Talk:Grigori Grabovoi

So

The process against Grabovoi is an encyclopedia of all the possible violations of the human rights and the Russian Constitution. Those, who studied the case, know it very well. None of the episodes has been proved by the prosecution, still he has been charged 11 years! Murderers get less in Russia. The true reason for the victimizing of the prominrent Academic and a very powerful psychic was his wish to become the President of Russia and to build a Heaven for everyone. He had a good chance, and what Putin does to his political opponents is well known in Russia and in the World. That's why the article needs to be corrected. The Article about Graboboy on the Russian Wikipedia is much bigger and looks way more open minded. Why his followers were called a sect in the article? What's the ground for it? And the lack of publications and TV programs - it's a mistake. There were and there are plenty, but all very aggressive to Grabovoy and full of lies. TV and nearly all the media is under the Government's control in Russia. --Born Immortal (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It is typical for our actual 'civilized' world that such persons are suppressed and information are faked. If the methods he recovered would be spread all over the world there would be no more chance to bring us into debt (such as financial debt). We would be independent resp. autarkic.

Clever users of Wikipedia know, that there is no plain truth. People who seeks for truth just rise the curtain by clicking on 'Discussion' or by reading the linked information sources and just by ignoring the corrupt mainstream media.

Spiritual people like Grigori Grabovoi know how to use the actual situation correctly. Carola Sarrasin said he would use this situation like a hermit by writing some books about the time after the year 2012.

(V-mann(parodiert) (talk))

What happned to the charges against Grabovoy? --84.234.60.154 (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Court hearings still continue Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It’s sad to see how the English version of the article about Grabovoy gradually becomes similar to the Russian one. I’d like to give you just one example (among many others) of the so called “neutrality” of Russian admins who “warden” the Russian version. This phrase of the chief admin, Vlsergey, is taken from the Discussion of Russian version (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9,_%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87) (I have a screen-shot in case they would try to sweep the trace): “… во вторичных источниках Грабовой в первую очередь известен как осуждённый за мошенничество, да ещё и в связи с Бесланом (хотя на самом деле это не так — в деле о Беслане ни слова, если не считать показаний самого Грабового).” (Translation: “… in secondary sources Grabovoy in the first place is famous as convicted in fraud, and in connection with Beslan too (though in truth it’s not so – in the case there is not a word about Beslan if not to consider the testimonies of Grabovoy himself)”). It means that Vlsergey knows that it’s a lie about Beslan and those sources are lie, and nevertheless keeps spamming (himself or with a help of confederates) the English article with those deceitful materials. Have you noticed how many sources they brought into this article just to confirm only one statement? It’s done so aiming to embed the lie supported with the large quantity of rubbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zrise (talk • contribs) 01:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I wonder, what's going on here? If it's added, that "Each case, described in these three volumes, was witnessed and notarized, and the book contains the copies of the mentioned documents", why in the World it's constantly being deleted? The article does mention this three volume book by Grabovoy "The Practice of Control. The Way to Salvation", and the link to download it, so why the truth about this book, and the increase of the probability, that some of the visitors might read it, seem to some persons that dangerous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanin'iver-Open-Your-Eyes (talk • contribs) 04:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, everybody!

If there is a refutation of Susanna Dudieva, mother of the Beslan child who was killed in a terrorist attack, of the fact that Grabovoy was not in Beslan. I propose to remove all false and slanderous articles about Beslan from the page, and leave only one of them.

I think it would be correct since it is not necessary to repeat the same lie a hundred times.Stendpoint (talk) 05:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Stendpoint,

I fully agree with you. Also, we have a link to the DRUGG site, to download the copy of this document:

"A group of Russian advocates including Mikhail Trepashkin brought an action to institute criminal proceedings against Vladimir Putin and President Medvedev in front of the United Nations[clarification needed The UN have no functioning as a court], the Hague Tribunal, the International Criminal Court for having effected Grigoriy Grabovoy’s criminal prosecution.[8] Grabovoy's early release in May 2010 was appealed by the regional prosecutor office."

One of our guys tried to edit the article and to specify its number at ICC, since it has been accepted there, but one of the admins locked the article for "vandalism." The Russian admins rule here, or what? America??? Britain??? Are you interested in the Putin's puppets stretching out for an American resource?

Tanin'iver-Open-Your-Eyes (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tanin iver-Open-Your-Eyes,

Your question refers to the administrator of the article about Grabovoy. I think he should give you an answer to your question.Stendpoint (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not copy extensive source text into a Wikipedia article, such as the interview transcript I just removed. It is against policy. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The International Criminal Court investigates stuff such as war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and so on. Basically, it does not accept cases about a single individual. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

External links

...are not for holding news stories. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Cult Preys On Beslan’s Bereaved, St. Petersburg Times, September 27, 2005. Last accessed July 18, 2006.
• Cult Leader Takes Heat Off Kremlin, The Moscow Times, September 28, 2005
• Pseudo-Christ promises to raise the Beslan school kids from the dead, Pravda, October 13, 2005
• Cult head 'conned parents with vow to resurrect Beslan dead', The Scotsman, April 7, 2006. Last accessed June 20, 2007.
• Capable of Teleportation, Kommersant, April 7, 2006

Move to Grigori Grabovoi

His books in English here use the name Grigori Grabovoi, so I am going to move the page to match that. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Move completed. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk)

Difamatory information.

The information is inaccurate. The people in charge of providing information on this website should do more research before releasing information that taintes the reputation af a person. This is difamatory. In the trial it was demonstrated that those mothers of Beslan didn't even know who Grigori Petrovich Grabovoi was, much less did he receive money to resurrect their children. This was orchestrated by the orthodox church to teint the Doctor, who is not a mechanic, nor a paramedic, he is a Scientist, Mathematician and more. There are sources where to double check who he really is. Difamation is against the law. 2600:100A:B1C5:4846:0:1C:53FD:F701 (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The statements of the mothers of Beslan in favor of Dr. Grabovoi

Sayitright22 (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Link to the statements of the mothers of Beslan testifying that they never saw Dr. Grigori Petrovich Grabovoi nor did they pay him any money to resurrect their children. He was falsely accused and the mothers of Beslan where very clear on this matter. The link to this information that is crucial to prove Dr. Grigori Petrovich Grabovi{s innocence was provided by reliable sources. https://lawyerheart898.wordpress.com/2020/04/09/lawyers-claim-for-an-article-in-the-interlocutor-from-06-04-2020/ Instead of Mechanic use Mathematician, Instead of Paramedic use Scientific and Clarivoyant. Sayitright22 (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done We cannot use blogs as sources or as links, nor do we rely on primary sources - MrOllie (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a free encyclopaedia or not?

I had corrected some false and defamatory information on the page dedicated to Grigori Grabovoi, citing institutional sources and providing links to these sources.

The changes I had made were deleted, without a discussion with me on the content, and with unsubstantiated reasons. Here the comment of the "person" that have deleted them:

"Hello, I'm IronGargoyle. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Grigori Grabovoi seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

These are the 2 corrections I had previously made:

"Grigori Grabovoi was fully rehabilitated by the verdict of the European Court of Human Rights on 22.09.2016. It stated that Grigori Grabovoi detention was unlawful, it approved a violation of the provisions of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Grigori Grabovoi during the criminal proceedings against him and a demand to pay monetary compensation was done.

Here the verdict of European Court of Human Right: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:%5B%22001-166746%22%5D}

After this, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation approved the illegality, unreasonableness and injustice of the verdict of 07.07.2008 against Grigori Grabovoi, with the verdict of 11.04.2018.

Here the verdict on the website of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation: http://vsrf.ru/stor_pdf.php?id=1647762

Thus, Grigori Grabovoi has no criminal record."'

Beslan

False information that allegedly Grabovoi G. P. (his followers) were in Beslan, took money and allegedly made promises.

This specified wording is knowingly false – slander, since the lawyer  Konev Vyacheslav Gennadievich, who defends Grabovoi Grigori Petrovich, officially and in the media, stated in his claim to the article, that above wording regarding G. Grabovoi is not true, for the following reasons:

1.1. This information was repeatedly refuted by the defense of Grigori Petrovich Grabovoi.

On the internet, there are openly available numerous materials from the speeches of Dudieva Susanna Petrovna,  Chairperson of “Mother of Beslan” Committee, in which she stated that Grabovoi G.P.  have never been in Beslan, didn’t give promises of resurrection of  children of Beslan, moreover didn’t take any money.

1.2. The case, on the events of the promise of resurrection was initiated on 20^th March 2006,  but as a result of  preliminary investigation and the judicial investigation,  information was not confirmed and there were no victims from Beslan in the verdict of July 7th, 2008,

that is, the acquittal of the verdict proved, that there were no  promises of resurrection of the victims of the attack in Beslan made, on which criminal case was instituted on March 20^th 2006.

1.3. April 4th, 2006, before the arrest of G.P Grabovoi, S.P Dudieva sent her  open appeal to  V.Mamontov, Chief Editor  of  Izvestia Newspaper, where she stated:

“I am a chairman of “ Mother of Beslan”committee and an eyewitness to everything that is happening in Beslan and responsibly declare that not a single mother of a child, died in Beslan tragedy ever paid any money to Academic G. Grabovoi for resurrection of dead children, moreover, neither Grigori Grabovoi himself and none of his students have ever been to Beslan. ” This appeal has been in public domain since April 4^th 2006 on the site http://www.drugg.ru/cgi-bin/main.pl?menu=2_41&bp=0_175_332" Chicca70 (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't rely on primary sources such as self published statements or legal documents. Even if we did, the cited court documents are about the length of pre-trial detention and not the merits of the case. They don't support the changes you'd like to make. MrOllie (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

please revise your sentence "Even if we did, the cited court documents are about the length of pre-trial detention and not the merits of the case. They don't support the changes you'd like to make" because it refers only to the the verdict of European Court of Human Right. On 11.04.2018 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation approved the illegality, unreasonableness and injustice of the verdict of 07.07.2008 against Grigori Grabovoi, and cancelled all the previous accusation. 2A01:E11:5:8260:A19F:9D83:44F:E486 (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

No. I stand by my comment. MrOllie (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, here is the article of MKRU, a Russian newspaper, that on 16 April 2018 reported that Grigori Grabovoi recieved the right to rehabilitation, according to the verdict of Supreme Russian court of 11 April 2018. This is a secondary source reporting how things really went in the legal case involving Grigori Grabovoi. The verdict of Russian Supreme Court putted an end on this case, and cancelled the previous charges on Grabovoi. I think this source should also be put in the Article section of this page.

https://www.mk.ru/social/2018/04/16/voskresitel-mertvykh-detey-grigoriy-grabovoy-poluchil-pravo-na-reabilitaciyu.htmlVincit8 (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

That simply means that he does not count as a criminal, he counts as a cult leader who fancies that he is Jesus Christ. People who think they are Jesus, Napoleon, or Caesar obviously don't belong in jail, they belong somewhere else. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Libel against the character of Dr. Grigori Petrovich Grabovoi

~~{{Most of the information on the folder 'Article', or main page of this biography needs to be revised and corrected, or else the page should be removed completely, since clearly not all the contributors check the sources to be truthful, no offense intended, this is detrimental and perjudices the reputation of a person this page is about: Dr. Grigori Petrovich Grabovoi. Most of the information provided we have found inaccurate or false or distorted.}}Sayitright22 (talk) Sayitright22 (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

if there are problems with this article, the way you have been trying to rectify it is entirely the wrong way to get it dealt with. Creating multiple accounts, placing inappropriate speedy deletion tags, and blanking sourced content achieves nothing but antagonising people. Read up on Wikipedia policy (starting with Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons), and then make a reasoned argument as to why this article needs modifying, citing all necessary sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I do not have multiple accounts. And I will check the resources you suggest. Thank you for that. Sayitright22 (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2023

Thi page is an attack page, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. Under the criteria theis page must be removed immediately. 5.91.47.181 (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Outside the scope of a edit request. See section immediately above for advice on editing. Cannolis (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Grigori Grabovoi.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Grigori Grabovoi.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Grigori Grabovoi biography in user namespace

Dear Everyone and @Daniel Case:, I started to create Grigori Grabovoi's detailed, probable biography at User:Eightbillion/Grigori Grabovoi. I plan to create a short biography soon, based on this Hungarian version, which will use reliable sources only, and add the needed sources from the existing main namespace biography. Later I will suggest to use the short biogtaphy in main namespace.
Eightbillion (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no possibility whatsoever of the biography being accepted in article mainspace. It is promotional, and entirely non-compliant with WP:NPOV. I suggest you familiarise yourself with how Wikipedia actually works before proceeding further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

If that's a translation from the Hungarian version, I am amazed that it is so credulous. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

It isn't a translation from the Hungarian Wikipedia article. It is a translation from a draft in Eightbillion's Hungarian user space. The actual Hungarian Wikipedia biography is here. [1] A substantially different article, which doesn't consist solely of credulous nonsense claiming in Wikipedia's voice that Grabovoi "is clairvoyant, can remotely cure people of terminal AIDS and cancer, can predict the future, and claims he knows the exact solution to tasks instantly, to be able to read people's minds regardless of spoken language or distance, control events, direct the weather, move objects at a distance, teleport, materialize and dematerialize matter, and can resurrect the gone ones" and other abject idiocy. I probably shouldn't be surprised that people attach any credibility to such hogwash, though I am surprised that anyone could claim it was based on 'reliable sources', or that it could form a basis for anything other than an example of the continuing gullibility of humankind. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Why a lot of editors don't allow this link to be published in the Article?

Article content must be sourced to material compliant with Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines. This applies regardless of whether those wishing to include material are capable of understanding such policies or not.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello everyone! Here it is the news by a reliable secondary source Russian newspaper, reporting the verdict issued by Supreme Russian Court on April, 11 2018: it stated that all the charges on Grigori Grabovoy has been canceled: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E11:5:8260:A19F:9D83:44F:E486 (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC) For a start, it is far from clear, working via Google translate, exactly what the source is saying. There were clearly issues with the circumstances of his detention, as the ECHR commented on, which the Russian courts seem to have taken into consideration. Was he finally acquitted of all charges though? Again, looking at the translation, it reads more like his lawyer arguing that he should have been. I think it might be best to find uninvolved Russian-speaking contributors to take a look at the source, to clarify exactly what Moskovskij Komsomolets say about the decision of the court. It might help if further sources could be found, too, since this might clarify things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC) Yes Grigori Grabovoi was acquitted of all charges. There is another reliable secondary source reporting this: https://web.archive.org/web/20230406201819/https://rapsinews.ru/judicial_news/20180411/282466504.html 81.56.1.5 (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC) Again, via Google translate, that article does not appear to state that Grabovoi was acquitted of all charges. It seems to be saying that Grabovoi was released on parole. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC) This is the translation via deepl.com: "MOSCOW, April 11 - RAPSI. The Presidium of the Supreme Court on Wednesday cancelled rulings to extend the period of arrest and to refuse to release from pre-trial detention the sect founder Grigoriy Grabovoy, who gained scandalous fame after promising to resurrect victims of the Beslan terrorist attack, the court's press service told RAPSI. The ruling follows a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, which in September 2016 awarded Grabovoy €2,400 in compensation for the more than two years he spent in pre-trial detention while awaiting trial and sentencing. "The Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation today overturned a total of 26 rulings that concerned the extension of Grabovoy's preventive measure of arrest and the denial of custodial appeals," the court spokesman specified. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) 81.56.1.5 (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC) The Google translation is very similar. And neither translation is unambiguous. '26 rulings' may have been overturned, but that isn't a statement that Grabovoi has been acquitted of all the charges he was jailed under. Anyway, there is little point in trying to resolve this through looking at translations - which is why I think we need uninvolved Russian speakers to look at the sources. I'll leave this until tomorrow, in case anyone has more sources to be discussed, and then ask for help on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC) "Московский комсомолец" (mk.ru) is not reliable sourse - its very similar to Daily Mail. In Supreme Russian Court on April, 11 2018 (http://vsrf.ru/stor_pdf.php?id=1647762) (after "On 22 September 2016, the European Court of Human Rights ruled on financial compensation of €2,500 for Grabovoi for an unreasonably long pre-trial detention period (more than two years)") didn't say that Grabovoy was acquitted of all charges. Only about the decisions of the courts regarding of pre-trial detention. But this does not apply to the main decision of the court "On 7 July 2008, the Tagansky Court in Moscow found Grabovoi guilty of 11 counts of large-scale fraud and sentenced him to 11 years of imprisonment. According to the court sentence, Grabovoi organized a pyramid scheme, franchising his "followers" to practice within the cult provided that they remit 10% of receipts to Grabovoi" Sorry for my English --El-chupanebrej (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC) Thanks for that. Unfortunately, we don't cite primary-source court documents, so we can't use that source directly. It certainly seems to be sufficient to doubt claims being made here that Grabovoi was acquitted on all charges though. What we really need is a secondary reliable source that states unambiguously what the court found. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC) Yes, of course. Its only about incorrrect statement in this disscussion about "Grabovoi was acquitted of all charges". El-chupanebrej (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC) And what about this one, is it a reliable source? <<redacted>> https://web.archive.org/web/20230406201819/https://rapsinews.ru/judicial_news/20180411/282466504.html2A01:E11:5:8260:34D3:43A:B75D:243D (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC) DO NOT post translations of entire source articles here - it is a breach of copyright. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC) The first source cited above clearly refers to Grabovoi being released 'on parole'. As for the rest (which I have redacted for copyright reasons) we don't cite court rulings, as I have already stated, and a translation of a statement made by Grabovoi's lawyer isn't a reliable source on anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC) Why did my edit get removed? Could you be so kind to clarify this for me, please? I cited the book where I got the information from and I see in the section or 'sources' plenty of links and books cited there...In my understanding, a book is a reliable source. Truthbetold27 (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC) Your understanding is incorrect. Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Carefully. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC) The book I cited is written by someone else's research and I do research on a topic that interests me, I found the verifrication of the information in the article MKRU, and other sources that are available online, therefore, I don't really understand why it is not being approved. Truthbetold27 (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC) Self published books aren't reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC) The book I'm citing is not self published, it has been written by a woman with the name of Yelena Loginova. She did her own research, she doesn't personally know Grigori Grabovoi. She investigated... Truthbetold27 (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Have you tried these 'technologies'? I bet you would know first hand if they work... Truthbetold27 (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC) It's clearly on a self-publishing imprint. Only books from major publishers can be used. MrOllie (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Ah! I see what you're saying...is it approved to share links from archive.org as a reliable source, then? Truthbetold27 (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Archive.org is a hosting service, not a source. Please read WP:RS to find out what kinds of sources are usable on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Well, I must say that I got confused because in the section of sources there is one that came from there and it is included in the Article page, and it gives room for confusing newbies like me Truthbetold27 (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Did you know that Grigori Grabovoi’s work on diagnosing space technology included the diagnosis of all engines of the USA “Atlantis” and he gave the real technical picture that was confirmed in practice that was the change of settings of the bottom engine. And they noted that Grigori Grabovoi carried out this diagnostics in a matter of seconds being outdoors and communicating with the Control Center of Space Flights over the mobile phone? Truthbetold27 (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC) I know that nonsense like that isn't going to get included in this article, due to the policies you have already been told to read, but clearly haven't. This is not a forum, and off-topic posts are liable to be deleted. Read WP:RS. Read WP:NPOV. And stop wasting our time. AndyTheGrump (talk) Hi, to be exact, the April 11, 2018 Supreme Russian Court verdict decided to re-examine the case against Grigori Grabovoi, due to new circumstances (that is what stated in the September 22, 2016 European Court of Human Rights ruling), and canceled 26 carges on Grigori Grabovoi. If you want, I can list all 26 of them. The above applies precisely to the decision of Tagansky Court in Moscow on July 7, 2008, therefore it turns out that Grigori Grabovoi was illegaly detained. And in fact He received a money compensation for that. From April 11, 2018 Grigori Grabovoi is considered not convicted, it is forbidden by Russian law to say he was condemned. And the most important thing, the case has never considered the mothers of Beslan as victims. Neither Grigori Gabovoi, nor His followers went to Beslan, they didn't talk to anyone, and they didn't promise anyone to resurrect their children. 81.56.1.5 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC) What you consider to be 'exact' is of no relevance whatsoever to this article. All content needs to be directly backed up by citations to material meeting Wikipedia:Reliable sources criteria. This is not open to negotiation, and repeating the same unverified claims here is becoming disruptive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC) What I reported is not "what I consider relevant", but the contents displayed in these two reliable sources, that is https://web.archive.org/web/20230406202647/https://www.mk.ru/social/2018/04/16/voskresitel-mertvykh-detey-grigoriy-grabovoy-poluchil-pravo-na-reabilitaciyu.html and https://web.archive.org/web/20230406201819/https://rapsinews.ru/judicial_news/20180411/282466504.html These 2 newspaper reported the decision of April 11, 2018 Supreme Russian Court verdict, it is not my fault if you deliberately do not accurately translate what the 2 newspapers report. It is not possible to continue spreading fake news about Grigori Grabovoi, using these kinds of excuses, as well as calling a user who should know Russian, but is clearly in bad faith. Wikipedia needs "reliable neutral sources"? Here they are. 2A01:E11:5:8260:8C21:191F:9CA5:A65D (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC) And they have one from archive.org published in the Sources section of the Article page...if it is neutral as they say it is, they should allow for the truthful information to be included as well, not only the libelous information...I wonder...if they are umpartial, they should allow for all info to come in and let people decide. If they have not tried these technologies, they cannot say either that they do not work...I thought they said nothing is personal here...it gives me other impression Truthbetold27 (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC) There is this one too [2] Truthbetold27 (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC) References

Here there are 2 reliable sources reporting the abolishment of 26 charges on Grigori Grabovoi by Supreme Russian Court verdict on 11.04.2018. The process against Grigori Grabovoi was declared illegal

1: https://www.mk.ru/social/2018/04/16/voskresitel-mertvykh-detey-grigoriy-grabovoy-poluchil-pravo-na-reabilitaciyu.html

2: https://rapsinews.ru/judicial_news/20180411/282466504.html

These two articles reported the fact that and on the basis of the decision of the 22.09.2016 European Court verdict, the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 11.04.2018 has passed a resolution of cancelation of 26 charges against Grigori Grabovoi. European Court verdict declared that Grigori Grabovoi was illegally detained for a long time. From April 2018, Grigori Petrovich Grabovoi is considered to be not convicted.

In the press conference lawyer M. Trepashkin stated that: I. twenty-six resolutions have been canceled. The reverse process has started, and it proves that Grigori Petrovich was illegally detained. II. since April 11,2018, it is forbidden to write anywhere that Grigori Grabovoi was convicted, he is not convicted. III. the most important thing is that the case nowhere includes the mothers of Beslan as victims. Grigori Petrovich had not been in Beslan, he did not talk to anyone and promised no one to resurrect the children.

Based on this, the Article page has to be corrected, as it has to adhere to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E11:5:8260:5049:D531:2CBF:DAEE (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Reposting the same unreliable stuff and the same stuff that has failed verficiation over and over will not accomplish anything. - MrOllie (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I would agree, because this website is supposed to report in a neutral fashion, and it seems to me that some editors are taking this personal, breaking their own rules and making offensive comments is not allowed although they do it. The diverse points of view should be taken into consideration, since that is what 'reporting' is, and it is relevant to the article.

There is this other article that talks about the Termination of the Criminal Case of Grigori Grabovoi on the basis of the Law of the Russian Federation, and as people get more information, they can make an informed desicion, instead of giving the impression of this article being manipulated for personal interests, whichever they might be, it is not what Wikipedia explains itself to be.

It gives a bad reputation to Wikipedia, just saying... Truthbetold27 (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Neutral does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. Flat earthers also think that our articles on globes aren't neutral, but we don't think that's a problem. MrOllie (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

It is not a problem, I simply state that that is not what I understood Wikipedia was about, the false information, the truthful information, what is the real interest of Wikipedia in regards to this, I wonder?

It seems to me that even with all the articles shared here, the editors decide what is true for them only, not the neutral standpoint, and that is like an autocracy, instead of allowing people to participate to enrich an article...that is the main goal, but this is more like a personal debate between a few editors and the people that want to bring some other insights in this matter... Truthbetold27 (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

References

A reliable source reporting the declaration of Susanna Dudieva president of the committee "The Mothers of Beslan", stating that Grigori Grabovoi had not been in Beslan

The 26.01.2007 article from Gazeta-Resonans reported a lot of irregolarities in the case against Grigori Grabovoi, for example the declarations of Susanna Dudieva, president of the committee "Mothers of Beslan" that declared that Grigori Grabovoi had never been in Beslan. Another important claim in the article is the declaration of the Bulgarian reporter Valentina Genkova, the author of video recording of the meeting between Baba Vanga and Grigori Grabovoi on 27.10.1995. She declared that the fragment of her video presented by Russian television was deliberately distorted in order to mislead the public. That is, Baba Vanga treated well Grigori Grabovoi, in particular Baba Vanga declared that Grigori Petrovich, possessing phenomenal qualities, must necessarily continue to heal people and expand the scope of his abilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E11:5:8260:D8F9:CEB8:4594:18A5 (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for the propagation of gullibility. Go peddle your messiah somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The fact declared by Susanna Dudieva that Grigori Grabovoi had never been in Beslan, has been published in this article, a reliable source, therefore It isn't important your own point of view on this article. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth : "Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be the truth" 2A01:E11:5:8260:D8F9:CEB8:4594:18A5 (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

If your own point of view isn't important, why are you so keen on spamming this page with credulous horseshit about Grabovoi's supposed "phenomenal qualities". AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

What is the proper way to add these facts to the article?

Fact about his scientific titles:

• "The court found that Grabovoi G.P.: 'has a higher education, scientific titles and diplomas, as well as patented inventions, the legality of which was confirmed by patent expert Dagunts E.E.'"

(суд установил наличие у Грабового Г.П.: «высшего образования, ученых званий, степеней, а также запатентованных изобретений, легитимность которых подтвердила патентовед Дагунц Е.Е.».)

(source is already in use as ref name="vestnik" E. P. Kruglyakov, Bulletin, 5 November 2011, page 4)

Facts about the veracity of the news that Grigori Grabovoi met with the mothers of children killed during the siege of a school in Beslan, in 2004 and promised them that he would resurrect their children for a fee:

• "The contacts of the Beslan mothers with Grigori Grabovoi were widely covered in the media (however, later this episode was not included in the criminal case)."

(Контакты бесланских матерей с Григорием Грабовым широко освещались в СМИ (однако впоследствии этот эпизод не вошел в уголовное дело).)

(source is already in use as ref name="GR" 8 July 2008)

• "This is a slander of the all-Russian scale! Neither Grabovoi himself, nor his representatives were ever in Beslan, they never talked to the mothers of the children perished during the terrorist attack and they never made such promises. This is confirmed by Susanna Dudieva, the leader of the 'Mothers of Beslan' Committee."

(source is already in use as ref name="voa" 19 September 2008)

• "The nongovernmental organization Mothers of Beslan denied that any of its members had paid for Grabovoi's services."

(source is already in use as ref name="RFERL" 22 September 2016)

• "I am the chairman of the Mothers of Beslan committee and an eyewitness to everything that is happening. And for the hundredth or thousandth time I declare that not a single mother of a child who died in the Beslan tragedy has ever paid any money to Grigori Grabovoi, moreover, Grigori Petrovich himself and none of his students have ever been to Beslan."

(Я являюсь председателем комитета «Матери Беслана» и очевидцем всего происходящего. И уже сотый или тысячный раз заявляю, что ни одна мать ребёнка, погибшего в бесланской трагедии, никогда не платила никаких денег Григорию Грабовому, более того, сам Григорий Петрович и ни один из его учеников никогда не были в Беслане.)

(source is already in use as ref name="Dudieva" 18 April 2007)

Eightbillion (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The article already covers Dudieva's denials, we're not going to belabor the point with redundant additions, nor are we going to treat claims by Grabovoi's lawyers as facts. We're also not going to repeat promotional claims just because they got entered into court records. This material is already covered in the article as much as WP:UNDUE allows. MrOllie (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Dudieva's statement of "not a single mother of a child who died in the Beslan tragedy has ever paid any money to Grigori Grabovoi, moreover, Grigori Petrovich himself and none of his students have ever been to Beslan." is not yet included in the article, so this information is not redundant. The statement of "this episode was not included in the criminal case" is from a newspaper, not from Grigori Grabovoi's lawyer, and not only the criminal case but obviously the judgement miss this fact. The fact that even the contacts of the Beslan mothers with Grigori Grabovoi were widely covered in the media and he nonetheless was not judged with this means that his lawyer and Dudieva are right in this issue. And it is not falling in the WP:UNDUE category because it partially reverses the situation: journalists defamed him and thus committed a crime. Eightbillion (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Defamation is not a crime. And if they defamed him, why didn't he win his suit? Lard Almighty (talk) Lard Almighty (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

According to the defamation page, it is a crime.

During the investigation, they found people who felt they didn't get what they wanted for their money and were willing to accuse him, but none of them were from Beslan.

According to the judgement people paid for seminar and not for the actual resurrection. Grigori Grabovoi only promised to teach them a special technique that allows them to meet with deceased relatives in the spirit world or to be cured. Grigori Grabovoi always emphasized that success depends on the accuracy of the execution of his instructions and the abilities of the client himself.[3] Furthermore, because of the free will of the person to be resurrected, he did not promise a 100% guarantee of resurrection or that the resurrected person will return to his family.

According to his lawyer, he did not win his case because it was conducted illegally.[4] One of the illegalities was his 2-year pretrial detention, which was recognized by the courts in 2016 and 2018. And as soon as it can be proven that a one-man "group" was accused, his entire sentence will be canceled and he will be acquitted.[5] Eightbillion (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

You still appear to be under the misapprehension that Wikipedia considers Grabovoi's lawyer's statements to be relevant to our article. They aren't. Lawyers are paid to say what their clients tell them to. As for the rest, the precise details as to how Grabovoi persuaded grieving mothers to hand over cash to him are of little relevance. Or none at all actually, without proper sources. I suggest you stop spamming this talk page with irrelevant nonsense, before you join those already blocked as not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

In what form can the following statement be added from the already sourced gazeta.ru page where Andrey Stenin journalist details how the Tagansky Court in Moscow convicted Grigori Grabovoi?

"The contacts of the Beslan mothers with Grigori Grabovoi were widely covered in the media (however, later this episode was not included in the criminal case)." Eightbillion (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

We may agree hereupon: the promised resurrection of the children from Beslan was the spark which ignited the penal prosecution, but eventually that charge got dropped. I don't see what is so controversial about our agreement. The Beslan matter is relevant because it was widely reported by the press, not because it was a charge during his trial. Apples and oranges. Also, the Nazarbayev matter was also a reason for starting the penal prosecution. Grabovoi simply got too greedy and too proud of himself. But again, in the Christian worldview, no man or woman could be greater than Jesus Christ. And he thinks he is Jesus. Of course he considered that Nazarbayev is small potatoes in comparison with the second coming of Jesus. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the Beslan matter, the news about it in the media are relevant, these are historical facts, furthermore the charge about it got dropped. These facts should be represented in the biography, I agree. Eightbillion (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

"Charge was dropped" is not synonymous with "charge was false". tgeorgescu (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Then what is the proper way to include that fact in the article? Eightbillion (talk) 08:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Then write "The charge that he offered to resurrect the children from Beslan was dropped." But there is no indication that it were false. For the court it's a matter of producing evidence, of people willing to testify for a government that they distrust. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

How should we reflect this fact in the introduction of the article?

"In 2008, he was sentenced to 11 years in prison after promising to the mothers of victims of the 2004 Beslan school siege that he could resurrect their children." → "In 2008, he was sentenced to 11 years in prison after promising to the mothers of victims of the 2004 Beslan school siege that he could resurrect their children, however that charge was dropped, and was sentenced due to large-scale fraud." Eightbillion (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy has been explained more than adequately. We are under no obligation to continue such explanations indefinitely. If you can't understand why what you consider personally 'fact' is of no relevance here, that's your problem, not ours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I think what you did here is vandalism, as you removed an important fact from the biography that we have already agreed upon with other wikipedians. Furthermore, you gave an "unsourced" explanation for undoing my edit, which is false since I provided a reliable source for it. Please restore the article. Eightbillion (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

No such agreement was made. tgeorgescu does not represent Wikipedians in general, and I'm not sure that what he wrote above accurately reflects the sources. And the edit makes little sense anyway, since the article states that Grabovoi was convicted of fraud. Not convicted of "promising to resurrect children", which (I assume) isn't a specific offence under Russian law. The promises were submitted as evidence of fraud. Or maybe they weren't. It doesn't really matter that much, since the offences Grabovoi was convicted of were fraud. In your words 'large-scale fraud'. And read WP:VANDAL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

'Dropped' has a specific meaning in court proceedings - that would be read to mean that the charge was filed and withdrawn by the prosecution sometime after proceedings began. I don't see any sources supporting that. MrOllie (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

In this case defamation is not a crime. It is a civil matter. That is why he sued - and lost. Therefore he was not defamed. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know where he sued, but most jurisdictions have the verity defense: if you can show that your claims are accurate, those cannot count as defamation. This is especially true for people who have become object of controversy inside mainstream media. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

So, yeah, even if he said he will do it free (gratis), it is still a highfalutin claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

But coming back at the issue: Dudieva is a member of Grabovoi's WP:FRINGE cult, and her declaration may safely be considered biased and self-serving. His claim of resurrecting the Beslan children was too broadly reported by the mainstream media, so a denial by a fellow cultist cannot cancel that.

About has a higher education: yup, he has kind of MSc in engineering. But don't let his "professor diploma" fool you: professor is a job, not a diploma. It is true that one has to have several diplomas to be appointed as a full professor, but there is no diploma of being a full professor. So, technically there can be no fake diplomas of being a professor, since genuine diplomas of being a professor don't exist either. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: @MrOllie: @Tgeorgescu:: I created a User:Eightbillion/Grigori Grabovoi (talk helper) page to help us discuss the biography. On this page I use the events in chronological order. I think the main namespace biography also should have at least one section where all the events are in order. The events which are currently not in order are marked with red. I added one more indicator to show his respect level throughout his life, and marked with bold text those events which in my opinion resulted the change. The content itself is the copy of the main namespace version, and I added some parts to it marked with green. I changed the section titles intentionally to show the respect periods, and of course I do not want to use this section partitioning on the main namespace version. For the issue we talked about I use the sentence "After the investigation was completed, the prosecutor's office did not charge him with the accusation published in the media that Grigori Grabovoi visited Beslan and promised to resurrect Beslan mothers for money.". I added the some time ago questioned "criminal record deleted" issue as well. I think the explanation is now understandable and acceptable. What do you think?
--Eightbillion (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that the present structure of the article, grouping by topic is preferable, and I think that your WP:OR 'respect levels' are completely unusable for any purpose. Mentioning things he wasn't charged with violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR - being charged (or not) with a particular claim is a tactical decision by the prosecutors and doesn't mean anything more - it is certainly not an indication that Grabovoi was innocent of that charge. No changes to this article are necessary. MrOllie (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, grouping by topic is good, but I think we should add at least one section where the events are in chronological order. I think this is also a wikipedia policy or guideline.

The respect levels, I think, is observable from the news. He won awards before 2004, and in 2002 the Central Documentary Studio filmed a respecting documentary of him. The drop of his respect level is clear after the media news followed his announcement. Also the prosecution happened just after the DRUGG has founded.

About its innocence in the Beslan matter: sure we don't know if he was innocent, or guilty, so we can say the safe version, that he was not accused with that charge.

I think the article in the present form does not show his respected status prior his announcement, so the article should be changed. Even a simple event ordering would help a lot to the quality of the article.
Eightbillion (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear about this, per WP:OR Wikipedia doesn't give a flying fuck what your assessment of 'respect' is, whether you arrived at it by watching the news or any other method. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The article is fine. It is not going to be used as a platform for legal arguments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

References

More non-RS stuff

In this interview, on March, 17 2007 in the Russian newspaper IFormat.ru, Marina Lavrentyevna Popovich told that she met G.P. Grabovoi in Tashkent. She flew there together with General Dedukh in a big ANTEY plane, she was the commander. When she arrived in Tashkent, she remembered that Systsov, the chief engineer of this plant, told her that there was such a unique person, Grigori Grabovoi, who diagnosed the planes and tried to ensure the safety of the flights. Then she met him in that occasion. She reported that Grigori Petrovich Grabovoi was a very young men, and he really, unequivocally pointed out the flaws. He pointed out precisely the points of the hidden cracks inside the metal, which could only be detected under laboratory conditions. And he could diagnose instantly, staying at a great distance from the plane, or simply working with technological maps in his office. Grigori Petrovich Grabovoi was an aeronautical engineer by education, he knew and saw everything perfectly. Everything he pointed out was confirmed. And when he warned from Lefortovo about the threat of a nuclear explosion and aircraft accidents, this is more than serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E11:5:8260:D8F9:CEB8:4594:18A5 (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stop spamming this page with links to credulous horseshit. Articles consist of material cited to Wikipedia:Reliable sources only - which self-evidently doesn't include such garbage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

you are insulting the people who gave these interviews, which are reported from secondary sources as per wikipedia rules. 37.160.210.245 (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Interviews are never secondary sources. MrOllie (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

You're evading a block. If you keep posting here without getting your original account unblocked, you're just going to get the talk page locked down so new users can't edit it any more. MrOllie (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Scientist???

Perhaps at the peak of his career, Grabovoi was an engineer, but he never was a scientist. If you don't believe me, name five scientific articles he published in reputable scientific journals (no MDPI, Hindawi, or stuff like that). E.g. at PubMed and alternative spelling he published nothing. Also 0 (zero, naught) results at JSTOR and EBSCO, the few results which are about him are not his own works. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

It wouldn't matter even if Grabovoi had published in scientific journals. They are primary sources, and do nothing to indicate any form of recognition as a scientist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Which could be completely true, but a complete lack of scientific publications is a token he never was a scientist. Indeed, there are parapsychologists, such as Etzel Cardeña and Dick J. Bierman, who have bona fide papers in bona fide scientific journals. Grabovoi has none. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

RS

He appears in Lindquist, Galina (2006). Conjuring Hope: Magic and Healing in Contemporary Russia. Berghahn Series. Berghahn Books. p. 37. ISBN 978-1-84545-057-1. Retrieved 2023-04-17. But the WP:RS does not seem to say much about him, his ad is only used as an example of Russian alternative healers. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Interview with P.V. Vinogradov, Russian pilot cosmonaut in defense of Grigori Grabovoi

Interview with P.V. Vinogradov, Russian pilot cosmonaut

In his April, 10 2007 interview,[6]https://web.archive.org/web/20071125213425/http://iformat.ru/article/v-zashchitu-zhurnalistskoe-rassledovanie-ugolovnogo-dela--376062-po-moshennichestvu-grigoriya-grabovogo-intervyu-s-letchikom-kosmonavtom-pv-vinogradovym Pavel Vinogradov tells about his first meeting with Grigori Grabovoi, in 1999. The meeting happens in a very serious situation: the space station MIR was in flight, and a new crew had to be launched on it. The Mission Control Center noticed a drop in pressure on the station, a leak. And a quick decision had to be undertaken: to launch or not to launch the crew?

General Meshcheryakov brought Grigori to the Mission Control  Center and P. Vinogradov  explained him how the station was set up, what they suspected, how a leak could happen, how it could be fixed. And Grigori Grabovoi just pointed his finger, and told:  “the leak is here”. P. Vinogradov was very surprised, because in that section nothing should leak at all. But it was in exactely in that place, six months later, that the crew found a microscopic gap, after disembarking to the station, with the help of special instruments. Nikka888 (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for the regurgitation of credulous horseshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)