Talk:Grigori Rasputin/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Grigori Rasputin in iconography

Saint Martyr Grigori Rasputin EvgenyNC2000 (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC) EvgenyNC2000 (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I added this website and left two others by Molenko out because they were in Russian. The content can not be understood easily; besides too vague and impressionistic. Your suggestion is ok.Taksen (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Broken link

The link in footnote 214 , To kill Rasputin, by A. Cook, is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.112.31 (talk) 13:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take a look at it today.Taksen (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Lay out

First of all, I don't like people who change dashes. Too me it is nonsense; tomorrow someone could appear who has a different opinion. Secondly you could have introduced some of your changes. This is not Wild West, although many people think it is. You could have hidden the pictures you did not like. It was a lot of work to restore it. It means to me, you have no respect for what was there after 18 months working on the article. Thirdly the sentences on Wikipedia are too wide and uneasy to read. Therefor I added a lot of pictures to make the sentences smaller, column style like in a newspaper. It may seem old-fashioned, but it has its merits. It is easier for the eyes, they don't have to move as much. You found a few new pictures that I missed, so I kept them in the article, but you left out a picture that is quite crucial, like the heat-boiler station of the University, and the Yar restaurant without discussion. I find that unacceptable. The upright=1 keeps it all organized, except for one picture. I have to take a look at it today. Please don't revert but discuss what is better or best.Taksen (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Not many books on Rasputin have a picture of this Yar restaurant, so it is quite unique there is one in this article.Taksen (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I went bold and didn't know about past efforts. Most editors nowadays use wide screens. The version before my edits [1] was very bad for those - images were rendered very far from their sections, one image was overlapping references (I know only three remedies to that: removing images, alternating them left/right, moving them into galleries at the bottom of respective sections - either way is fine with me). Images were way too many, and some were unfit, like an image saying "The courtyard on the westside of the Yusopov palace, although Rasputin was shot down on the eastside" or the image showing a dilapidated boiler station, which gives no idea on how the station looked in the 1900s. I run my edits through two scripts, which format dates and dashes - this is done (semi)automatically, per WP:MOS, and greatly helps keeping a consistent style. Materialscientist (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if I asked you to discuss things you don't do it. I want you to put the picture on the Yar restaurant and the boiler shop back. Nobody complained about it. You are the only one. It does not harm. Why do you think you can decide? Taksen (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Incomprehensible to whom?

Rasputin spoke an almost incomprehensible Siberian dialect

This is worded as if incomprehensibility was an intrinsic property of this dialect. Presumably it was perfectly comprehensible to those who spoke it. Instead, the sentence should specify to whom it was incomprehensible. 86.151.119.38 (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Speculation and mixed up references

The paragraph Assasination Attempt explicitly states Around three o'clock in the afternoon and after that lists several references (89, 90, 91, 92, 93) to this so called fact. Two problems:

1) Following the reference list it seems like reference 89 points to 90, 90, to 91, ... 93 to 94. Obviously something is wrong with all those references.
2) Not a single reference mentions Around three o'clock in the afternoon.

That specification is referenced in something which is not listed in the article right now. This brings forth another problem with this article. The amount of work being done by a single user, who has been known for his wild imagination when it comes to factual information, puts this article into the realms of neutrality disputed. I would recommend people who follow this article to verify every single addition being made by Taksen. LeonK (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by 89 points to 90? When I place my mouse cursor over the little 89 after the words Imperial Government, I see Lieven, p.185 which is reference 89. When I click on the 89 I am led to Lieven, p.185 in the list of references, and when I click on Lieven in that list, I am led to the full bibliographic information (author, title, publisher, ISBN) in the Bibliography. So what is the problem? Dirac66 (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Due to the addition of new references this mix up now happens with the following "Rasputin went out from the house replying on a telegram he had received.[95][96][97][98][99] Returning to his house", where 95 points to 96, etc. Please look for the text in the article. --LeonK (talk) 05:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Aspirin

The paragraph on Asperin, recently added, could be removed because of this discussion in 2007.[2] On the other hand it is important to make clear it is speculation, so others will be careful not to mention it as thrue.Taksen (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The 2007 discussion was heavily based on criticism of Jeffreys as the sole source, but now you have found Hélène Carrère d'Encausse (a member of the Académie française!) as a second source. It is true that the information is still speculative and can never be proven, but this is made clear in the article. But it is based on the facts that aspirin was the most popular analgesic available in the early 1900's, and no one knew it should not be given to hemophiliacs, so it seems reasonable that the tsar's physicians would have prescribed it. Also the information is quite well-known now - for example last week I went to an exhibit of Fabergé eggs in Canada and the museum guide mentioned that Rasputin had suggested not giving Alexei aspirin. So I think it should be on the Rasputin article, whose intro admits that most of our information on Rasputin's life is uncertain. I will agree with the 2007 discussion that it need not be in the Aspirin article which is much more scientific. Dirac66 (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Dirac. Could you perhaps take a look here [3] and see what D.G. Friend wrote on Rasputin and Aspirin? Probably an even older source.Taksen (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC) I like the explanation but nobody knows which drugs Aleksej used.Taksen (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems very interesting. Unfortunately my library does not have electronic access to Archives of Surgery, so I cannot check the exact text. Is Friend's explanation similar to those of d'Encausse and Jeffreys? If so, I would say go ahead and cite him (or her) also, as this may be the earliest source, only 3 years after Vane's discovery of the blood-thinning properties of aspirin.

I do not worry that there is no proof as to which drug Alexei was given. The suggestion has external sources (3 now) and it is plausible given the popularity of aspirin at the time and the later discovery of its blood-thinning properties. So it is information that does belong in the article, as long as we describe it honestly as a speculation. Dirac66 (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Confusing gallery caption

I appreciate the efforts made to clarify the caption of the gallery picture of the palace here. Previously, the image was File:Spb 06-2012 Moika various 03.jpg which, as far as I could tell, did not show the courtyard or the small door, leading to the confusion. As far as I can now discern, the current image File:Courtyard Moika Embankment 92.jpg shows the courtyard located at the extreme left side of the palace building. Specifying "east side" does not help the reader without knowledge of what building is meant and which way the building is facing (I am guessing it faces North). I suggest expanding "Felix private apartment was on the east side." to read "Felix's private apartment was on the east side of the palace at Moika Embankment 94.". The door in question could be clarified with "Between the first and second window on the right, located halfway up a stairway between the basement and Felix's rooms is a small door at ground level opening onto a courtyard." -84user (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

I reverted your edits, Hafspajen. What was your criterium? Why those not others? Changing the size of pictures makes the article look messy. Rasputin was a bit messy, but the article should look organized and the pictures neatly arranged. To me it seems love of interference. By changing all the pictures to upright, the sentences will become too long, and the reader gets depressed. A Wikipedia article should not look like a German book on philosophy.

May be you could try to get a review on the article at the right board? I assume it is good enough for FA status, because it is essentially complete. Taksen (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. No problem. Told you it was only a suggestion... You do as you wish. Hafspajen (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 - could you give your oppinion about Taksen's question above on FA status? Hafspajen (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing agains Crisco, but why him? We worked together some time ago, but he is a specialist on Indonesian history! Isn't there a specialist on Russian history on Wikipedia?Taksen (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

He is Canadian living in Indonesia, but most of all he is a specialist in FA and GA, how it should look like, criteria - and what further steps to take. Might know about a specialist on Russian history or just history ... Hafspajen (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice to be known as an expert in something. Although I don't agree with the use of upright in this article, there is a problem with the images, namely, there are too many. I agree, we need pictures, and several of these are really good. However, Wikipedia:Sandwiching (part of the MOS) says we should avoid sandwiching the text between two images or other components (infoboxes, etc.), and that is a major problem here. Caption length is also an issue; the too-lengthy captions mean we have less room for images which may be of use. I think we'd have to trim 3 or 4 of the body images, and most of the gallery could go as well ("piercing eyes", for instance, is not NPOV). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

To avoid sandwiching most of my pictures where on the right originally, but someone changed that a few months ago. Clarifications belonging to the picture should go there, but I moved them now into the text. We will see if it works. There are no uprights in the pictures. What are you talking about? Should they be there or not? If you think they should be added I think I will refuse. (This article is read mostly by schoolkids, fans of DiCaprio, not by scientists. It should look interesting, not too scientific). You don't have any comments on the content and talking from my experience it will take you at least a year to get an idea what exactly happened between for example July 1914 and December 1916. Rasputin had "hypnotizing/piercing" eyes, no matter what you or others think is true or acceptable. I will change the caption and add a reference from one of the Russian prime ministers and Yusupov. If the changes destroy the readability of the article, I rather leave it to what it was and revert my changes. Thanks for your suggestions, thanks for your suggestions. Taksen (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Taksen, you can change the caption to citation maybe? Crisco is right - if you want to put the article throug a process they will point out that one. And maybe you should put the pictures back as they were before. Hafspajen (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I was saying that I didn't agree with Haffy adding the upright parameter to the images, not that you'd used it. "Piercing" would need to be cited, or used to describe in-text material. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Dates

Dear Mr 71.174.101.127. Not everything that is printed is true. Dont mix up the article, but if you have something important to tell, add it here. There is nothing that gives me the idea you are an expert an the subject, so don't change the article again, without proposing it here.Taksen (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Movie

Dear 167.246.61.35, please add your details on the movie somewhere else. I agree it had some influence, but I would not be surprised it is a product of cold war propaganda.Taksen (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation

It is clearly an a. Listen to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igg9pmQEZ1I It would be nice if you came with a source. If not I will revert it again.Taksen (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A YouTube clip is hardly a source. It requires a sophisticated ear and linguistics training, and even then is fairly subjective. On top of that, even though the narrator speaks with a Russian accent, she is speaking English and attempting an English pronunciation of /ræˈspjuːtɪn/, which is not what is being transcribed in the article.

As I said in my edit description, Help talk:IPA for Russian is the place to discuss this sort of thing because, if [ɐ] is wrong on this page, then it would be wrong everywhere else. Language-specific phonetic transcriptions are intended to be consistent across Wikipedia. Your interpretation of that particular vowel as back, rather than central, goes against the conventions as they are established and information laid out at Russian phonology, which describes the pattern of vowel reduction in Russian backed up by a number of sources. The sources backing up the specific claim that /a/ is reduced to [ɐ] in syllables preceding the main stress include Padgett & Tabain 2005 (p. 16) and Jones & Ward 1969 (p. 51). The only time something like [ɑ] would occur would be between a hard consonant (or a pause) and /l/ in a stressed syllable, as in палка. If you can't access those sources, you can also look at the dictionary.com entry, which transcribes it with [ʌ] (as our Russian phonology article mentions, sources transcribe this vowel this way sometimes, though at Wikipedia we consistently use [ɐ]). — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You are telling me YouTube is not a reliable source, but Wikipedia isn't either, hahahaha. I haven been listening to a lot of Russian documentaries and movies. The a in Rasputin should be pronounced as the a in palm, may be shorter, may be as the a in but. If it is Ra'sputin or Ras'putin is hard to make out. I will go to the university next week and ask them their opinion, because this food is for specialists. Taksen (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I just laid out three sources that were not Wikipedia that directly contradict your claim. That trumps your impression of a YouTube clip and your own original research. It seems from your descriptions that you are not well-versed in phonetics or the IPA; would it help if I told you that [ɐ] is pretty much exactly as the vowel of English but for most dialects?

I won't quibble about where the syllable begins with an intervocalic consonant cluster. I tend to assume a maximized onset, but it doesn't actually make a difference in pronunciation most of the time. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 22:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Mr aeusoes1. I am not a linguist, but a historian. I check everything I see, which I learned from René Descartes. Especially in the case of Rasputin one has to check every author, because of all the rubbish that is written. You may call that original research, I think it is essential. I hope you agree this discussion is about how Russians pronounce the word Rasputin; not how a Dutchman, an Englishman or an American pronounces it. In the case of Abel Tasman you do know how it is pronounced by the Dutch. There are three a's in it. It seems to me the Russians pronounce the a in Rasputin in the same way as the Dutch do in Tasman. The a in Rasputin should be pronounced as the ɑ in ɑbəl and not like ə. I also checked with a linguist and a translator. I was visited by several Russians recently and mentioned Rasputin. I just came home from a trip to Minsk, where I talked about Rasputin with my friends. I think I know by now how Rasputin is pronounced by the Russians. Please listen to a few documentaries on YouTube about Rasputin in Russian or ask a native speaker of Russian. If I find another documentary in Russian where the word Rasputin is pronounced within a minute, I will add it here. Taksen (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, IPA transcriptions of Russian words are rather broad. Maybe [ɐ] in Rasputin is actually retracted [ɐ̠], which indeed is the same as Dutch /ɑ/ in some accents. Russian hard /r/ is a post-alveolar trill [r̠], so it wouldn't surprise me if it affected the succeeding vowel in some way. Nevertheless, the symbol we use for an unstressed /a/ occurring before a stressed syllable is [ɐ]. If you can find a source which claims that this word retains the full pronunciation of /a/ (which would be [a] according to Help:IPA for Russian), go ahead and change the transcription. Generally, relying on your ears alone is not the best idea. Dutch Abel is pronounced /ˈaːbəl/ in the Forvo clip, but maybe it's variable. Or maybe you're confusing Dutch /ɑ/ with Dutch /aː/, which are separate phonemes in all accents. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 15:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Peter, thank you for your help. Next week I will ask around at the University of Amsterdam. Hopefully I can find someone who knows everything about IPA transciptions and Russian language.Taksen (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

This is getting rather absurd, Tasken. What is wrong with the sources I've provided? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 23:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't get upset, I like to check everything in the article. There is nothing wring with it. Listen to this. Within five minutes you hear ten times how Rasputin is pronounced by a Russian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztoyDHIIGtw Taksen (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

In both videos, it sounds to me like that first vowel is [ɐ]. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 09:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Alan Rickman

Alan Rickman played Rasputin in a 1996 film, but, it wasn't mentioned in the article(other movies were mentioned, but, not his one).--Splashen (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Not all the movies are listed here, but he is mentioned there: Grigori_Rasputin_in_popular_culture.Taksen (talk) 08:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC) I'm watching it now.Taksen (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

recent changes

Dear Elijah.B, I changed your wording in the lead. The website you refer to is very bad and makes your contribution unreliable. I added again the Omolenko site which has seven pages (in English, not very common for a Russian website) with information and text by Rasputin himself. May be they try to gain souls, but their information was useful for me and could be interesting for someone else who likes to study the subject. The reader can decide himself as it is obviously a very religious website. It should be mentioned, because it is very Russian. Your profile tells us you are orthodox and could be biased too, I think. Taksen (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Assasination

According to the article he was killed by being shot to the head, however, several other sources outside of here say he was killed by drowning, which one is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.100.193 (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

How old are you 68.110.100.193? Did you see this sentence: There was alcohol in his body, but no water found in his lungs^[1]^[2] and no cyanide in his stomach.^[3]^[4]^[5] The books you read on Rasputin are bad. Taksen (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Goodness, I am merely asking which one is correct, you don't have to be so rude. Thanks for the response anyhow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.105.244 (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

^ Fuhrmann, p. 217
^ Nelipa, p. 379; Platonov, O.A. (2001) Prologue regicide.
^ Spiridovich, p. 402
^ Moynahan, p. 245.
^ Fuhrmann, p. 221.

Tsar or Czar

Tsar, Tsardom, Tsarina, Tsaritsa, Tsarevich and Tsesarevich are used here. There is no reason to change all these lemmas.Taksen (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC) Czar (political term) is used for "certain high-level officials in the United States and the United Kingdom". He/she even changed titles of articles, unacceptable. Tsar is commonly used in all the books on Rasputin. See also here [4].Taksen (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Please revise the word "played himself"

I found in this article while researching on Rasputin a funny phrase, it says "Iliodor played himself". Which can be found under the [In popular culture]. Can someone please change it because it has double meaning. Maybe rephrase it with "Iliodor played as himself" Thanks.CarmillaDhampir (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Grigori Rasputin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131110185530/http://whenthekidstakeoverthekingdom.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/gregori-rasputin-research-ii/ to http://whenthekidstakeoverthekingdom.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/gregori-rasputin-research-ii/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

British involvement in the assasination of Rasputin

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2004/09_september/19/rasputin.shtml IMO the claims of British Secret Service involvement in the death of Rasputin deserve a little more than a one line dismissal. Pignut (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Please check Oswald Rayner and you will find what you were looking for. I decided to move the story to there, until there is more evidence. It could be propaganda, suited to the Russians; the enemy was not from inside, but from outside the country. T. Tichelaar (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Downfall of the Monarchy

The lead says: "Rasputin is connected with the downfall of the Russian monarchy; his disappearance would strengthen the throne." This is worded strangely, and I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean. The monarchy was overthrown a few months after he was killed. It adds: "Rasputin was killed as he was seen by both the left and right to be the root cause of Russia's despair during World War I." Root cause? If the left includes the Bolsheviks, this statement is certainly not true.^{[citation needed]} The lead also says, "historians agree that his presence played a significant role in the increasing unpopularity of the Imperial couple", but there is no citation for this, and the rest of the article seems to be a narrative rather than an analysis of what effect he actually had. This assessment of Rasputin appears to be the opinion of one writer, Nelipa, not a consensus of historians.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hell Mr Upland, I am not a native speaker, and not interested in an academic discussion, sorry. There are too many opinions, one cannot add all. Some people think it was WWI, the corruption or the famine that was responsible for the downfall of the Romanovs.^[1] I did not find anything on the Bolsheviks supporting Rasputin, so you have to come up with more information, if you have. Nelipa wrote a very important book on Rasputin, with lots of new details. The books by King, Fuhrmann, Moe and Radzinsky bleech.Taksen (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, someone should at least fix up the sentence, "Rasputin is connected with the downfall of the Russian monarchy; his disappearance would strengthen the throne." It makes no sense. Of course, the Bolsheviks didn't support Rasputin, but that doesn't mean they saw him as a "root cause" of anything.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you deliver a suggestion for that sentence? Wikipedia started as a cooperative "community"; it seems to me today it is more about attacking without taking any responsibility.Taksen (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't make a suggestion to improve that sentence because, as I said, I don't know what it means. "Rasputin was seen as weakening the monarchy" would make more sense to me.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That's beside the truth. I will ask someone else. ThxTaksen (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

^ http://tiffinomics.com/how-far-did-rasputin-contribute-to-the-fall-of-the-romanov-dynasty-in-march-1917/

Reference

Reference 24 does not work, probably for months already. Could someone take a look. It is not my cup of tea.Taksen (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Private gatherings

In 1902 private gatherings in his house had to be disbanded.

Why? This doesn't make much sense without an explanation or more background. Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Done.Taksen (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikiquote

Please add your Wikiquotes, which you put on top, as more important than the pictures or the source, to Grigori Rasputin in popular culture. The first quote is probably not by Rasputin, according Edvard Radzinsky, (who is not reliable himself). The second one is used already in the article. The third one looks like religious propaganda, from an very unreliable source. It could also be a book promotion. It is not done.

Try add from the Russian Wikiquote or from one of Rasputin's books. Then we can discuss it again. Taksen (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Major POV issues

Can anyone connected with this article explain why it qualifies as "neutral point of view"? It's riddled with opinions -- which may be sourced, but have no place in an encyclopedia. Jaysbro (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You mention major POV issues, but forgot to mention one. Give me some examples, then I may be understand what the problem is for you. The subject is one of the most difficult of the 20th century; I tried to show both, pro and contra Rasputin and demystify all the legends about him. It was a lot of work, but I will see what I can do. The article should be ready before the end of the year. You are interested in rail lines. It will be difficult to add an opinion on those topics. How did you get here?Taksen (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The article seems rather apologetic. Rasputin is generally portrayed as the stereotypical dictator and oppressor, as well as a manipulator. fr:Grigori Raspoutine and de:Grigori Jefimowitsch Rasputin reflect this, for instance, but this article seems to take a different view. Nemo 19:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Dictator and oppressor of whom? Where? When? Manipulator may be. The article on the German Wikipedia is quite bad. I added there my self, but it is written from an almost religious point of view. It is hard to improve it. Too many legends. The main author on the French Wikipedia borrowed from here. I stopped improving the Dutch Wikipedia, same problem, too many dubious sources. You could check this [5] if you are good in languages. That is how I started.Taksen (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Fuhrmann

who is Fuhrmann? He/She is not introduced formally but is referenced twice in the write up. Maybe an introductory sentence has been deleted or rearranged? 64.235.150.157 (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Ed M.

What a strange question. It is easy to find some information on him. Why him, not others? Start an entry, the best thing I can suggest.Taksen (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Rasputin's Portrait

I have reverted Rasputin's portrait to the black and white image. While it is quite a pretty picture, colourizing an historical photograph and presenting it as factual is not appropriate and should be discouraged. TerryToogood (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I justified the changes that I made citing historical accuracy. My change was reverted on account that "I make you unhappy". This is not sufficient reason to present historically inaccurate imagery. TerryToogood (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

lay out

Your lay out looks horrible. messy, unorganized, i don't need your help, please stay awayTaksen (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC). how do you know the pictures are unrelated to the text. I know my text very well. It looks like travelling fun fair. 01:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Please block this guy.Taksen (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You don't WP:OWN the article (you have a history of claiming ownership of articles and telling other editors to bugger off), nor do you follow Wikipedia rules (a fact you tacitly admit to). Why even continue using this site? "how do you know the pictures are unrelated to the text" Many of the images no longer correspond directly with the relevant text due to WP:STACKING. You have carelessly stacked all the images on one side. Also if you want to talk aesthetics, per MOS:IMAGELOCATION "It is often preferable to place images of people so that they 'look' toward the text" With your layout, many of the portraits and buildings no longer face the article body. - HappyWaldo (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I have been working on this article for three years, and you want me to leave? Because you want everybody to stick to the rules, like in the GDR? There is a whole list of categories down here, nobody does anything about it. Is it because we do not understand these categories? ~~There is one references that is red for several months. Nobody seems to know how to improve it~~. Changing lay-out in every article where they use different sizes than thumb size will give you a lot of work. Isn't it necessary to change these too? No, because some people don't believe in some Wikipedia rules. They are not based on centuries of printing experienceTaksen (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, a clear example of article "ownership".--Jack Upland (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I can not deny it, I made more than 1,200 changes here. I have some right to tell what goes in. I have not seen many people here complaining about the pictures on their screen. The German Wikipedia is one of the best and the ugliest, because of the preferenced picture size, thumbsize to avoid legal cases. I think things have changed since it was introduced.Taksen (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC) They also invented and applied the system of main contributor on the article.Taksen (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I looked at WP:STACKING. The lay-out is very good. But why? Because he or she made heavy use of indents, so the margin changed. None of the pictures are extremely small. One can see what is going on the picture without enlarging it. I compared this article on Firefox and Google Chrome, the most popular browsers. Both times the pictures are located in the same section, there is no problem. May be I use different settings in Chrome; it looks better than in Firefox. For optimal reading the width of the sentences is crucial. It used to be 79 characters on a line, by using Times New Roman, it was possible to put more characters on a line. On Wikipedia and a lot of other websites you see more than 100 characters on a line, not only ugly but also tiring. I have 30 years of experience on a computer; I prefer what is called in the article "Dutch taste", not a porridge or a fun fair.Taksen (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Not particle, but article

Dilidor changed the style, deleting a few articles (grammar), and adding "that" in a couple of cases. At first sight I accepted these "improvements", but when I checked his contributions and talkpage I came to different conclusion. A few more people complained. They are questionable; more like footprints.

He also changed a sentence in the lead, in rather problematic way. I expected this sentence would be quote, but from here I cannot prove it, anyhow I reverted it, as I prefer the original. Dilidor also changed invisible text, completely unnecessary. Taksen (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This article needs proper cleaning up

Yesterday I was reading this article and the first thing that struck me was the level of minute detail that is utterly unnecessary and which reduces the quality of the article. One thing that caught my eye was a reference to the size of Rasputin's boots. I quickly scanned the article to make sure if perhaps this was an important detail with a significance that would come to the fore further down in the article. But it was not. Then I did the same with regards to mentions that the boots were "galoshes", "made out of rubber". I saw no significance in this whatsoever, so I trimmed it to "boots". The whole article is full of such equally unnecessary clutter.

To my surprise, user Taksen restored the referral to galoshes, despites my lengthy edit summary, advising against using the term "rubber" (in 1916). I left him a note on his page, to which he responded with "Can't you think of something more serious?" That, and looking further into the history of the article, allows me to safely say that Taksen suffers from an acute case of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. He is rude and disparaging, as can be seen from his interaction with other editors, with statements such as "i don't need your help, please stay away ... I know my text very well", ending with a call (to nobody in specific) to "Please block this guy". Last year he threatened to report another editor simply for asking — on a talkpage (where else?) — about Mikhail Rodzianko being called a "fat pig". A lot more on his behaviour can be seen here.

Then today I saw this entry, where he says that "Since I started to work on this article the amount of readers dropped from 120,000 to 60,000 a month (in three years time)", followed by his opinion — basically an insult to the readers — on why this is so. What he has actually done is he took the article from 5191 words in 2013 to 19824 words today. It is longer than the article on Margaret Thatcher. It is no wonder readers are put off. Granted, that with a word count a lot of it is in the form of citations, which can be quite lengthy. There is also a lot of hidden text - I have never seen so much hidden text in any other article - 196 bits of hidden text, which I can only guess will be gradually worked into the article, making it even longer.

My suggestion is that Taksen be instructed by an Admin to start as of now:

reducing the clutter in the article
stop behaving as if he owns the article so others can also jump in and help clean up.

Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The article on Rasputin had even 180.000 readers a month when it was full with nonsense. Wikipedia allows every kid to change the content; I am not impressed by some of their rules. Fat pig is an unnecessary insult. You would have added it? The subject is not easy and the article is full with hidden text as I had to find out who wrote what, and what to believe. You think it is not done to use hidden text? Besides I needed it for a correct chronology. I don't see the problem.

Rasputin is an important figure in history, connected with the downfall of the Romanovs. There is a lot of nonsense written about him. He needed a better article. Besides at the end of this year Rasputin died hundred years ago. The Russian revolution is celebrated next year. The article gives a good idea what happened. It was read by millions of readers all over the world, or copied many times elsewhere on internet.

Some Wikipedians think what I don't know is unimportant for the article. Rui seems to fit in that category. I am happy with what I did. I learned a lot about Russian history. The level of some articles on Russian politicians from those days was quite bad, I had to study and change them also to find out what happened, see for my latest improvements Pavel Milyukov .Taksen (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The articles needs cleaning up - I am not talking about boots or galoshes!

You just don't get it, do you? Who cares about the damn boots? This is not an article about footwear in Russia in the early 20th century. If you go to that degree of detail, two things happen – 1. The article gets unnecessarily long; 2. All kinds of cracks emerge and one has to spend time fixing them. Boots are boots, full stop. Once you go into needless detail, you are going to find all kinds of contradictory information. For example, first the article said “Rasputin's galoshes, a rubber boot (size 10)”, i.e. galoshes = rubber boots. It also said that he was wearing “tall animal skin boots” and that “one of Rasputin's boots was found under the bridge”. Now you have gone and made it “boots or galoshes”, which is just ridiculous. Then, on the talk page, you say that it is unlikely that he would have put his galoshes on, Therefore, how could the galoshes be on the scene where they disposed of the body?

So, see what I mean a bout the perils of going into unnecessary detail? Even you are now so confused you don't even know if you are coming or going.

And this is NOT about the boots, I am merely using the boots as an example. They needed to dispose of his clothes and boots – that is all! What size they were, what they were made of, what colour, in whose fireplace they burnt them, none of that is of any significance! Do you get it? So, unless you are planning on starting an article on footwear in Russia, don't bother bothering your contacts in Russia. This is not Days of our Lives, this is not Downton Abbey. Do you get it? Same with the drink with poison. We don’t need to know that it was a sherry or madeira, who owned the vineyard, what kind of products they produced at the vineyard. They gave him poison. Full stop. And even that we don’t know for sure. Or is there a reason for all this detail about the origin of the drink they gave him? Or why we need to know that the dessert wines were “Georgian or Crimean”?

You go into all this needless detail instead of paying attention to more important aspects. Where is then source for the statement that “a sound-proof room, part of the wine cellar, had been specially prepared for the crime”? What about the ice-hole under the bridge? Was it also specially prepared for the crime? So, rather than trying to play smart on talk pages, why don’t you read the article and correct the hundreds of things that should be addressed? At a quick glance within minutes I picked up on this:

“his right cheek was shattered when the body was thrown from the bridge” vs “threw the corpse from the car over the railing into an ice-hole” Question: How do you shatter a cheekbone falling into water?
“strong evidence there was an exit wound [of the third bullet] at the back of the head…. The first and third shots … exited his body”. Question: So, did the third bullet actually exit the body, or was there only strong evidence?
“Yusupov severely hit his victim in his right eye with his shoe” vs “His right eye was struck by a blunt object, e.g. a boot” So, what shall it be?
There is the possibility that “Yusupov offered Rasputin tea”, but also “Purishkevich, … mentions he could hear bottles were opened and it is highly likely Yusupov offered Rasputin top wines and perhaps a cherry brandy”. Then, “After an hour or so Rasputin was fairly drunk”. Question: If he was fairly drunk, doesn't it mean that it was not just highly likely that he was offered alcohol, but that that was indeed the case?
“coat "formed an air bell" and the corpse drifted into an ice mass; it prevented the body’s disposal into the sea” Question: Do you mean to say that it prevented the body being taken out to sea?
"In April, he was invited again to Tsarskoe Selo" Question: Again? Or is the reader expected to guess that that is where he attentd to Pyotr Stolypin's dautrher?
it is also very confusing that you keep switching between first name and surname, such as “Rasputin was shot at close quarters by Felix” VS “However, Yusupov did not succeed in killing Rasputin”. For a reader scanning the article looking for something in specific, it sounds as if “Felix” and “Yusupov” are two different people.

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Boots or galoshes

Hello Rui, it is highly likely Rasputin was wearing his leather boots and galoshes (snow shoes or over shoes) when he left his apartment. When he entered the palace I suppose he took off his galoshes, wearing his boots inside the house. It is hard to believe the drunk and wounded Rasputin was able to put on his galoshes, more interested in leaving the house as quickly as possible. It is also unlikely the murders took off his leather boots when they drove to the Neva and the body was stiff. One of his galoshes could have drifted away, it is not known. The other obviously was stuck under the bridge. I will ask my contacts in Russia what is the practice when you enter a house. I suppose you take off your galoshes and put at the front door or aside until you leave the house. I will change the text accordingly until there is a better solution. Thanks for your attention.Taksen (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't read the circumstances of the above case, just felt like leaving a note. Of course, any reasonable person would remove galoshes before entering an apartment - that was the whole point behind wearing them, and a common practice in Russia. Not removing galoshes was a sign of ignorance or rudeness (common to some Bolsheviks, for example). It is unlikely that Rasputin was ignorant in this matter, but he might be rude at times. Materialscientist (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Not only the size of his rubber boots is known, but also the brand (Nelipa, p. 340). If you google on Treugolnik you will find the plant making rubber overshoes, founded in 1860. http://www.encspb.ru/object/2804001238?lc=en The main products of the plant were rubber overshoes (in the period from 1900 to 1912 its production increased from 10 million to 20 million pairs; up to 25% of the products were exported). Again it proves the account of Felix is very unreliable, because he wrote Rasputin was wearing high felt lined galoshes, may be inside? When the body was found someone described: the corpse wore a long Russian upper shirt with attractive embroidery and bluish colored pants and boots without galoshes (Nelipa, p. 354). I will change the text again. Next time when you have a remark on the text, Rui, please use the talk page. Besides you don't have a user page, very suspicious. One can not take such Wikipedians seriously. Regards.Taksen (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

What a joke. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Very suspicous indeed - I have an invisible user page. Only very special people can access it. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Deleting text

Some Wikipedians are very interested in deleting stuff. I am sure it is possible to move some text to relating articles as it is well referenced. At least that is what I would do before deleting. Adding to an article seems almost a sin nowadays.Taksen (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Taksen (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

reply, which looks lost now

I did not open it, nor read your talk page; I only saw Where? Sorry.
For me it is you who does not know the details, so you dislike them and prefer to leave them out. But you were wrong with your idea about the year of the introduction of rubber boots.
Because they usually write it was Madeira, but they produce a very good Madeira-like wine in the Crimea. They did not give him poison! Please stop and study the facts or books and don't add nonsense. You are a layman.
Under the bridge the ice is usually thin, or not existing! I can imagine you don't about this in Angola.
A boot and not a truncheon or a billystick as sometimes is mentioned.
Rasputin preferred sweet or semi sweet wines. That is what they gave him.
Yes
He was invited in November 1905 and in April 1906. In the beginning only very few times.
Felix = Felix Yusupov.Taksen (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Details can be useful but too many details put readers off.

We expect laypeople to edit our articles, we do not require experts.

Taksen, I cannot read or write in another language nearly as well as you write English, and Amsterdam canal houses are indeed fascinating, but your writing does need some copyediting. For instance, I don't know what you mean by "ice hole".

We use surnames, so except in quotes we wouldn't write "FeliX".

Under-ice melting is indeed common under bridges. I'm not sure how it relates to a fractured cheek.

We shouldn't link to Amazon. Nelipa's book needs to be used with care. Fuhrmann, also used as a source, writes that "Margarita Nelipa’s The Murder of Grigorii Rasputin: A Conspiracy That Brought Down the Russian Empire (2010) is not a biography of the peasant but an exhaustive discussion of his death. This important book offers information that will interest scholars, particularly biographical details of even minor characters in the story. Nelipa argues that the tsar’s cousin, Grand Duke Nicholas Michaelovich, was the driving force behind the murder. This thesis is unconvincing; it is not even supported by circumstantial evidence. A larger problem is the author’s reliance on recent books asserting that the tsar was the victim of vast and fantastic conspiracies. Nelipa also insists on viewing Rasputin as a holy man, rejecting abundant evidence about his dark side and selfish motives." Doug Weller talk 08:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Doug, I like my details as I am interested in social history also. It was not only Rasputin I wanted to study, but also how the Russian Revolution began. (Why skipping it when you are reading about it?) So the article became a mix of subjects I like (geography, wine, politics). One becomes very connected with his text, but I understand someday someone will kill my darlings. For me it is too early, problematic and understand someone else does it. We will see what happens next. The version with my last edits I copied to my website, so I can still enjoy it.

According to Google Translate a "wak" is an air-hole or blow-hole in the ice. It probably has to do with wind, or the higher temperature of the water. [6]
I think for princes and princesses it is common to use only their first name. That is least what we do. Felix is also shorter than Yusupov.
I went through Nelipa many times as her book has no index. I had to make references where she wrote what. She describes Rasputin a strannik, not as monk or a holy man. What I did not understand or could not follow I did not use. ~~I don't mind if the link to Amazon is deleted, but that has to do with how I started; later I had a copy of her book.~~
I only mentioned Nicholas Michaelovich and did not pay much attention to him; same for Oswald Rayner. Too unconvincing as you say.
I hope I succeeded in painting Rasputin not as a holy man. If it does it is unintended.
I tried not emphasize not any conspiracy (except Yusupov, and Purishkevich) because I did not see enough evidence. What I understood is that the leftist and liberal parties wanted to get rid off autocracy and introduce democracy; the nobility, the monarchist, and the nationalists supported the war, both believing Rasputin was an obstacle. I suppose the majority of the people did not care, they striked and were hungry.Taksen (talk) 10:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Taksen (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Although the length of his name isn't really relevant, I think you are right about Felix. Once introduced as a Prince, Felix is ok, that's how our article on the UK's Prince Charles does it. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You told me to delete the Amazon link, [Grigorii-Rasputin-Conspiracy-Brought-Russian] which I did, but there you could have read Nelipa treats Rasputin as a strannik, clearly not as a holy man. From where did you get this nonsense? Why did I have to delete a link that has more and better information than you? Regards.Taksen (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC) I guess Nelipa is more a royalist, and one should be aware of that when reading her book.Taksen (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Another problem

Since I started to work on this article the amount of readers (or are these page views?) dropped from 120,000 to 60,000 a month (in three years time). My conclusion is that visitors prefer to read legends, gossip, scandals, mysteries, and occult things, so it is possible I spoiled the article. Another explanation is that Wikipedia has less visitors than three years ago. Since two weeks their statistics and graphics do not work correctly? Taksen (talk) 05:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC) It is possible to check the raw data, but the link is very user unfriendly. Taksen (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Non-perceptions of Rasputin

Some points in the "Perception" section have nothing to do with perception of Rasputin, and may be redundant vs. other sections of the article.

"Coincidence" with Franz Ferdinand's death. This involves no perception about R, and the two week gap strains the coincidence. People die two weeks apart (or on the same day) all the time. It's trivia.
Question of the date of death: Already established above, not a perception.
Whether he drowned: Already discussed above, not a perception.
Disappearance of the interrogation transcripts: not a perception

These points should be removed from the section. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, but it is not only redundant. These mistakes are still repeated; the last item did not fit into the article. I will take a look again.Taksen (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

All right, but the Franz Ferdinand point doesn't involve any mistake, nor any perception. Refer to the recent deaths page to see just how meaningful that "coincidence" is. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 22:01, 4 June 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. [7] 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)

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)

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)

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.

Date format

MoS:DATE sets out in a very clear table all "Acceptable date formats". I don't see ordinal numbers included there. Doesn't there have to be consistency of date format across the whole article? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Except in direct quotes, article text never uses ordinals for specific dates. The only exception I can think of might be something like "Rent was due on the 4th of each month." E Eng 21:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Quotation attributed to "Rob Moshein"

The caption quotation now attributed to "Rob Moshein" is cited to this webpage (a blog): [8], but the source there is listed as Alexander Spiridovitch. Softlavender (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixed now. Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Heat-only boiler station

Last year a Wikipedian showed up who did not believe there was synthetic rubber in Russia in the early 20th century. It was a Russian invention! Now there is a guy who did not know Heat-only boiler stations existed. Both tried to push me out. I have no confidence in his knowledge, he should stick to the articles he is more familiar with. He also accuses me of original research, but there is no need, as there are hundreds of books and articles about Rasputin and one could probably find a room full with books on the Russian Revolution. I read a quite few, but stressing the political issues, and looking for more details in that direction, does that mean it is original research? No, I have never been to the State Archive of the Russian Federation. Original might be that I checked Russian websites and left out the gossip and scandals, and details one can find in every article. To my surprise the political issues became more clear. I added many references on the political situation, but not after every sentence. Sometimes you don't expect someone likes to see a source, one hopes they open the references.Taksen (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, that probably explains why the word "rubber" and the next word "galoshes" are given separate citations. You think that the material that Rasputin's galoshes were made from is essential to a reader's understanding of him (after he had been assassinated), yes? Good job you left out the gossip and sandals. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

This issue is not clear to me. I wouldn't characterize a fur coat and rubber boots as "large items". I would characterize a grand piano or a pool table as large items. And what has this got to do with a Heat-only boiler station? Heat-only boiler station certainly predated mixed heat/electricity generating boilers. --IPEditor (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see word "room" in Heat-only boiler station. Boiler room redirects here. But it's a pretty well-understood term, isn't it? Why else would a university have huge boilers like that? What do large and small items have to do with this article? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC) p.s. has Taksen left us again so soon?

@Martinevans123: The concept of a Heat-only boiler station is totally well understood, but are you honestly asking "Why would a University have items that are not well-understood?"?!?!? It doesn't need to be in a room that is named after it. A "bathroom" is still a "bathroom" even if there is no bath and only a shower. Also if you but a bath in the kitchen, it's still the kitchen.

And also, how did you not understand that my reference to "large items" is from the article text:

 Because Purishkevich's wife refused to burn the fur coat and the rubber[333] galoshes[334] in her small fireplace in the ambulance train, the conspirators went back from the Warsaw station to the Moika palace with these large items.[335]

I don't consider clothes or footwear as "large items" unless they are meant for a giant. It's not rocket surgery. --IPEditor (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I have now read your reply above a number of times, now. Alas, I find it largely absent of any coherent meaning. What has the Moika palace got to do with a Heat-only boiler station? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I don't think Moika palace has anything to do with a Heat-only boiler station. I quoted the article to show it claimed that the fur coat and rubber boots were "large items". You asked:

 What do large and small items have to do with this article? --Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Or "...these large items." --IPEditor (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the concept of large and small things is beyond me. The world is, after all, "a totality of facts not of things," or so I've been informed. Sorry to say I have no idea what the purpose of this discussion thread is any more. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I never knew. I was responding to your comments, but I do not know what the "Heat-only boiler station" issue is. Please explain if possible. --IPEditor (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps User:EEng knows. Or perhaps Taksen can remind us. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Some sort of complaint

One of the most convincing stories on Rasputin is the incident in the Yar Restaurant. E likes to trim to a couple of sentences. That some people were lying is very obvious. I am not surprised he wants this to leave out. I checked this: perhaps he is also known as [9]? I have never seen that before.Taksen (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Again. No personal attacks. Please. You seem to be implying that User:EEng is socking. I think. If you think someone contributing on this page has broken WP editing guidelines, if you think someone posting on this page is operating a sockpuppet, then file a report at SPI or one of the other behavioral noticeboards. Until then, please only discuss how to improve the associated article on this talkpage.

Three other editors have stated that they think this article needs to be trimmed of extraneous details. You are starting to verge into acting as if you are "the owner of this article" and you are starting to run afoul of the editing guideline about disruptive editing which states in the Refusal to get the point section that

Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.

The editorial consensus of the contributing editors to this article is that it has gotten bloated with extraneous details, that it contains unsourced or poorly-sourced information, that the long image captions need to be trimmed. This article deserves to be put into better condition than it is at present. Let's work together on its issues. Shearonink (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

From his link I guess he thinks I'm my own sockpuppet. E Eng 20:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Taksen, can we leave the Yar restaurant until another day? We're just trying to concentrate on the "Assassination attempt" section for now? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me User:Martinevans123. Shearonink (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

"...where it is supposed^{[by whom?]} Rasputin was cremated"

Resolved

Extended content

On 11 February 2017, User:Martinevans123 replaced attribution with an anonymous authority (see the diff)

This was not a constructive edit. Please revert Martinevans123's edit and cite the references below in the conventional Wikipedia style.

References:

Nelipa, Margarita. The Murder of Grigorii Rasputin, a Conspiracy that Brought Down the Russian Empire. Pickering, Ontario, 2010.
Ronald C. Moe, Prelude to the revolution:the Murder of Rasputin, October 2011, Aventine Press.
"Rasputin G. E. (1869-1916)", Saint Petersburg Encyclopaedia, A.G. Kalmykov. web link

-IPEditor (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

IP 24.246.21.101, references don't usually belong in image captions, if any claim is already made in the article text. If the topic is notable for inclusion, it should be examined and fully supported by references in the text. Once it is in the text, there's no need to repeat the exact attribution in the image caption. Thanks for providing sources, although the text currently has four sources - are you suggesting they are wrong or insufficient? But I see you have not added any page numbers for the two books - I wonder do they have a handy Index that might help you? And any references added should follow the same format as the style currently in use in the article, not necessarily the "conventional Wikipedia style" you request. If you are keen to improve Wikipedia, why not register as a user and then you'll be able to edit the article yourself? Martinevans123 (talk) p.s. is that just a "supposition" by all those authors, or is it perhaps more robust, such an "argument", a "statement" or a "hypothesis"?

@Martinevans123:You are wrong; Inline citation are fine in image captions. Avoid weasel words. Replacing attributions with an anonymous authority is not ok. The caption should read:

  The boiler room of the Saint Petersburg State Polytechnical University where Rasputin was (allegedly) cremated^[1]^[2]^[3]

where the <1><2><3> are the refs. if there is a fourth that's ok too. Including "allegedly" is optional (and in my opinion unnecessary) since the inline citation is provided.

-IPEditor (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

References

^ Cite error: The named reference Kalmykov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Nelipa was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Moe was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Lengthy off-topic bickering

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thanks for retracting that warm and appreciative message from my Talk page. How's life in London, Ontario? You seem to know your way around Wikipedia quite well. I'm quite willing to accept consensus here, depending on what other editors say. My view is that it's clumsy and overcrowding duplication that adds no value. Especially when the sources are provided in adjacent text. But can you tell us what evidence these writers provide in support of their claim? Or are they just perpetuating a popular myth? And why exactly is this version of events "more likely" than the burning of the corpse in the field? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: You don't have to be sarcastic; I left a scathing message for you on your talk page. Your edit was wrong plain and simple, and you shouldn't be making edits that make wikipedia worse even if you feel good when you make a lot of edits.

I retracted the message I left on your talk page, because my scorn wasn't just for you, personally, it's really for all editors that think they deserve special recognition for their editing and then make bad edits, and really my scorn is mostly for all the people, the whole world round, that are recognized as good or great when what they do is poor and bad.

With regard to the edit you made on this page, I am obviously right. You don't seem willing to admit that you wrong and just couldn't recognize the issue and fix the citation style instead of deleting the attributions because "Kalmykov, Nelipa and Moe are not notable and linkable" (from your edit summary)

Since you don't recognize that you were wrong, you can ask other editors for a consensus, and maybe you will be set straight, but maybe not; You are not the only editor that makes bad edits, so a consensus of bad editors is always a risk on Wikipedia.

I don't know how life is in London,Ontario, and I'm not going to ask my VPN provider for you. I can't tell if you were making an attempt at a veiled treat. Just in case it wasn't, let me be clear, I don't want to be your friend, I don't even like you. I've been civil to you because it's the right thing to do, not because it's what I want to do. I am seriously frustrated that you've made so many edits and you can't even seem to understand the basic concept that for this encyclopedia, attributions are important and replacing them with language that attributes the claim to an anonymous authority is bad encyclopedia editing.

oh well. obla di.

--IPEditor (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

"With regard to the edit you made on this page," - you don't say which edit. I've made several. And I'd certainly never offer you a "veiled treat". Your principal argument here seems to be simply "I am right and you are wrong". And you've offered no responses whatsoever to my questions on the topic at hand. So let's just see what other editors have to say, shall we? I'm sorry you "don't want to be my friend " and that you "don't even like me". The fact of the matter is that you don't know me, but instead choose to offer a tirade of criticism after one small edit to an image caption that you disagree with. Wikipedia policy suggests that being uncivil to another editor is never the right thing to do. So, on second thoughts, I don't think Wikipedia would really benefit from your contributions long term, so perhaps you'd better just stay as an anonymous TekSavvy Solutions IP editor somewhere in Canada. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC) p.s. when did I think that I "deserve special recognition for my editing?" I expect nothing, except a civil response.

I'd be really interested to hear what this editor has to say about your issues here and with your approach to editing in general. Perhaps he'll drop by presently? Especially if I offer him a veiled treat? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123:The edit in question is noted at the top of this section:

 On 11 February 2017, User:Martinevans123 replaced attribution with an anonymous authority (see the diff)

The issue with your edit, and why it was not constructive, is because you removed attributions and replaced them with an anonymous authority; Either you understand, or you don't. I think you might still not understand the issue, maybe you are incorrigible. I will try and explain again in case you actually want to learn: The issue has nothing to do with the veracity of any claims, and everything to do with avoiding anonymous attribution. I am not referring, at all, to the content or truthfulness of this article. This isn't a debate over an opinion. I am telling you that it was wrong to remove the attributions. I am right and you are wrong (in this case). That is just a statement of the facts, not an argument. The argument is really simple: For Wikipedia, attribution to a real source is good and attribution to an anonymous authority is bad, so if you remove attributions to real sources and replace them with weasel words that attribute to an anonymous authority then that is not a constructive edit.

I've been civil with you, even though I find it very frustrating that, despite being an long time editor with a Master Editor medal posted on your user page, you don't seem to understand what I see as a simple concept. I am very confident that you are editing in good faith, and I don't actually want to hurt your feelings. I have been especially frank; I didn't sugar coat it. Being civil doesn't mean I have to be your friend or massage your ego. Please don't take my feelings (about people not measuring up to their reputation) personally, I don't know you and I am just judging this one edit that you made, and your inability to recognize the mistake. I once read an essay on wikipedia, I can't recall the title, but the gist was that sometimes editors' intentions are greater than their abilities and there's nothing that can be done. I hope you do have the ability to learn and grow as an editor and will someday understand why your edit was wrong, but if not, the world will still turn.

I love Wikipedia, but never it's politics. I find all too often that there are editors who can be more concerned with their reputation or user group, than with making a really great free encyclopedia. I want to help improve Wikipedia but I don't want any credit. I want my words to speak for themselves and avoid ad hominem. Not using a registered account does have it's downsides though. IP editors are discriminated against on Wikipedia. For example, they cannot archive a large talk page all at once because it sets off automatic anti-vandalism flags and can't edit semi-protected pages like this one. I'm not going to login to a Wikipedia account just to edit this page, so the removal of attributions is going to be corrected, Martinevans123, you are going to have to do it yourself, or wait to see if someone else does it for you. If it doesn't happen, that sucks for Wikipedia, but it's minor, and there's lots worse.

--IPEditor (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I find your patronising wall of text repetition wholly unconstructive. Please direct me to the Wikipedia policy that insists that attributions for claims must always be repeated in every location in an article. An image caption is meant to be a concise summary of what's in the text. I was hoping you might actually discuss the basis for the claim made by Kalmykov, Nelipa and Moe. Perhaps we'll have to wait for User:Taksen to return before we can discuss it. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I am sorry if you felt I was patronizing you; I was only trying to treat you with the minimum level of civility I would offer any stranger and I definitely was not trying to appear 'kind'. Frankly, I am calling you out for making a bad edit, and I am not sure if you are capable of understanding why your edit was bad. I couldn't fix it personally so I posted the details to this talk page. Unfortunately, I have wasted a fair bit of time repeating myself, trying to make you understand something you might not be able to understand. If you end up learning, then it was constructive, otherwise, it really was a waste of my time.

If you want to read that "[a]ll material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source...for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" somewhere, you can read that here. Making inline citations is the standard method of providing obvious attribution. Before your edit, the image caption had inline citation\attribution, it, however, wasn't in the conventional (and more unobtrusive) style (superscript#). I have already linked Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions and Wikipedia:Attribution. If you read these two essays should understand why your edit was wrong. If you don't understand, please stop asking me to explain it to you. Maybe someone else can explain it to you, but I've repeated myself several times, and this is the last:

 The argument is really simple: For Wikipedia, attribution to a real source is good and attribution to an anonymous authority is bad, so if you remove attributions to real sources and replace them with weasel words that attribute to an anonymous authority then that is not a constructive edit.

Either you understand or you don't. @Martinevans123:, no reply necessary. --IPEditor (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't accept that "suggested by some biographers" are weasel words in this context. The explanation is almost exactly adjacent. I've now added the names of the authors in the text, where context is provided by the sources at the end of that sentence. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Mr IPEditor for the interesting arguments, and to know someone is willing to help me here. I like your help supplying a sentence for the caption. The references should go back to the caption, so they attract more attention. For me he is part of gang, who cooperated to get access to an article and delete stuff they have never heard off, or explain it as unnecessary. By the way I didn't like the removal of the internal link to heat-only boiler station either, but I am not very technical. Maybe we need to ask an expert?Taksen (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah, you arrived at last. Has Mr IPEditor gone now? But what "gang" is this, exactly? And what's this stuff that I've never heard of, that I've deleted? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @Taksen:, unfortunately I wasn't planning on making any major edit's to this article. I wish I could contribute more time to help out, but I suspect I won't be able. I just came across a minor mistake with regard to Wikipedia standards, but I couldn't fix it myself because of my user group. I definitely agree that the references should go back into the caption, but not because they attract more attention, rather because attribution is necessary (by Wikipedia conventional standards) for any statements that are (or could be) contested. The superscript reference (<ref>reference</ref>) notation is preferred vs naming the authors in the sentence and the superscript style of notation is less obtrusive.

I don't know what the significance of "heat-only boiler station" is, I will try and see if I can figure it out. I am by no means, a "technical expert" but if you ask me a question, I will try to help. I can tell that English might not be your mother tongue, but you communicate well. I'm pretty sure "gang, who cooperated to get access to an article and delete stuff" means: those motivated by their own beliefs, without regard to the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.

Side note: In general, now-a-days it's better not to assume gender with "Mr." or "Mrs.","Miss","Ms.". I took it as a sign of respect and/or politeness, and I appreciate that, but there are those who might take offence and claim that you were "assuming their gender identity" or something like that if you preface their online ID with Mr, Mrs, &c.

@Martinevans123: The names in the text are not necessary if you instead use the <ref>reference</ref> notation. It is never good, anywhere in Wikipedia articles to use ambiguous attribution like "some people say...", etc. without specific attribution. --IPEditor (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

So we expect the reader to read three of those four references to be able to understand the identity of the three non-notable biographers named in an image caption, that precedes the text? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC) p.s. I'd like to User:Taksen's explanation of his "gang, who cooperated to get access to an article". His English seems pretty good to me.

@Martinevans123: The idea is: "[a]ll material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source" The reader doesn't have to verify it, but it should be "verifiable" so if a reader chooses to, they can see where that statement, claim or quote originally appeared. The superscript numbers don't interfere for those who want to read the article without checking the attributions. --IPEditor (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't interfere? I thought those superscript numbers, denoting reliable sources were essential. The reader can choose to see who " some biographers" are by reading the article text? Do you think the fact that we have a real picture of the boiler room makes the suggestion of those biographers "more plausible"? Why are the words "more likely" used? Dio they appear in one of those four sources? If so, which one? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: You really don't understand inline bibliographic citation?!? Ok, you don't need a university degree to understand citations, although, citations are pretty standard for all academic papers. For more info read Citation. There are, in fact, multiple styles of citations like IEEE and APA. Wikipedia uses it's own style. If you want to be a useful wikipedia editor and not just a fart in a jar (;-)) you will have to realize that attribution is at the core of what Wikipedia is and when you use language like "Someone says..." or "People think...", &c. that's not ok. I am just trying to get that simple point across. I don't have any personal attachment to this article in general, just to Wikipedia as a whole; I want good editors who can be objective and not people with personal opinions/beliefs they feel they have to incorporate into the encyclopedia. --IPEditor (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I am so fortunate, I'm sure, to have become the butt of your asinine and condescending laborious preaching. Wikipedia uses multiple styles of citation. Where have I expressed, in this article, any "personal opinions/beliefs"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Generally, captions can repeat material given in the article text without laboriously giving in-text (i.e. in-"caption text") attribution. But I'd really rather see all this energy directed at deciding how to bring the article as a whole back to a readable state -- see thread just above this one. E Eng 21:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

If this is the reaction to removing three names from an image caption, I think that's quite a challenge. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@EEng: Yes, "Generally, captions can repeat material given in the article text without laboriously giving in-text (i.e. in-"caption text") attribution." but I hope you are able to understand how, if the caption contains information that is challenged or likely to be challenged attribution is very important! If there is a caption for an image of a purple eggplant shaped tomato that reads "According to Smith, this is an example of a tomato" or the much better "This is also a tomato.<ref>John Smith, "A Guide to Rare Heirloom Tomato Varieties</ref>", that's ok, but if someone changes the caption to read "Some authors claim this is a tomato." that's not ok because the source has been made anonymous. It is analogous to what I objected to on this page. --IPEditor (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Where in the article is it actually explained who Kalmykov, Nelipa and Moe are? I don't think it's wise to introduce three names like that, in a image caption, without any supporting explanation. I think that's just too cryptic. Do you think a link to the same image is a better source of support than four formatted citations? I certianly don't. I'm not sure why you did that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

"Where in the article is it actually explained who... are": Grigori_Rasputin#References.

@Softlavender, definitely "lengthy", "bickering", ok, but not entirely "off-topic" --IPEditor (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

[1] Fuhrmann, p. 217

[2] Nelipa, p. 379; Platonov, O.A. (2001) Prologue regicide.

[3] Spiridovich, p. 402

[4] Moynahan, p. 245.

[Fuhrmann_2013,_p._221-5] Fuhrmann, p. 221.

[6] ttp://tiffinomics.com/how-far-did-rasputin-contribute-to-the-fall-of-the-romanov-dynasty-in-march-1917/

[Kalmykov-7] Cite error: The named reference Kalmykov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Nelipa-8] Cite error: The named reference Nelipa was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Moe-9] Cite error: The named reference Moe was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]