Talk:The Great Terror (book)

message: Various people (usually anonymous) keep wanting to edit this article to the effect that recent historians have revised Conquest's estimates of the death toll under Stalin downwards. This may be so, but it cannot be made as an unsupported assertion. Names, publications and quotations must be cited for this claim to be established. On the other hand, as noted above, some Russian writers have revised Conquest's estimates upwards. The broader point, however, is whether a reevaluation of the history of the 1930s in the light of evidence now available in the Soviet archives in some way validates the attacks on Conquest's reputation by Soviet apologists both in the 1960s and today. Of course it does not. For a writer with no access to archival sources in the Soviet Union, Conquest did a brilliant job of reconstructing the events of the 1930s. Even if it turns out that his overall estimates were too high or (as seems more likely) too low, that is in no way a reflection on Conquest's status as a historian. Adam 11:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. Unless another source mentioned this book directly, it should not be used. My very best wishes (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Historians' assessments of Conquest

message: Letter from Mr Conquest. "...the "I told you so, etc." comment was actually made, and attributed to me, by the ever-inventive Kingsley [Amis]."
Well, it don't get more definitive than that. Darn. Always liked that one ;-) Hmmm. Maybe we can fit it in on the KA page? 
Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Loss of a great anecdote

message: this line could be a problem.
"Some Communists continue to deny the claims made in The Great Terror, despite their vindication by Russian and other historians (as in the writings of Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev, Dmitri Volkogonov, and the Black Book of Communism) following the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of the Soviet archives. In an attempt to discredit Conquest's work, Communist writers accuse him of relying on "Nazi collaborators, émigrés, and the CIA," and characterize his work with British intelligence and the Foreign Office as "production of anti-Soviet propaganda.""
1. Soviet archives gives a nuber far lower than Conquest's propsed numbers.
2. Both Yakolev and Volkogonov's views are anti-soviet, and in especial, Yakolev's view greatly differs from majority of Russian scholars.
I propose to change the line into this:
"Some Communists continue to deny the claims made in The Great Terror, and accuses him of relying on Nazi collaborators, émigrés, and the CIA," and characterize his work with British intelligence and the Foreign Office as "production of anti-Soviet propaganda."
However, some Russian, and other historians, such as Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev, and Dmitri Volkogonov, agrees on Conquest's views."
If anyone has a better proposal, please fix this part instead of me.
If there is no reply for a week, I'll change the part myself.  
===Where is article?===
Is disappearded ip address. why? I miss article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.207.65.136 (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A slight 'false' in article 

message: Is disappearded ip address. why? I miss article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.207.65.136 (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is article?

message: This article cited Spartacus Schoolnet as a reference. This site has been repeatedly discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard WP:RSN. It is a self-published source WP:SPS that cannot be used as a reference for a Wikipedia article.. References to this source have been removed and replaced with a tag. The associated text has been retained for now.  Better sources must be found for this text; text that is not supported by an inline reference to a Reliable Source may be removed.Fladrif (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is not a reliable source per se. My very best wishes (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: The criticism section consists mainly of Conquest's responses and very little of actual criticism, which is in abundance. This ought to be cleared up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.241.224 (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section

message: Can you clarify what exactly you didn’t like about my addition on Great Terror book by Robert Conquest?
He is a proven propaganda talking head and not historian. He did admit that he relies on gossips and not on documented facts in his "research" Antidyatel (talk) 09:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not "proven", but an opinion. He wrote his books based on information at the time. Because the Soviets heavily doctored their history, no wonder some of his conclusion were mistaken. In later books he admitted mistakes. In my books, it is called "proper scholarsip". Again, because Soviets thoroughly falsified historicl records, he had to analyze "word of mouth". The fact that he readily admits this is also a mark of  true scholarship. - üser:Altenmann >t 14:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Your addition into the article is your personal conclusion about Conquests's qualities based on the references cited, which constitutes "original research". Therefore it was reverted. A wikipedian can and must add conclusions about Conquest found in reliable sources, with proper attribution of the authorsip.  - üser:Altenmann >t 14:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved from my talk page