This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult 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.
I have recently made this edit, which has been removed for the third time and I thought I would start a talk topic instead of reverting as the editor in question reverting the third time has had previous friendly and helpful interactions with me. I thought the topic worthy of further discussion to attain consensus before replacing:-
According to Andrew Cook and Richard Cullen, Oswald Rayner is believed to have been involved in the final murder plot, and is supposed to have been the person who fired the shot that actually killed Rasputin.
This sourcing now includes 2 books published by reliable publishers (one by an intelligence historian, another a former MET Police commander) publicized in the Daily Telegraph and in nationally viewed television programmes by the BBC with accompanying press releases back in 2004. These are reliable and widely read sources and not in any way WP:FRINGE views. Most of the United Kingdom has known about this widely accepted theory for over 10 years now, so I suggest it's inclusion her very valid, justified and even perhaps, somewhat overdue. People keep mistaking Rasputin for Satan, even 100 years on and I really feel it's time to give his legacy some form of justice. More information r.e. the discussion that caused this edit to come about can be found in the suppressed section of my talk page. RaRaRasputin (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
^Cullen, Richard., Rasputin: The Role of Britain's Secret Service in His Torture and Murder. Published by Dialogue (2011).
Personally I have never mistaken Satan for Rasputin although, admittedly, I have never seen them together in the same room. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Cullen I haven't seen, but there's been a weird fad recently for retired police detectives to opine on historic "cold cases" they otherwise know nothing about, which is (to be blunt) silly, and I note that no major libraries hold his book; I think we'd be wise to exclude it. The Telegraph and BBS bits are also worthless as fact sources on historical topics, unless penned by established experts or something. That leaves Cook, which based on my quick perusal (Talk:Grigori_Rasputin/Archive_6#Drive-by_source_evaluations) I do think is an RS. However, Cook's is still an isolated view; statements like Rayner "is believed" and "is supposed" make it sound like more than it is, and if it really is "widely accepted" then there'd be other scholarly works propounding it, which apparently there isn't. Until that changes I believe no more than a single sentence along the lines of According to Andrew Cook's 2004 book, British agent Oswald Rayner participated in the killing of Rasputin, and may even have fired the fatal shots is justified, maybe in an "recent theories" section. EEng 16:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your wise and considered input. I will replace exactly as guided by E's superior experience and information in this field. For your information (if you need it) the BBC documentary "Who Shot Rasputin?" can be viewed on YouTube and the last section of the video cover's Cullen's investigations with primary sources and some pretty revealing evidence in British Intelligence telegrams to support this inclusion. RaRaRasputin (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
It had coverage in the telegraph, on bbc news, etc. so I'm not opposed to including a brief mention/description of this theory. It's basically bullshit though - the "forensic evidence" is a photograph (and conflicts with a whole bunch of other evidence), and Douglas Smith suggests that the document/memo Cook refers to either doesn't exist or is a forgery. The supposed memo is "apparently in the hands of Alley's descendants," but Smith says he was unable to locate it or even verify that it exists. Even if it does, the wording of it implies that there might have been British involvement but has zero specifics - certainly it's not enough to prove/support Cook et al's version of events. I added some of what Smith says about this to the article to make it clear that this is very far from the accepted (or even a plausible) account of Rasputin's death. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Also, note that while I don't actually have a copy of Cook's book on hand just now, this academic review of it (the only one I could find) says that Cook doesn't claim that Rayner fired the shot that killed Rasputin, but rather was only aware of the plot and may have been in the room. So we probably need to distinguish (and clarify the difference) between the claims made in Cook's book and the claims made in the documentary discussed in the news articles referenced above. FWIW, the book review also says that Cook's book suffers from "a number of methodological and factual errors," which "undermine" its value, and concludes with the statement that "little new is offered here" to change the more traditional account of the assassination. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
No objections to anything. I just checked this, which is not an WP:RS, but kind of interesting. My very best wishes (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I have started articles on the alleged accomplices John Scale and Stephen Alley that could be worked in somehow. MVBW's not WP:RS has big articles and pictures of this pair. RaRaRasputin (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Er, um... you're kidding, right? EEng 03:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Not really. You'll see BBC History sources in those biographies I wrote featuring this story as late as last year. If the BBC keep teaching this line, you can expect the coverage of it to expand in time. No need to rush though dear fellow. I wouldn't want to make your brain hurt anymore after your magnificent work yesterday. RaRaRasputin (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you talking about Spartacus Educational? EEng 13:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
We are not going to use Spartacus for sourcing, however it provides links to other sources that qualify as WP:RS. He possessed a bullet [that killed Rasputin]. Hmm... Genrikh Yagoda kept two bullets that killed Zinoviev and Kamenev. Such is Russian history. My very best wishes (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I wonder what happened to those that killed Bukharin and Pyatakov as well. Someone could start a necklace with them... RaRaRasputin (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The second paragraph in the "Death" section of Rasputin's page reads "has become the most often frequently told". Could someone please remove either the "most" or "frequently". Kcole2 (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Done Thanks for catching that! Fixed. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Rasputin was not known as the Mad Monk as cited. Rather an associate of his Hierarch Monk Iliador was known and self proclaimed as such. His aspirations frustrated as leader of the Black Hundreds, Iliador eventually denounced the faith and denied association with RASPUTIN and became a family man name of Sergei Trufanov - Wikipedia He went on to write a book entitled the Mad Monk of Russia, referring to himself as such, not Grigori Rasputin MatthewGCooley (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Yup, same person (ie, Trufanov = Iliodor). I seem to recall finding a lot of sources suggesting that Rasputin has also been referred to as the "mad monk," though, and a quick google suggests that he's sometimes called that . In general, though, I'm not opposed to removing the nickname since it seems kind of trivial for the infobox, and Rasputin has been called a lot of different things by a lot of different people. Was planning a re-boot of the infobox eventually and I probably would have removed this from the "other names" section at that point anyway. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)