Talk:Orlando Figes

message: Insertion of a new paragraph into the lead summary with a respect of information in the section on the Amazon controversy (as long ago as 2010) seems inappropriate and probably motivated by malice. There are many more important things that are not in the Introduction. I think this should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by London67943 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." Verbatim from WP:LEDE.  I think a scandal involving attempting to discredit rivals where damages were paid for libel, is pretty important.  I see no bad faith in including it in the lede and certainly no reason to whitewash it.  Toddst1 (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No libel damages were paid. It was a media "scandal". If this stays in the introduction there should also be a summary of all the other sections to avoid suspicion of bad faith. Care to provide this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.235.214 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you accidentally logged out when you left that comment.  WP:SOFIXIT applies. Toddst1 (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Libel damages, plus costs, were indeed awarded, according to the BBC. Straw Cat (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As cited in the article. Toddst1 (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Sure, add what you want, but your repeated blanking of that material and accusations of collusion is considered  WP:TENDENTIOUS. Toddst1 (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

text: I think consensus is pretty clear that it belongs there.   has demonstrated their support for inclusion.  I've stated it. All we have is a WP:SPA that wishes to whitewash the lede, has assumed bad-faith from the start and has edit warred to remove it and is now rejecting the consensus, asking for dispute resolution.  The dispute is your own.  Respect consensus.  Toddst1 (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the record, I'm not a rival Oxbridge historian, so even Inspector Morse would find it hard to prove malice here. I've no animus against Figes, and consider that it is his very eminence as an historian that makes the inclusion of a summary of this matter - in the lead - essential. Straw Cat (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead summary  

message: The Amazon controversy is mentioned here, but how is it that the section on Natasha's dance does not include the accusations of plagiarism, and the section on the Whisperers lacks the accusations by other scholars and the Russian victims advocate organization "Memorial" that the book did not receive a Russian edition due to falsification of quotes and other inaccuracies, rather than, as he claimed, due to pressure from the Putin regime?
https://www.mhpbooks.com/figes-career-implodes-amidst-legal-threats-and-charges-of-long-standing-plagiarism/
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/orlando-figes-and-stalins-victims/tnamp/
https://www.mhpbooks.com/orlando-figes-in-trouble-again-for-gross-inaccuracies-and-misrepresentations/ Chilltherevolutionist (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Chilltherevolutionist Just come across this page for the first time but it seems off in exactly the way you describe. The controversy over Polonsky's review of Natasha's dance (which all but accused him of plagiarism), the Pipes plagiarism accusation (which I think Figes won the lawsuit over, something which we should obviously include as well), the Whisperers Russian-issue problems, all these don't appear. I haven't done a deep or wide check of the published sources but I'd be pretty shocked if Figes' portrayal in this entry matches that of the balance of the published reliable sources. Looks like some things have been excised over time, and that doesn't seem to match the discussion above. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Scandals