Talk:Rasputin's penis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reason for republishing

A musical playing in Berkeley right now actually refers to this page's existence. That the penis has permeated popular culture enough that it and it's very Wikipedia page get their own song in a new musical, makes this page page relevant and necessary, in a somewhat unusual meta-circular way. But the song does support what's suggested by this comment:

"An answer to the argument over why Rasputin has a separate article on his penis while others like Ron Jeremy and John Wayne Bobbit don't is because Rasputin's penis was not essentially what made him notable; it's a separate topic. Whereas John Wayne Bobbit's and Ron Jeremy's penises are the main reason why they're notable and is part of the main subject of their articles, therefore Rasputin's penis deserves its own article because it's a subject separate from Rasputin's notability itself. He wasn't known for his penis (besides being a horny guy) so if there's information about his penis being preserved, that's a separate topic, with the focus being on the penis and the preservation of the penis. I hope I explained sufficiently what I mean, does someone get I'm trying to say here? -- Ϫ 05:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)"

You can't have a penis page without puerile comments from a user....

I like the quote from the Wilson's Almanac link - "According to Rasputin’s daughter, Maria, her father’s penis was 13 inches long when erect.". :-)

---

Why was she looking at it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.76.201 (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If it was 13 inches, it would be hard to look at anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.169.113 (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this page really necessary?

Is Rasputin's penis really noteworthy enough to have it's own article? John Wayne Bobbit's penis is assuredly more famous than Rasputin's and his penis doesn't get its own article. I'm surprised this hasn't been nominated for deletion. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Though I am a lowly reader of Wikipedia without all the status and titles like some of you, I feel this article is definitely needed and very fascinating. BBC News Online was the first to bring to my attention Rasputin's uh 'member' as it was being shown at some museum. True the article could probably use a name change to something more coy, but consider this: Rasputin was a weirdo of epic proportions, so something like this article should be kept in hopes of preserving the myth of the man and how almost 100 years later, he is known the world over just by his last name! Yes an article on the 'mystics' penis is odd and I am all about editing the article to make it a bit more professional, but to delete it entirely would be a great disservice to the many men and women who kept the penis alive in a jar so that in today's modern day and age, we are still left with many mysteries of this very mysterious man. Sure this article won't win Article of the Year 2009, but that doesn't mean it should be completely wiped clean from Wikipedia and the history books! If it was anyone else I'd probably say it doesn't matter, but this is Rasputin we are talking about! Please leave it in! 68.225.235.242 (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that the subject is notable, one mention is in The flight of the Romanovs, ISBN 0465024637, where in the recounting of Rasputin's assassination the member is described as "notorious in Petrograd" — although, "Disappointingly the conspirators apparently found [the dead] Rasputin's penis of ordinary size and character." As to keeping it "alive in a jar", that's a new one on me, maybe you're thinking of Hitler's brain? --CliffC (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

But why can't this information be merged with the Rasputin article? Plenty of other notable penises, i.e. John Wayne Bobbit and Ron Jeremy, do not have their own article. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with merging it with the other article. I was just afraid people were going to completely erase this from Wikipedia. I don't know how to edit things in Wikipedia, I only know how to do these little discussion talks so if someone can or will integrate this into the main article. As for 'keeping it alive in a jar', that was sort of tongue and cheek of the thought of a person holding onto Raspie's pee-pee for a hundred years. Still worth mentioning also in that article is that someone paid a couple grand for the 'trouser snake' at a private auction. As far as I know, that is the most expensive weiner sell in history! I was just afraid this would be deleted from wikipedia, though I agree to merge it with the original article. As for the penis being real or fake or a geoduck, I think that all adds to the mystery of the man and is the first case of penis-identification in history! Not to mention the puns and jokes are still as funny now as they were back in 1919 Russia. I'm actually glad a few people support keeping it on Wikipedia :) 68.225.235.242 (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The subject is notable, there are articles like Holy Prepuce, so why just don't keep this one too? Even there's a very good French version of it.--200.49.211.8 (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

An answer to the argument over why Rasputin has a separate article on his penis while others like Ron Jeremy and John Wayne Bobbit don't is because Rasputin's penis was not essentially what made him notable; it's a separate topic. Whereas John Wayne Bobbit's and Ron Jeremy's penises are the main reason why they're notable and is part of the main subject of their articles, therefore Rasputin's penis deserves its own article because it's a subject separate from Rasputin's notability itself. He wasn't known for his penis (besides being a horny guy) so if there's information about his penis being preserved, that's a separate topic, with the focus being on the penis and the preservation of the penis. I hope I explained sufficiently what I mean, does someone get I'm trying to say here? -- œ^™ 05:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point! I totally understand what you are saying. And since this article, though short, is probably better edited and laid out than half the articles on Wikipedia, it is professional and should be kept as is. In fact I applaud Wikipedia for making articles like these because they contain so much more to the story of the man. I just hope others pick up on this and we start saving more of history including the oddities.

Question, I know the penis pics are copyrighted but what if I drew a picture of the penis from one of those photos and shared it here. Would that be free use? Or would I still be infringing on those laws?68.225.235.242 (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Best place to ask would probably be Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- œ^™ 07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we have a page about his penis?

Photo

Are they admirers of his penis specifically, or should the photo be in the main article?KD Tries Again (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

As far as I know, there is no available public-domain photo of his penis, but there are photos of Rasputin useful for illustration. The photo and its caption, "Rasputin among admirers, 1914", are already in the main article. --CliffC (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

How was there no consensus to merge?

The deletion discussion clearly states that it isn't a vote and is simply a discussion. While there were plenty of votes to specifically keep that didn't mention merge, many of those were obvious jokes, and almost every argument for keep rather than merge was something to the effect of "children shouldn't have to read about Rasputin's penis" or "some people that want to read about Rasputin wouldn't want to read about his penis," both of which violate WP:UNCENSORED. 174.146.255.243 (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the dumbest article I've ever seen here

Really. Merge or delete, for Christ's sake. Vidor (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? The dumbest you've seen? You must not run in the same circles as me. In any case, the article is quite well sourced and a relatively recent AfD was closed as "keep". If you think you have a valid reason, you can try again. I think you have an uphill battle. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't make it a practice to go hunting for stupid articles. I just stumble across them from time to time at random, as anyone does. As for this one, 1. Being well-sourced does not make the subject any less idiotic. 2. I can't imagine the sanity, or lack thereof, of anybody who voted to Keep this worthless waste of bandwidth. Actually I can imagine one reason--someone who hated Wikipedia and regarded it as a joke, and wished to make Wikipedia look bad in order to buttress his view, would no doubt vote to keep this article, as Exhibit A of why Wikipedia need not be taken seriously as an encyclopedia or research tool. "Rasputin's penis". God. Vidor (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The point is not that you shouldn't find it "less idiotic" because it's well sourced. The point is it's a notable topic, evidenced by the fact that it is well sourced. That anyone !votes for keeping or deleting the article is moot. AfD is decided based not on the number of "votes", but on the strength of the arguments. If you feel the arguments were weak, the decision was wrong or that consensous may have changed, by all means feel free to take it to deletion review or start a new AfD. If you think it should be deleted because it is "dumb", "idiotic" or "make(s) Wikipedia look bad", I doubt you'll get very far. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not notable, and I boggle at any person who can argue with a straight face that "Rasputin's penis" is notable. Nor is having a good source indicative of notability. And, in fact, it is dumb, it is idiotic, and it does make Wikipedia look bad. Know why people take, say, Britannica seriously, but not Wikipedia? Because the people who run Britannica are smart enough not to have separate articles about Rasputin's penis. If they do mention it, they mention it in the article on Grigory Rasputin, which is what should happen here, if people were sane. Vidor (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yes, having "good sources" (actually: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") does make a subject notable. That's the definition of notability Wikipedia uses. You don't have to like it. You do, however, have to use that definition or work to change it. - 03:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)