Talk:Rasputin's penis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] I Firmly Agree

I would just like to point out that whoever wrote "hard evidence" here is a genius.Phanatic 02:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to second that --UD75 19:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I was going to agree, but I would argue that the bold type makes it too tongue-in-cheek. --Vincentvivi 13:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the best article ever. -Sk4yt 22:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been reverted back again :( I'm not going to edit war over it, however I'm going to be all emo on the talk page in protest. 88.96.135.14 (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eleven inches?

hes the "chief of the prostate research center of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences" and he has a curioso involving Rasputin's penis? Wouldn't that be a conflict of interest. And its a preserved penis that is 11 inches long? who makes this stuff up.

There's a conflict in that page: 11 inches is ~ 28cm. 30 cm is ~ 11 inches. Which one is correct?

Neither is correct. 11 inches is roughly 27.5cm, and 30cm is 12 inches (1 yard is 90cm, etc).

Rasputin is great. I think his penis is not just 11 inches. Maybe it's a misheard. It should be 11 metres. That's what I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.226.4 (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bullsh*t urban legend without concrete evidence of any kind

Most historians believe this story to be pure bullshit. Oh, and that thing in the jar? ITS A SEA CUCUMBER, PEOPLE.

However the article is too awesome to be removed. 88.96.135.14 12:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Hard" Evidence.

The article once read: "When Grigori Rasputin was murdered in 1916, some claim he was also castrated.[1] Since then, a number of people boasting to be in possession of his severed penis and testicles have come forth, although none of them have been able to come up with hard evidence. [2]"

I personally think that the "hard" part was humerous in a low-key way, and not out of place in wikipedia considering the content of the article. The article is about something which is generally agreed to be a hoax, but still notable for various reasons. I don't think a little subtle humor is out of place in Wikipedia in some of the more "eclectic" articles, such as this. I am certain I have seen similar examples in other serious media, such as Nature (journal) and the dusty tomes of the Britannica. Such things are wonderful gems to find and chuckle about, and they remind us that we are all human. Huntress Moon (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Cheers! --201.228.202.104 (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Merge

I love this page, but it belongs in the General Rasputin page.

Also, I would advocate for the return of "hard evidence" Amiaheroyet (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)