Talk:Orlando Figes/Archive 1

Untitled
What does the sentence "The book subscribes largely to the revisionist school of history" mean? The link to revisionism doesn't seem to bring any clarity, only more confusion. --LA2 01:17, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the whole revisionism line is inaccurate and misleading anyway. I've removed it and expanded a little on the biographical background.

Pronunciation
editprotected Administrator, could you add the pronunciation of Figes' name (IPA pronunciation: ) ?
 * Done. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Allegations
Regardless of the truth of them, serious accusations such as the ones being added tot his article cannot be added without a reliable source. Please do not re-add the information without providing a source. Phil Sandifer 19:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please add Cat
editprotected Please add category : Fellows of the Royal Society of Literature GrahamHardy (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Article text doesn't mention this, do you have a citation to go with it? —Random832 18:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Request disabled until citation provided. Sandstein (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see List of fellows for citation GrahamHardy (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done. Sandstein (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection
Would it be possible to unprotect this article and improve it per these       and other sources?Biophys (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like the defamers are back... Biophys (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thousands
I just changed thousand to thousands and am wondering if perhaps making this 'many' or something else would be more appropriate. Did he really interview 2000+ people personally? If so, it might be best to put an approximate number like 'nearly 2500 people'... for now thousands stays. --Matthew K (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Orlando Figes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110704131447/http://www.foreignpolicy.com:80/articles/2011/06/20/dont_go_there?page=0,2 to http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/20/dont_go_there?page=0,2

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Orlando Figes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120502164742/http://unicorntheatre.com/stalinsfavourite to http://www.unicorntheatre.com/stalinsfavourite
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080509130501/http://www.rslit.org/ondaatje.htm to http://www.rslit.org/ondaatje.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Orlando Figes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130725073104/http://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/67676/platforms/stalins-favourite.html to http://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/67676/platforms/stalins-favourite.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Orlando Figes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101011151319/http://londonersdiary.standard.co.uk:80/2010/10/its-a-war-of-the-historians-part-two-.html to http://londonersdiary.standard.co.uk/2010/10/its-a-war-of-the-historians-part-two-.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Reviews in Amazon.com
I believe this does not belong to BLP as "undue weight" and poorly sourced materials. Who cares about on-line reviews in amazon.com? Anyone can write them.Biophys (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the sources are good: online pages corresponding to British and American print newspapers, rather than just 'blogs'. (There have been small changes made to this section over the last few months, however, and I haven't rechecked the page against the sources given.) As to whether this is undue weight, that's a more difficult question of judgement. I think inclusion of this section is proper, set within the context of the laudatory material about Figes's historical achievement elsewhere on the page: 'quarrels of authors' didn't die with Isaac D'Israeli. Dsp13 (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * At least some of the current references are indeed blogs. Besides, not every bit of negative information belongs to BLP. His books and research are important. His writings in amazon.com are not.Biophys (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All right, I checked the sources and made a shorter version as a compromise solution.Biophys (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the effort. I've checked the sources remaining and restored some, though not all, of the content there previously - hopefully we're converging! Best, Dsp13 (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disagree, but I think the scandals about nothing (and writings in amazon.com are really nothing) do not belong here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Biophys (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The assertion that Ms Polonsky and Mr Service threatened to report Mr Figes to the police for the reviews is not supported by any of the associated footnote references. This assertion is merely a repetition of a similar assertion by Mr Figes in the referenced Sunday Times article [29] and as such is not referenced from a high quality source. It has been removed in line with the 'Biographies of living persons' policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qpmz10 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The assertion is supported by the Sunday Times (a high quality source) which presumably checked its veracity through lawyers and printed it the deleted reference (now restored). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qpmz11 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Did Dr. Figes apologize and promised to pay actual legal fees spent by Ms Polonsky and Mr Service? ("It took three months for Professor Figes to provide a satisfactory offer in respect of compensation and the considerable legal costs we had been forced to incur..." said Polonsky ). If so, we should assume that he was a target of a law suit. Rigt? As I said above, this entire thing should be removed as relatively unimportant in this BLP article. Figes is known for his writings (as reflected in publications about him), not for this scandal. As about Mr Service, yes, he is known mostly for this scandal - please look at references in his BLP article, so let's place it there if you insist. Biophys (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All right. There are at least two participants who create multiple accounts while editing this article. It's fine to edit, but please consult with WP:COI and create/use only one account per WP:SOCK. Thanks.Biophys (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, like you I'd rather these academic squabbles weren't continued on wikipedia, but the edit history of the page suggests to me there's been a degree of that in the past. I can't really agree with the contrast you made between Figes and Service in the last two sentences of your previous post. The asymmetry in the effort expended on their respective wikipages at present doesn't especially reflect notability. Figes and Service are clearly both major historians of Russia - e.g., try searching "{name}" "russian history" for each on Google books. Dsp13 (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That are mostly their own publications. I did not find a lot published by independent third parties about R. Service. I used to look at ISI citation index which covers references to their scientific articles rather than books and found exactly zero references to works by Service and only five references to works by Figes. This is very low. In natural sciences, a beginner can easily have a hundred refs to him. But who cares? Biophys (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To put it simple, why would anyone wanted to include such non-notable/non-encyclopedic content except to disparage the subject? You seem to suggest that such materials should be included to balance WP:PEA problems on another side. But this is not the way. Instead, one should simply fix WP:PEA. Unfortunately, I can not do it because of my topic ban. Frankly, I do not see myself a part of this project as long as this ban remains... Biophys (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Another sleepless night for Jimmy Wales, then. --95.146.239.71 (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

In conformity with BLP policy, I have deleted a false statement which concerns me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelPolonsky (talk • contribs) 11:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * On behalf of Wikipedia editors, I can only apologise, Rachel. They must have all been reading a lot of Russian history recently and they're feeling really down in the dumps about the purges and all that bad stuff. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Controversial and disputed material in WP:BLP cases must be removed pending discussion, so I have done that. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support removal, as I argued above. Good call.Biophys (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am astonished that all mention of Figes' legal wrangle with Robert Service and Rachel Polonsky has been removed from this page. The relevant detail is not that he wrote Amazon reviews about himself and other authors, but that he threatened severe litigation against those authors and then backed down when this was proven not to be true - this is a verifiable fact supported by impeccable sources. I agree that the matter should not be in the least sensationalized but to expunge it from the record entirely, while mention remains of John Terry's use of a super-injunction to conceal his infidelity (reporting of which has nothing whatever to do with his skills as a footballer), and Max Moseley's interest in sado-masochism (reporting of which not only has no relevance to his business skills but has since been declared by the courts to have been a breach of his human rights) is perverse and inconsistent. My concern is that the whole Figes Amazon business centred on concepts of reputation-protection by suppressing information/discussion, and for Wikipedia to remove all mention of it appears - though I do not think for one minute that it is - like a fear of upsetting a notorious litigant. But Figes's case is akin to that of Jeffrey Archer (whose perjury conviction is in the introductory sentence of his Wiki bio): the actions which might be seen to have dented his reputation (though not, for Figes, as a historian, at which he is excellent) has been accepted by all sides in law and the matter closed. As a matter of public record it seems bizarre to omit all mention of it.

I might suggest something along the lines of, and under no heading: "In early 2010 Figes was involved in a legal controversy about several psuedonymous reviews of his and other historian's books on Amazon.com. After initially denying authorship and threatening legal action against those who claimed otherwise, Figes eventually accepted responsibility, withdrew his legal action, and agreed to pay undisclosed damages to the authors concerned". Let one or two appropriate footnotes take the curious reader to the details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerreno (talk • contribs) 11:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If Figes paid "undisclosed damages", it means he fell a victim of litigation rather than his opponents. Is not it? A scandal may or may not be notable, depending on the particular article and person. Of course if someone was convicted, this must be included (but no one was). To comply with WP:BLP policy, we should focus on facts. Here they are: (1) he wrote reviews in amazon.com with criticisms of other historians as an anonymous author; (2) he later apologized for that and paid for damages because he was threatened with law suit by people he criticized. If you wish to include something brief along these lines, could you please post suggested text right here for discussion? Thanks, Biophys (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I added two sentences in quotation marks that I thought covered the matter sufficiently and in strictly factual terms. Are they not sufficient? It's important that the fact of Figes's threat of litigation against Service is mentioned at least in passing because, like Oscar Wilde, had he not pressed aggressive and unfounded legal action in the first place himself, Figes would not have got into trouble (there would have been no legal case to answer against a few snotty Amazon reviews, Figes would merely have looked petty and foolish; bringing his lawyer into action against Service, accusing Service of being a libellous defamer himself is another matter entirely). I should probably mention, in the arena of internet anonymity, that I have absolutely no axe to grind here and no interest in any of the parties involved. I have never met any of them and, actually, they are all very good historians. It's more for Wikipedia's sake that I think an appropriate level of accuracy is necessary here. Cerreno (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2011 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.83.62 (talk)
 * But it looks like some other parties have an interest here (see statement above by someone who claimed to be RachelPolonsky; the article was protected/unprotected; and the editing by multiple WP:SPAs is quite obvious). If you want to jump to the dispute and revert an administrator who just blocked another account (and rightly so), that's your choice. I personally believe this story should not at all be included: there was no any actual litigation or court order; no one was fired; and there was no real scientific disputes. The subject of the article is known for his research and publications, rather than for his reviews in amazon.com and this story. Biophys (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what is meant by "to jump[ing] to the dispute and revert an administrator". This is a discussion page. I pointed out earlier that this is inconsistent with other WP:BLPs where "scandals" get more detailed coverage regardless of actual litigation. There *was* a lawsuit, there *were* lawyers, and the dispute *was* settled between the lawyers and confidential damages settled. Just like Zuckerberg vs. the Winklevosses. The subject of the article is rightly known for his books, but he is now also known for this, by many people who had not only never read one of his books before, but who had probably never heard of him. It would beyond doubt be excluded from any official biography of him and included in any unofficial one. You keep mentioning the Amazon reviews but they are irrelevant. It is his actions as a malicious litigant that renders this significant. I thought my text covered it. Not *sensationally* significant, but significant all the same.Cerreno (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2011 (GMT)
 * Which source tells about the actual lawsuit in a court? I did not see any. You suggest to essentially restore this version (before removal). We do not have WP:Consensus to restore this right now.Biophys (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Winklevoss/Zuckerberg didn't go to court. Really, I'm not willing to go to the stake about this; you seem especially determined to make an exception for Figes and unwilling to answer any argument I present. It's just not that important to me - as I say, consistency and accuracy were my concerns and I thought it perverse that Wikipedia should enforce the kind of reputation-protection that the legal business here sought itself to enforce (especially when other public figures do not get similar protection). But I have no axe to grind and no investment in Wikipedia I care to defend. User out.Cerreno (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2011 (GMT)
 * Yes, that's a good example about Winklevoss/Zuckerberg. Not only it actually was in the court, but this is a notable controversy related to Facebook, it was described in movies, and so on. Nothing like this "controversy".Biophys (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I am perplexed as to why there is no account on Figes' page of his sockpuppet controversy, which is mentioned on the sockpuppet page in Wikipedia as among the most notable instances of such activity, and which I remember reading about in the Times Literary Supplement, which surely counts not merely as a reputable source but as an independent indicator of notability. Is there any way to get another Wikipedia editor to restore this material to this page, or is the (clearly biased, clearly closed to argument) 'Biophys' somehow the only one allowed to judge this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.104.96 (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This publication assumes that any anonymous editor should be regarded as "sockpuppet". Not so in wikipedia (please read WP:SOCK). Editing by a single anonymous account is encouraged here. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance; are you suggesting that Wikipedia's internal categories are the only ones anyone in the world should use? That's novel, but it's not convincing. How do I go about escalating this so that someone not as biased and CoI'd as Biophys / Hodja Nasreddin can make a judgment on restoring the erroneously-deleted notable information about Figes's actions and the academic and journalistic response to them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.104.96 (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm coming here from outside (saw something on the COI noticeboard), I have absolutely no interest to declare, and I strongly agree that the sources in the material removed here are perfectly good.  This seems to boil down to Biophys/Hodja speaking loudly against the commonsense fact, which is that this is notable and sourced and should be in the article.  Such statements as "writings in amazon.com are really nothing" won't fly: the online and print publications of The Guardian, TLS, the New York Times, London Times, The Daily Mail, and The Evening Standard prove that, according to the neutral standards of the world, the writings in amazon.com are notable and interesting, far more so than they need to be to get encyclopedic coverage. Wareh (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I have an interest to declare. I am Rachel Polonsky, one of the living persons involved in the 'controversy' over the Amazon reviews. It has been brought to my attention that the Wikipedia entry on Orlando Figes gives a misleading and unfair account of events, so I have deleted the sentence about the legal dispute. If there is to be any mention of the legal dispute at all, please would Wikipedia take care to record (as it did until the edit of 12 May 2013) that Orlando Figes initially denied responsibility for the reviews and threatened legal action against those who suggested that he was the author. No lawyers would have been involved at all unless he had first made those threats. As I have repeatedly stated here and elsewhere, Robert Service and I never made any threat to sue Orlando Figes over the Amazon reviews. (As far as I know, one cannot sue for libel over a book review, whether pseudonymous or signed.) It is up to others to decide how much Wikipedia should say about the Amazon reviews and their aftermath, but I would be grateful if Wikipedia editors would make sure that Living Persons are properly treated, and that the facts are correct and presented in a balanced way. Many thanks. RachelPolonsky (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Amazon story restored: Let's discuss if the content lacks proper sourcing
I've restored the questioned content. It's obviously notable, as a quick scan of the sources reveals. JzG gave an opportunity for discussion while temporarily removing it, and the time elapsed since has not revealed any broad or significant problem with the sources. The only question is whether the article is in danger of saying anything unsupported by the sources cited. If so, little revisions will be called for. Let's discuss them here. Wareh (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I quite agree. The section as restored is concise, accurate, impeccably sourced. The arguments for keeping it out are wholly unconvincing given the degree of reporting this story received. Benea (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The argument was not about sourcing, but about "undue weight" for this particular BLP article. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That's why I restored it. The undue weight argument is weak, since the notability of this story amply confirmed by its widespread media coverage.  Figes' celebrated accomplishments and stature as a scholar unfortunately do not change the fact that it's not these that got him all the press in the NY/London Timeses and the Guardian.  A sad but simple fact: he is now as notable to the encylopedia-reading public for the Amazon nonsense as for any number of the other facts reportable about him. (Thank you for confirming there's no problem with the sourcing.)  Wareh (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * See also discussion at COI noticeboard. It seems that Ms. Polonsky's removal of ten words as a "false statement" are particularly at issue.  But if (as claimed subsequently in the discussion above) it is the Sunday Times that said this (whether truly or falsely, as of course we can't know), then we do no wrong in reporting according to this source.  Wareh (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The Sunday Times article cited is unfortunately no longer available free online (making our reference a dead link). However, by searching the Sunday Times website, we can discover that the article "O the wild charges he made" by Bryan Appleyard, published October 3, 2010, contains the quote "I was threatened with libel proceedings, even with being reported to the police."
 * I have EBSCOhost and have confirmed this is a quote made by Figes to Appleyard about Polonsky. I will consider a clarifying edit.  Wareh (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe this must be entirely removed per WP:BLP policy for the reasons fully explained in several sections above. Sorry to disagree, but a difference in opinions is fine. Let's keep it your way if you feel strongly about this. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have since made an edit that makes 100% clear the support for the questionable phrase, giving in the footnote the entirety of the statement Figes made to reporter Bryan Appleyard, on which it is based. I do feel strongly the Amazon section is largely unimpeachable per BLP, but I am certainly open to discussion on particular points.  I appreciate your open-mindedness about this too.  However I'm unsure how to fit together "must be entirely removed" with "Let's keep it your way."  Is it the bit about the police that's at issue in your mind, and, if so, does my latest edit answer that concern?  Wareh (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Entirely removed" means keeping last version by an uninvolved administrator, rather than inserting disputed BLP materials. "Let's keep it your way" means I am not going argue ad nauseum or edit war. Let's consider this matter closed. Thank you. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. I may not be an administrator, but I was uninvolved until yesterday and I believe I am an experienced editor without any serious misdeed on my record yet. At any rate we seem to have no dispute yet that everything in this section is as stated in the cited sources. Wareh (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC

Whether or not reference to the Amazon reviews and their aftermath is included in this article is for others to decide. However, in conformity with BLP policy, the suggestion that Robert Service and I threatened to report Figes to the police for the reviews should not be included. This allegation is false (as well as inherently absurd). If the article refers to the Sunday Times interview with Bryan Appleyard as a source, it should also refer to my response to the interview in the Letters page of the Sunday Times. Thank you. (User: RachelPolonsky) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelPolonsky (talk • contribs) 19:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The article at present scrupulously limits itself to saying Figes "claimed" this threat, which is supported. I have no objection to adding a cited reference to your response in the Sunday Times' Letters page.  We can edit "report him to the police.[fn1]" to "report him to the police,[fn1] a claim disputed [or even 'refuted' if warranted] by Polonsky.[fn2]"  The first necessary matter for this is for us to have the text of your response and a correct reference to cite where I have put [fn2]. If you can't provide that, at least mention the title given your response on the Letters page, and I will try to find it via the EBSCOhost Newspaper Archive. Wareh (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In conformity with BLP policy, I have also deleted the statement that Robert Service and I threatened to sue Orlando Figes for libel for the Amazon reviews. This statement is false. Our legal settlement concerned an email (not public) that Orlando Figes sent to a group of historians, NOT the Amazon reviews themselves. Thank you for your attention to the accuracy and propriety of this article. (User: RachelPolonsky) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelPolonsky (talk • contribs) 20:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, it is true that this should not have been stated as fact and was not supported by the immediately following footnotes. However, it is one of the (disputed) claims Figes made to Appleyard ("I was threatened with libel proceedings," he is quoted as saying), so I have (correctly, I believe) moved it to the "who he claimed threatened him..." part of the sentence and clarified that it is supported only by the statement to Appleyard.  So this is now in no danger of a BLP problem.  For now, it's clear enough these are merely Figes' claims; with the addition of Polonsky's counterstatement in the Times (once sourced, see above), the questionable nature of the claims will be more apparent to the reader. Wareh (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC) P.S. I have also deleted "over the reviews" out of concern that this was an inference going beyond Figes' statements in the Appleyard interview. Thank you for raising that issue. Wareh (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Wareh. The link to the Sunday Times Letters page will be a dead link, like the link to the interview itself, because the website of The Times is for subscribers only. The letter was printed the week after the interview. My statement on the legal settlement, stating that it was NOT about the Amazon reviews themselves, was published here: http://historytodayeditor.blogspot.com/2010/07/dispute-between-polonsky-service-figes.html and the full text of my letter in response to the Bryan Appleyard interview is here: http://londonersdiary.standard.co.uk/2010/10/its-a-war-of-the-historians-part-two-.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelPolonsky (talk • contribs) 10:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The text at the links is a bit opaque; I assume this is because the statements were cautiously worded on purpose. Anyway, the first link speaks of "lie" but doesn't spell out what the lie is (e.g. "the lie of saying anyone threatened to report him to the police").  The second would support a text saying you dispute the claim that you were suing over the reviews, but I've removed "over the reviews" from the article altogether (not having found any specific claim by Figes in our sources that he was being sued over the reviews specifically: maybe there is one and I've missed it, as I don't claim to have been infinitely patient).  So the bottom line is that I can't figure out anything in the "they were threatening to sue me and report me to the police" statement from Figes to Appleyard that has been specifically disputed by you in print.
 * If that seems dense of me - and I'm sure that's possible - please just quote the actual sentence from your letter, etc., that specifically disputes anything in the article's current "he said," and I will be glad to add a footnoted "she said" ("a claim disputed by Polonsky" etc.). You are even welcome to suggest a sentence of new article text if desired, and I'd gladly seek to preserve everything usable in it.
 * I'm sorry if I've written densely and confusingly here. That's the state of my mind over this particular morass at this particular moment... You didn't specifically say you are expectant of some particular specifiable improvement in presenting a balanced record, so perhaps this is much fuss over nothing (if you don't think there is any sourceable point of view from your side that still needs to be added). Wareh (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Understood, Wareh. Thanks for your efforts to get the facts right. I regret the false impression that we threatened to sue Figes or to report him to the police for the Amazon reviews, but there it is. To clarify this fully would require me to go into the details of the legal correspondence, which I do not consider appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.228.199 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC) (user: RachelPolonsky)
 * He apologized because he was threatened by his "opponents" according to every published source (private correspondence is neither RS nor appropriate). But I suggest to remove whole story as not encyclopedic content. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, we're not using private correspondence, and we stick close to the widespread media coverage, which strongly indicates encyclopedic notability according to the General Notability Guideline for a stand-alone article ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article"), not to mention an article section. Wareh (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think your sources qualify as "secondary", and the topic is certainly "controversial". Please see this decision by Arbcom about BLP articles. It is on discretion of administrators to remove such materials. One of them did just that, but you reverted him, without establishing new consensus at article talk page . Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Controversies aired in major newspapers more than meet the notability criteria. As we've already discussed, an administrator removed the section pending discussion.  There has been a discussion, which seems to have resulted in a treatment of the topic that's carefully sourced in major publications.  You seem to be the only person who think a real BLP problem has come up in the discussion; Ms. Polonsky seems to think the issue was responsibly addressed.  At two different administrator noticeboards  no administrator concern was aroused by airing these issues.  Could you please quote the part of the BLP policy that you believe prohibits cited mention of controversial statements quoted and discussed in a newspaper?  I don't believe such a policy exists; BLP says that an issue arises if something is controversial and poorly sourced.  What in this section is poorly sourced?  We don't need the magical intervention of administrators to answer that question.  If the section has something that's poorly sourced I'll be the first to consent to its removal. P.S. I assure you I WP:AGF, but sometimes (as here), it would be very clarifying to have more information about what an interlocutor is trying to do in a broader context.  For example, have you ever successfully had BLP material removed on similar grounds to those you claim exist here?  To me the sourcing seems so clearly adequate, and you yourself at an earlier point were claiming it was about notability and not sourcing, an approach you now seem to abandon. In this light, it's very difficult for me to understand what's driving the continuing objections. Wareh (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Can we please be very scrupulous about avoiding words that express our POV on the issue? Stick to "said", "stated", etc.; using "claimed" or "alleged" or similar words imply we don't believe them. Stifle (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

On a more practical & basic note after my long-windedness above: WP:BLPREMOVE suggests the standard for poorly sourced material, which is properly removed, is WP:V. I don't believe anyone has challenged the verifiability of anything in the section by that standard, though any such challenges would certainly be welcome as an opportunity to improve the treatment. Wareh (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"History Today" article reference restored. It is not a 'self-published blog'. It is edited by History Today, which is a highly reputable source and a legitimate link within wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonx10 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have an interest to declare. I am Rachel Polonsky, one of the living persons involved in the 'controversy' over the Amazon reviews. It has been brought to my attention that the Wikipedia entry on Orlando Figes gives a misleading and unfair account of events, so I have deleted the sentence about the legal dispute. If there is to be any mention of the legal dispute at all, please would Wikipedia take care to record (as it did until the edit of 12 May 2013) that Orlando Figes initially denied responsibility for the reviews and threatened legal action against those who suggested that he was the author. No lawyers would have been involved at all unless he had first made those threats. As I have repeatedly stated here and elsewhere, Robert Service and I never made any threat to sue Orlando Figes over the Amazon reviews. (As far as I know, one cannot sue for libel over a book review, whether pseudonymous or signed.) It is up to others to decide how much Wikipedia should say about the Amazon reviews and their aftermath, but I would be grateful if Wikipedia editors would make sure that Living Persons are properly treated, and that the facts are correct and presented in a balanced way. Many thanks. RachelPolonsky (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

ip edits
Given a recent spate of ip edits against the line "Initially denying responsibility for the reviews, he threatened legal action against those who suggested he was the author. Figes later claimed that his wife had written the reviews, before finally admitting to having posting the anonymous reviews, issued an apology and agreed to pay legal costs and damages to Polonsky and Service, who had threatened to sue him for libel." let's look at what the heavily sourced statements actually say. The Guardian article explicitly states verbatim (emphasis mine) In a row that has scandalised the academic world Orlando Figes, one of the stars of contemporary history, had issued a string of legal threats to academic colleagues, literary journals and newspapers that suggested he might have written the reviews posted on Amazon.co.uk.

'''When challenged about the reviews, Figes's lawyer initially denied Figes was the author and threatened legal action. In a later statement, Figes blamed them on his wife, the barrister Stephanie Palmer.'''

But today Figes, a professor of history at Birkbeck, University of London, admitted "full responsibility" for the posts, saying he had been under "intense pressure". He added: "I have made some foolish errors and apologise wholeheartedly to all concerned."

Given that the first ip attempt to remove it as it was the justification that the sentence didn't make sense, which was clearly nonsense, the next ip edits have been to try to call the statement unsupported. Given the above source supports it exactly, the Daily Mail article is entitled I blame my wife and By its end, he had instructed his lawyers to say that in fact, the reviews had all been written by his wife, Stephanie Palmer – herself a senior lecturer in law at Cambridge University. how exactly is the statement in the article that 'Figes later claimed that his wife had written the reviews' in anyway unsupported or false, or even that it does not make sense? Benea (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore I will add: "Mr. Figes initially said that Historian was his wife, Stephanie Palmer, a lawyer and lecturer at Cambridge University."New York Times - Historian Orlando Figes agrees to pay damages for fake reviews Benea (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * To me, this whole section looks like a lot of dirty laundry from tabloids that does not belong here per BLP rules; and this involves several living people. Yes, he did it, he admitted, and apologized. This is it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just directed here by someone curious about the Figes/Amazon business and find the section has massively been cut. I leave this to Wikipedia's editorial overseers but would only note that a disproportionate volume of the energy spent on glossing over Prof Figes's 2010 indiscretions stems from - if I am not mistaken - a single individual who has been making the same arguments for trimming the facts for three years - My very best wishes, formerly Hodja Nasreddin, formerly Biophys. This editor is a Russian editor interested in Russian history and politics and it is reasonable that he should show an interest in the work of Figes.


 * However such determined and uncritical defence of Figes by one person could be interpreted as a defence of Figes's particular political position on Russian history, while I would have thought Figes was a sound enough historian in his own right not to need defending. A man can be a brilliant historian and a flawed, vain and even mean-spirited human being without doing harm to his historical writings. There are verifiable historical events here that won't go away and aren't relevant to BLP; this is not "dirty laundry from tabloids", they are admissions with details coming from statements from solicitors and reported in The Guardian Newspaper, History Today and, much as I dislike it, The Daily Mail. I have no axe to grind here, but I am disturbed, as I was in 2010, that facts should be so determinedly excised on the whim of one over-zealous editor. Have I got my facts wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerreno (talk • contribs) 23:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Whisperers Russian Edition
The article states that "the contract to publish The Whisperers in Russia was cancelled by the publishing house Atticus, claiming financial reasons", but also suggesting political concerns, citing Figes himself as the only source for both motivations.

But the Guardian reports that factual errors, found by American as well as Russian researchers, may have been a factor: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/may/23/orlando-figes-translation-russia

Surely this controversy should also be covered? Have other editors already looked at or discussed this delicate issue? cwmacdougall 08:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you read English edition of this book? It is actually very interesting. While Orlando Figes is not the most authoritative or reliable historian of Russia, the book is written with a greatest respect to people, and especially to those whose families have been described in the book. No questions, some unintentional mistakes are unavoidable in compiling so much material. Probably the most serious accusation made in this Guardian paper is this: "he maligns the memory of a Soviet poet and editor, Alexander Tvardovsky, by stating that he "betrayed" his own father to the police during the terror. "Figes's allegation has been convincingly refuted in the Russian press,". No, this is actually a correctly, although incompletely described story about Alexander Tvardovsky in the book by Figes; and it can be easily supported by other secondary RS, although I would rather not go in details on this page (it belongs to biography of Tvardovsky). So, I would not put too much effort in describing this controversy. My very best wishes (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I did indeed read the book, and it's brilliant, but is it a brilliant novel or a brilliant history book? The accusations of misquoting and grave factual inaccuracies are pretty serious; have they been refuted? And the current article claims that it was rejected by the Russian publisher for political reasons, a serious accusation, when other reasons are alleged.  cwmacdougall 17:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This claimed to be "Oral history". But Figes is a serious professional historian, and a lot in the book was referenced to other sources. For example, the story of Tvardovsky was described in memories by his brother Ivan (one to whom Tvardovsky wrote poem: "Where are you, my brother, on which Belomorkanal?"), by Tvardovsky himself, and so on. Keep in mind, this is a BLP page, and yes, there was a campaign in Russia to discredit Figes, although I would certainly not suspect people from the Memorial... As about this page, there was a suspicious edit war between multiple IPs here. This is like a mine field.My very best wishes (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The article appears to have been edited towards an unduly favorable presentation of Figes' POV, including the dubious choice of the word "refuted". Judging from the sources given, only Figes seems to believe that he has actually disproved all relevant criticism. I've added info and restored the removal of "huge [amounts]" concerning the errors claimed in The Guardian. The gist of the articles published so far is not that Figes has convincingly "won" the debate, only that he strongly disagrees with his critics.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone care to motivate the recent removals of info critical of Figes? It stands at merely one five-sentence paragraph right now. That doesn't seem particularly excessive to me. It's not like the article lacks info about his success as a writer.
 * Peter Isotalo 18:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello "Peter Isolato": The paragraph on this "controversy" is longer - as you have it - than the entries on most of Figes' books. Most historians are accused of making errors, so what's new? In this case what was new was that the allegations were made by Cohen in The Nation, which is owned and edited by his wife. Cohen was accused of pursuing a personal vendetta against Figes through his wife's magazine. Is Wikipedia the place for this? The entry as I've edited it covers this adequately now. I have no connection to Figes. What are your connections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.255.216.207 (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's one paragraph in a bio of 2500+ words, most of which is quite positive, and nowhere near the lead. Just like the Amazon affair, this has put a slight dent in Figes public reputation. That's very relevant to mention in a biography. Since the conflict surrounding The Whisperers concerns outright errors, the implications for the reputation of any non-fiction author are more serious than the pseudonymous reviews.
 * I've restored the relevant part of the quote since the removal "huge amounts" amounts to nothing more than creative editing. As for Cohen's personal beef, I'm not seeing any kind of evidence, and even if it was true, it doesn't motivate ignoring Reddaway as well.
 * Peter Isotalo 21:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I've shuffled this around a bit to drop the unnecessary "it was reported in newspaper X, and magazine Y" - it actually seems that the Guardian story is just covering the Nation story, so it's inappropriate to frame it as "Guardian reported it, Nation also publicised it". I've also put back the observation that the fictionalised "whisper in dissent" line echoes the title of the book, since this is what makes it a notable example (the Nation source explicitly accuses Figes of putting words in the interviewee's mouth "evidently to help justify the title of his book"). --McGeddon (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Much better. I was confused by the note that Reddaway and Cohen's piece was in the June 11 edition of The Nation.
 * How about the review in The New York Review of Books, though? I believe it's relevant since it shows that this conflict has affected the views of Figes among literary critics. The "talented but erratic" description seems highly accurate; a very good author who has made some widely publicized mistakes. And I believe the fierce and somewhat tactless response from Figes makes it even more obvious.
 * Peter Isotalo 11:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Btw, note that this issue seems to be spilling over to Stephen F. Cohen's article as well.
 * Peter Isotalo 11:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree that new version is better. But McGeddon, you dropped the point that the Guardian reported this as allegations, and allowed Figes to respond, so new wording reflects that these were allegations. The restoration of the echo of the title is surely an infringement of WP:SYN. It was not said in the Guardian. And Figes gave an explanation of how this came about. If you want to insert it from the Nation, as you suggest above, then that opens up the can of worms - whether Cohen was pursuing a vendetta through his wife's magazine, and that would then have to go in as well. Surely this section is now long enough, and we can let it lie now as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.255.216.207 (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't intend to edit over the top of your comments there; you posted this talk page comment seven minutes after making your edit, so it wasn't there when I checked for discussion. I was only adding context to the quote because it seems pointless without it. Simply going with the Guardian and saying that Figes attributed a quote which did not appear in Memorial's interview with that person would be fine. --McGeddon (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine - will sort out clunky bit and put it into the right tense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.255.216.207 (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Reported finding" might be snappier but it suggests that there were indeed a 'huge number of mistakes' and moves away from the concept of allegations which is how the Guardian reported it. So will restore wording. Let's not forget - there were only 3 listed errors! And no more were provided by Reddaway and Cohen in response to Figes' answer in the Nation. So perhaps more smoke than fire here? Also we need to reflect that Figes backed up his interpretation of Dina Ioelson-Grodzianskaia as a trusty by saying that is how it would have been interpreted by Solzhenitsyn. So will amend to reflect this as a matter of interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.255.216.207 (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Describing something as "alleged" should be done with care on Wikipedia. For a statement which Figes has acknowledged, defended and partly apologised for, it seems acceptable to simply say that the errors were "reported" by proof-readers; it's still subjective and attributed, but removes the implication that they might have been wrong.
 * I've replaced "trusty" with "collaborator" as this was the term that the Guardian chose to use, and seems clearer to the casual reader. --McGeddon (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually the Guardian source (even in its headline) referred to "allegations" so this should be accurately reflected here. Figes denied that there were " a huge number" of errors so having it "reported" as a fact would be wrong as well. Also the Guardian source talks about "trusties" - and that is the term used in Figes's book (there is no mention of collaborator there) - so that too ought to be accurately reported here. I am making changes accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.74.3 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 6 December 2013‎
 * Okay, well "abandoned when fact-checkers for the Memorial Society alleged" can be misread as "some people who worked as fact-checkers stood up with no context and made allegations", when the source describes the allegations being made as a result of facts being checked, so I'll change that to "abandoned after fact-checking by the Memorial Society, who alleged".
 * The Guardian source uses both "trusty" and "collaborator", and says "Among the more serious mistakes Figes is accused of making are: Wrongly calling Dina Ioelson-Grodzianskaia [...] a collaborator". If we're trying to convey the seriousness of this allegation to the reader, who may not know what a trusty is, we should either explain the term, or use the more readily understandable word. I will attempt the former. --McGeddon (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That is better, agreed, but now there is another inaccuracy because the allegation of a 'huge number of inaccuracies' was made by the publisher and not by Memorial. Since the views of the publisher are reflected in the next sentence ('...considered numerous and serious enough') I propose to take out the repeat by cutting the misquotation in the first sentence, which will be more accurate as a result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.74.3 (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if we trust Stephen F. Cohen (no, we should not), these sources provide only a couple of minor factual inaccuracies in the book, which is not surprising given its very large volume. Not a big deal. The claim about Tvardovsky is not an inaccuracy, but well known fact. My very best wishes (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Amazon reviews
Three different IPs think that the Amazon review controversy should say that Figes criticised rivals' books while praising "other works", rather than praising "his own work". The sources give much more weight to Figes deceptively posting positive reviews of his own work, than the fact that he uncontroversially liked other books as well. What should this sentence say? --McGeddon (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

If Wiki wants to be balanced it should report the truth and add that Figes wrote positive reviews of several books, as reported in The Sunday Times (http://www.bryanappleyard.com/orlando-figes-crisis/). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.157.127.14 (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Orlando Figes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121002061545/http://www.rslit.org/people to http://www.rslit.org/people
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728094312/http://www.theduffcooperprize.org/test/ to http://www.theduffcooperprize.org/test/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110820051442/http://livres.fluctuat.net/orlando-figes.html to http://livres.fluctuat.net/orlando-figes.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)