officialdom, Village Culture, and Popular Pedagogy, 1861 – 1914. Berkley and Los Angeles, CA and London, England: University of California Press, 1986. Print.

Hutton, Marcelline J. Russian and West European Women, 1860 – 1939: Dreams, Struggles, and Nightmares. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001. Print.

Further reading:

Moon, David. The Russian Peasantry 1600 – 1930: The World the Peasants Made. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman Limited, 1999. Print.

Regards, JDNightMhalelOsamaGhobhadi (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

There is an article Education in Russia, but it has no section on its history. To include this information there, or on its talk page, is a good idea. I will stick to Rasputin, reading D. Smith; trying to find out what could be added here on an empire governed by an autocrat, supported by Rasputin. Again, the real problem is not the lack, but the overdoses of information. Taksen (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The whole family was illiterate, but existed of only three persons, as we do not know if Feodosiya was a real sister. Could she be called Eudoxia? According to Platonov Grigori had two sisters, but they died in their infancy. "According to the Church books, February 11, 1863, at Efim Yakovlevich and Anna Vasilevny a daughter Evdokia, which is a few months dying. 2 Aug 1864 gave birth to another daughter, whom they, like the dead, again called Eudoxia, but it was short-lived." I don't think we should pay attention to his brothers and sisters. The information is not reliable enough and completely unimportant for explaning the rest of his life.Taksen (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You made a reference to Welch, but there was only one census in 1897. You have to proof there was also a census in 1899.Taksen (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC) One is enough.

Sorry, if we start to repeat all the stories about his sexual insolence, the article will become endless. Not a good idea, even if sex sells. Smith also has a story about the sexual behavior Rasputin's parents.Taksen (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Not the editor you're referring to, but well accounted for. Welch probably made a mistake in her text; she probably met to say twenty years, not twenty-two. Weird her editors didn't fact check that. The book is not complete bull, though the major flaw: there should be footnotes for her sources, like the census records she used; many book reviews critique this aspect.

I read her book, and there is some interesting information, but also unreliable stuff. The link to her book in the bibliography was deleted a long time ago as it is a novel. Other people did not accept it.Taksen (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

"[E]even if sex sells" - what makes you think that was the intention behind the edit, though? It was merely describing a traumatic incidence in his youth; sexual assault isn't sex. 2600:8801:2E0A:B100:ECFF:9592:5484:19E (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

If we add information on his sexual behavior, the article will become subject to all kind of rumors on rape, nurses, bath houses, hotel rooms, and princesses before the end of the year. That would be a pity. Many books on Rasputin have unreliable information; I tried not to repeat them. Most people like sex; it does not need to be stressed here. Wikipedia is sometimes very prudish, I agree, but it doesn't accept rumors; we will end up in marsh. By the way, in Russia it is still a problem when a man kisses a married woman.Taksen (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Bath houses in Russia have separated sections (or hours) for male and female. It is hard to believe that it was different before the Russian Revolution and allowed to take a prostitute inside.Taksen (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Start a new article Rasputin and his sexual insolence. I will follow it, but can assure you, you will get drown in all the questionable, contradictory information.Taksen (talk) 09:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC) It will attract all kind of people, who think that these rumors are reliable, and need to be added. It is easy to imagine what will happen then. The real problem, working on Rasputin, is sorting as there is a lot of information: it is not easy to find out which author on a specific subject is more reliable than others. Taksen (talk) 09:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External broken link

The moved link for Rare pictures on Getty Images. The rest is good. 2600:8801:2E0A:B100:ECFF:9592:5484:19E (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Discursive, overgrown

As observed elsewhere on this talk page, the article contains way too much not directly related to the subject. EEng 07:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It became a story, and full with facts. very unusual for wikipedia.Taksen (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)