Talk:Orlando Figes

Amazon reviews

• This is an excellent book, I enjoyed reading it. It may have a few minor errors, but of course it was not published in Russia for political reasons. That paragraph could be improved. But I am more concerned about the "Amazon review controversy". My personal inclination would be to remove it, but it was objected by others in the past. My very best wishes (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  You were initially inclined to remove but then you became bold and went ahead, citing WP:PUBLICFIGURE. But a best-selling author who is regularly consulted by media meets the criteria of a public figure, therefore I am going to revert your change. Of course, wording or citations in the passage might be improved - I would encourage you to use your editorial powers for that. By the way, your personal opinion about the book is not relevant, as is your unsourced opinion about the Russian refusal to publish, and there is little point in seeking to sway anyone with it. VampaVampa (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, he claimed it was not published for political reasons [1] and his claim is plausible based on content in section Orlando_Figes#On_Putin's_Russia. The official explanation was of course different. That can be easily reflected on the page. You are saying he is a public figure because he was seeking media attention per Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low-profile_individual#Media_attention. Well, I am not convinced. He seems to be just an academic/professor who published books, was helping as a history consultant and gave a few interviews because he was asked by journalists to give them (e.g. as mentioned here [2]). Same as Robert Service and Rachel Polonsky who have been involved in the same story. They also do not look good because they sued Figes. But we do not include this story on their pages, and for same very good reason. Therefore, I would remove it also here. But this is not an outright BLP violation. So whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Then perhaps it should feature on their pages as well, if you are keen to add it - I have zero problems with that. More information is rarely a bad thing, except when it is unsourced, libellous, irrelevant etc. Concluded legal proceedings are perfectly encyclopedic.

He is a public figure because he is keen to do public engagement - see the "Film and television work" section. Even if he had been sought out for creating TV content, it still counts as being a public commentator.

His views on the Labour Party are relevant because he has claimed in the interview you have cited under "[5]" that he was a supporter of the Labour Party. If Niall Ferguson has a paragraph on his political leanings and positions, then I do not see why we should not provide a representative sample of Figes's political opinion intended for public consumption here.

I agree with your other changes with one exception - threatening legal action is not a plain denial of responsibility and ought to be mentioned. VampaVampa (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Which source says that he threatened legal action and where? Yes, sure, he said he supports Labor Party. Who cares? Why this is so important? And no, I am not placing this stuff on any BLP pages. If you placed it here and insist this should be included, this is your responsibility. My very best wishes (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I did not place it but it is well-sourced as it is. Political comments and stances of public figures are a core part of their activity - they are quite like the doctrinal positions of church leaders. VampaVampa (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, I found a source that say it. No wish to dig any deeper. Good luck! My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I would have no problem including the dispute over the Amazon reviews on Rachel Polonsky and Robert Service pages, in fact I think it would be good practice to do so. I am mainly on a wiki-break right now, but if this hasn't been done when I'm back to actively editing then I will do so myself. Samuelshraga (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

But it is already included as section Orlando_Figes#Amazon_reviews_controversy. I would be inclined to remove, but the consensus seems to be "keep". Hence, let's have it. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Samuelshraga - an accurate and matter-of-fact representation of the dispute belongs in the articles of all concerned authors. VampaVampa (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

That was a scandal with lawsuits, not a scientific dispute. "belongs to the articles of all concerned authors". This sounds logical, but I think may contradict WP:PUBLICFIGURE for two other historians and even Figes. Just saying. You may disagree. My very best wishes (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

"If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." What do you take the situation here to be? It is not scientific, obviously, but still a noteworthy incident. VampaVampa (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the scandal is sourced, but two other historians are not public figures. If Figes is a public figure can be disputed, see above. My very best wishes (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think with regard to Robert Service it is plain that he fulfils the criteria under Eminence as a globally renowned leading scholar in his field and author of major books. I don't think it is correct to exaggerate the criteria for a public figure, because the opposite of that is a low-profile figure. Rachel Polonsky, however, does not seem to be high-profile as reflected by the article concerning her. But I would agree that the note on this scandal in Robert Service's article should be kept brief, if sufficiently informative, due to the overall brevity of the article. VampaVampa (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, [3]. Unfortunately, following this policy is very much a subject of personal judgement. My very best wishes (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@My very best wishes I'm impressed that you've been beating this drum for a decade! Also that the edit before you on that diff was reverting @Rachel Polonsky, seems like @Orlando Figes is not the only protagonist of this drama here inclined to relitigate it on wikipedia.

I don't think we're in any danger with that policy. This material is clearly not defamatory, as it is accurate - the sources agree on the salient facts (as do seemingly all the involved parties, amusingly we can actually ask most as they've commented on this talk page). It is notable - it was widely covered in national newspapers. You can make an argument that Polonsky is not notable - I don't have a position, we can just judge by Wikipedia:Notability (academics). However, inasmuch as Figes, Service and Polonsky are notable enough to have a page, and there is coverage of them in national newspapers, I don't see any justification for omitting the material. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, I am simply placing myself to the shoes of another person while editing their BLP page. And I think there are two litmus tests here. First, was a particular non-scientific controversy important in the context of his/her biography? The answer can be yes or no. If someone's academic career has not been affected (as in this case), I would say "no". In such cases I would hate to place such info on someone's BLP page. Sure, there are many other examples, where the answer was "yes", such as [4]. Second, looking at the guideline, it says: Low-profile: Does not use occupational or other position(s) for public projection of self-worth (above the level normally expected within the field in question – academia, like business and politics, can be quite competitive). Such a person may be notable anyway yet still low-profile e.g., if generally acknowledged to be a preeminent authority in a particular field, or a CEO of a notable but not market-dominant company, etc., but not particularly self-promotional). Hence, this is not about Wikipedia:Notability (academics). In all such cases I would rather err on the side of caution. This is my justification. Sorry to disagree. My very best wishes (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

"was a particular non-scientific controversy important in the context of his/her biography?" - I don't agree that the inclusion of an incident in a biography should hinge on the answer to this question. This is an unnecessarily high threshold, which you seem to justify by implying that mentioning an incident has an inherently negative impact on the person involved. But there is nothing to suggest that the pseudonymous Amazon reviews affair shows Robert Service or Rachel Polonsky in a negative light, and Robert Service spoke openly about the affair. He regarded himself as affected negatively by the affair, not by the mention of it - which is an important distinction. Claiming that the controversy does not merit inclusion on Robert Service's page is a view that you decided to enforce in 2014 and this view unduly favours the interests of Orlando Figes, who in this case was the instigator of the affair. As above with the Memorial affair, I would dispute the neutrality of the view you have taken with regard to all parties involved.

Returning to Rachel Polonsky, I have belatedly noticed she is currently the vice-president of a Cambridge college, which is a position of public engagement and raises her profile. But I think the question of her profile being high or low is a moot question, because the Amazon reviews affair is a separate reason for her notability as per the basic criteria, so it should be included in her already existing biography. VampaVampa (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@My very best wishes I agree with @VampaVampa on the basic point that the material merits inclusion.

On your litmus tests, if the question really is: "was a particular non-scientific controversy important in the context of his/her biography?", then my answer is yes. The fact that the controversy is non-scientific is immaterial. It was notable enough to garner significant and repeated coverage in a range of gold-standard Reliable Sources. That's something wikipedia editors can and should judge. Its affect on Figes' career is not something we can judge, and no policy calls for us to judge it. Therefore I maintain that ultimately, omitting the material is not NPOV because of Wikipedia:DUE.

On your second litmus test, the guideline you cite concerns whether we should have a page on Orlando Figes at all, not what content should be included on it. I think it is self-evident that Figes is notable enough for an article, so I think this litmus test is inapplicable.

And please don't be sorry to disagree - I think this discussion is all in good faith and fine. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Someone can be notable, but not a public figure - per guideline I cited. Yes, I can see that you two support keeping it. Otherwise, I would remove it. My very best wishes (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Your arguments that all participants qualify as public figures are not unreasonable. However, I simply do not see how including such info on such pages will improve them. My very best wishes (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I take your point that you do not see the Amazon reviews coverage as an improvement to the wikipedia. While I respect that it's your opinion, I do not share it.

On edits recently made, this needs a source beyond a claim in a talk page. Sources describe him "praising his own work and rubbishing that of his rivals."

I also don't know why we omit the pertinent information appearing in at least the BBC and the Guardian that Figes first threatened legal action against historians, newspapers and journals that identified him as the poster of the reviews, this was a significant part of the escalation of the dispute. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I am going to try and refocus here on the Amazon reviews issue because I don't think our current text is satisfactory.

First of all the heading "Pseudonymous Amazon reviews" is better than "Amazon reviews controversy" ("controversy" is a leading label, a Wikipedia:WTW).

Secondly the text. I propose the following:

In 2010, Figes posted several pseudonymous reviews under the moniker "orlando-birkbeck" on the site of the online bookseller Amazon.[5] The reviews were critical of others' books, including those of rival historians of Russia Robert Service and Rachel Polonsky, but effusively praised his own.[6] After Rachel Polonsky uncovered evidence tying the reviews to Figes, he initially denied all involvement, and threatened historians, journals and newspapers with libel lawsuits for alleging his involvement.[7][8] Figes later admitted that he had posted the reviews, apologized and agreed to pay for legal costs and damages to Polonsky and Service, who had in turn taken legal action against Figes.[9] After admitting posting the reviews in April 2010, Figes went on sick leave, though by October of that year he had returned to supervising PhD students.[10] After a confidential investigation, Birkbeck later returned Figes to a full-time role.[11]

Advantages of this version against the current version:

I don't see a source for Figes praising other books than his own, most sources that mention it say that he praised his own work. We don't mention the legal threats against TLS, Service and others, which for some of the sources are the most significant part of the whole story. The aftermath is relevant and it's not clear why it's omitted. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The change of the title and slight rephrase is fine, but I am against including the claim about legal threat, especially as a fact. That was just a claim by a lawyer [12] that well could be a lie (see discussions on this page). This claim might be included with an explicit attribution to the lawyer, but I this is nothing significant. There was no actual lawsuit by OF. This is clearly undue on the page. Same about sick leave. Who cares? My very best wishes (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@My very best wishes this isn't a claim by a lawyer. It is reported as fact in the Guardian that "Price [Figes' lawyer] contacted the newspaper, denying that Figes had any involvement in the reviews, demanding a "corrective publication", and suggesting that his client would be entitled to damages."

In the BBC it says "Initially, when confronted by the allegations of his involvement, Prof Figes' instructed his lawyer to threaten legal action."

There are more sources with more detail, but there is no question that lawsuits were threatened, against Service, against TLS and I've seen sources suggesting other targets too, I'll search for them if needed.

The point about the sick leave is that Figes was not in post for some time (6months to a year) as a result of the scandal. Perhaps this should be made more clear in my version. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

here the legal threats are reported as fact and here the editor of the Times Literary supplement reports that he, along with journalists across Fleet Street and Robert Service received legal threats. That this happened is not in the realm of the contested, and I'd say this was a central and high-profile part of the story. I don't object to Service and Polonsky's subsequent legal action being included, but it's much more peripheral here. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

So, the threat needs to be attributed to the lawyer of OF. Ok. And yes, the claim was reliably published. But is it due on the page? The entire controversy is arguably "due". But such a minor and possibly an incorrect detail? I believe that mentioning the actual lawsuit (as we did) is a lot more important than mentioning the alleged threat of lawsuit. Hence, I do not think it worth including on the page, unless we want to present the subject in as a negative light as possible, but this is not our goal per WP:BLP. Same with his sick leave. To be frank, I am sick of looking at BLP pages that not only emphasize every scandal and controversy, but describe each scandal in every minor detail. Sorry to disagree. My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

We have already discussed that above: the fair treatment applies to all the people involved. If you only mention the lawsuit by Polonsky and Service, then Figes is presented exclusively as the target of a lawsuit. What is due is some balance (based on all reliable and acceptable sources), and I would insist that no efforts are made to upend this by introducing unsourced speculation about what might have taken place behind the scenes. The place for claims about Stephen Cohen's connection to Putin is in the Cohen article. As for controversies, it is surely better to cover them in a neutral verifiable manner on Wikipedia than to abandon them to the tabloids and gossip columns? But perhaps we disagree here. VampaVampa (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"As for controversies, it is surely better to cover them in a neutral verifiable manner on Wikipedia than to abandon them to the tabloids and gossip columns?" - I agree with this but the problem is that you have drawn all your information from the tabloids and gossip columns (including the column in the TLS) which are neither neutral or verifiable - especially when they are fed with a biased narrative by the protagonists in the controversy (Polonsky, Service, Cohen). When you are at the receiving end of a beating in the press, as I was in the Amazon affair, there is nothing you can do to counteract the press version - that I made legal threats etc....As I have said already, my lawyer may have made a legal threat to the TLS, but I put a stop to this. No legal threats were made to Service, despite his claims in the press, motivated (as with so much else that was fed to the press) by the opportunity to discredit me when I could not answer back. Likewise, in the Whispers controversy, the Cohen archive shows that Cohen and Polonsky knowingly fed the press with inaccurate information (that Memorial had been instrumental in cancelling the contract) to discredit me. This should be added to any further coverage of the controversies you seem so determined to detail here (in far more detail than you seem able or inclined to add about my work). Orlandofiges (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I would be fine attributing the claims of legal threats to other journalists and newspapers to the editor of the TLS. If you didn't make legal threats to Robert Service, we can't just take your word for it here over what was printed in news sections of sources we consider reliable, and I'm sorry. If you were to get your denial of these claims into a reliable source, we would include your denial on this page. I'm sure you have the wherewithal to do so if you wish. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no desire to reopen this in the press, and no newspaper would be interested. It happened more than 14 years ago! If you go to the Sunday Times (https://www.thetimes.com/article/o-the-wild-charges-he-made-nk9vcqhdlb5) you will find it reported that I wrote several good reviews of other books (you questioned this elsewhere), that my reviews of Polonsky and Service were my sincere opinions of their work, and that in the three-month ordeal of legal threats to which I was subjected by Carter Ruck Polonsky tried to open up a whole host of new legal threats, including to report me to the police for criminal fraud (sic) over the reviews (despite the fact they were genuine). I can prove the police threat by publishing the document - as Vampa did with my email apology (written by Polonsky and Service, as you will see from the Sunday Times). All this would need to be added to any further details on the Amazon affair but the police threat would probably be challenged by Polonsky - claiming on her own "authority" that it is not true (though we now know from the Cohen archive that she is known to lie to newspapers). So what would you do then? Remove the police threat because you take Polonsky's "word" for it or let it stay? I make this point to argue that you cannot take a newspaper source as reliable in matters such as this. Orlandofiges (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I will address the police threat issue, because you brought a source. I'm not per se against including it - attributed to you, because in the Times article you're the one saying it. I don't think it's massively relevant. Polonsky and Service took/threatened to take legal action against you, and you ended up making a further apology, admission of responsibility and paying costs and damages. Adding, "According to Figes, he was threatened with being reported to the police", doesn't tell us very much.

1. It didn't happen (you were not, in fact, reported to the police).

2. It doesn't tell us what the crime would have been.

3. It's not like we can actually attribute the threat to Polonsky, so what we'd be writing is that you say that an unnamed Carter Ruck lawyer threatened you with unspecified criminal liability. Samuelshraga (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

And with reference to your point about the alleged legal threats to Service, as you will see from the Sunday Times report I was forced to sign an apology written by Polonsky and Service in which I admitted to making legal threats (this is the email on the Carter Ruck site which Vampa published). Their draft was whittled down by my lawyer because it contained several admissions that were not true at all but which would have opened me up to new lawsuits from Carter Ruck (including criminal fraud). Admitting to the "legal threats" was the easiest and by the far cheapest of the options left to me to stop the expensive litigation which was also very damaging in other ways. Orlandofiges (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@My very best wishes, I think the idea that the legal threat was made independently by the lawyer unconnected to Figes is not credible.

Separately, I don't think the aim is to present the subject in as negative a light as possible, but equally it is not our job to censor content that shows the subject in a negative light. Figes did post these reviews. He did make legal threats. The facts, not the presentation, are what reflects negatively here.

What first made me look at this page is that there's a significant amount of material here that has clearly been excised because it makes Figes look bad. Including by sockpuppets by the way, and you can note that Figes wiki account has a history of sockpuppetry.

The Amazon reviews, the whisperers criticism, Polonsky's review of Natasha's Dance, and the Pipes plagiarism accusation and subsequent lawsuit. Not all of these necessarily make Figes look bad - he won the lawsuit over the Pipes accusation! But from what I've seen a lot of this material already existed on the page and was excised not for wiki policy reasons but in order to present Figes' public image in a certain way on wikipedia. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• As someone completely uninvolved, I think this is just a minor controversy that had happen 14 years ago. Placing myself to shoes of an occasional reader of books by any author (Figes, Service, Polonsky or whoever, and I am actually such reader), I would not be interested to learn about their squabbles. A scholarly dispute? Yes, sure, but not squabbles. This is not because I like OF [13]. Yes, it was covered in press and can be included on the page (as it was included) if we consider the subject as a public figure, although I am not sure he is qualified as such per WP guidelines. However, we should not try to present it in the most damaging/negative light for the subject. Doing so would be against WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  I too am completely uninvolved, and I disagree that it's a minor controversy. It received sustained coverage both at the time and subsequently, over a period of years, and is still referenced in the press periodically (see for example). I agree that it need not and should not be presented in the most negative light - it should be presented in the same light in which it appears in Wikipedia:RS. Samuelshraga (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  @My very best wishes@VampaVampa, I think we're going around in circles and repeating points here to a large extent. My proposed draft for the Amazon section is:

  In 2010, Figes posted several pseudonymous reviews under the moniker "orlando-birkbeck" on the site of the online bookseller Amazon.[14] The reviews were critical of others' books, including those of rival historians of Russia Robert Service and Rachel Polonsky, but effusively praised his own.[15] After Rachel Polonsky uncovered evidence tying the reviews to Figes, he initially denied all involvement, and threatened historians, journals and newspapers with libel lawsuits for alleging his involvement.[16][17] Figes later admitted that he had posted the reviews, apologized and agreed to pay for legal costs and damages to Polonsky and Service, who had in turn taken legal action against Figes.[18] After admitting posting the reviews in April 2010, Figes went on sick leave from Birkbeck University for a number of months, and some in academia thought that he may not be able to return.[19][20] However, by October of that year he had returned to supervising PhD students[21] and after a confidential investigation, Birkbeck later returned Figes to a full-time role.[22]

  I think all the claims in this draft are adequately sourced. I am open to the idea that there are other aspects of this that need to be included but can I get consensus behind using this as a starting point? And if we stay tightly focussed on a text, and talk about individual claims that should be included/excluded for whatever reason, I think this discussion can be more productive.Samuelshraga (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

My preferred version would be that one [23]. I think current version of this section works well as a compromise. My very best wishes (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Is this about whether Figes is a Wikipedia:PUBLICFIGURE or Wikipedia:LOWPROFILE? To me and to Vampa seems like the answer is obviously yes, to you it seems that it's obviously no, and I don't think we'll get far if that's the case. If that's the disagreement, I'm happy to hold off, start a discussion on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard on this topic and see what the outcome might be and then come back to this topic. Is that acceptable to you? Samuelshraga (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The majority of people who talked about it on the page (2:1, excluding one with COI) believe that such section should be included, and it is included. This is not the issue. But you suggested a different version of this section (just above) that includes a number of additional details. Yes, you need WP:Consensus for this. Yes, of course, you can make an RfC or a post somewhere asking: should we prefer such [current] or such [your suggested] version. This is the disagreement. Personally though, I think that does not worth an effort. My very best wishes (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Speaking on your suggested version, I think that a lot of new details are unnecessary/excessive (sick leave, supervising PhD students), while others ("threatened historians, journals and newspapers with libel lawsuits [plural] for alleging his involvement") are debatable, should be phrased differently and better just be omitted per WP:BLP, based on the discussions above on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

What would be your reasoning for those claims being unnecessary or excessive, please? The first series of claims provides a natural conclusion to the affair, and the threat of legal action was already amply discussed, it needs to be included for fairness to other parties and for an accurate representation of what happened. VampaVampa (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand that we were 2:1 on inclusion and I appreciate you giving way to form a consensus on that issue - genuinely I do, it demonstrates a lot of good faith. That's why I'm trying to get consensus for a change, but it seems like neither of us is going to persuade the other on whether these details are necessary or not. I see that Vampa and I agree again, but I'm more than happy to hold off pending a discussion on BLP noticeboard, or to ask for input from any WikiProject you think important, maybe the ones on history, academia or Russia. Samuelshraga (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I will just say three things:

1. If you seek the opinion of history, Russia and academic commentators you need to ensure that they read all my comments on this page - and samuelsharga and Vampavampa could also do the courtesy of reading them and responding.

2. Any further comments on the amazon affair in the article must include a paragraph on Polonsky's hidden role in the Cohen-Reddaway-Polonsky conspiracy on the lines I have set out and citing the Princeton Cohen archive.

3. The draft paragraph of Samuelsharga is longer than the entires on my books. 146.241.13.149 (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not see any issues with the claims included in this version and it has my support. The additions concerning sick leave and supervision represent the impact on Figes's main professional activity and therefore belong to an informative account of it. Whether such additional details reflect positively or negatively on his conduct in the affair is a matter of personal opinion (some will sympathise, others will not) and, more importantly, not our remit. Our job is to establish the key facts and there is no question of poor sourcing in this case. VampaVampa (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh no, all of this (including the sick leave) is obviously a very negative information about the person. That's why the subject himself objected to including it as doubtful and arguably undue. I found their arguments convincing, but would have the same opinion even without such arguments. I believe that the version suggested by Samuelshraga is to some degree is a scandal mongering. But whatever. I only stated my opinion here, and the understanding of the BLP can differ. My very best wishes (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I will just say three things:

1. If you seek the opinion of history, Russia and academic commentators you need to ensure that they read all my comments on this page - and samuelsharga and Vampavampa could also do the courtesy of reading them and responding.

2. Any further comments on the amazon affair in the article must include a paragraph on Polonsky's hidden role in the Cohen-Reddaway-Polonsky conspiracy on the lines I have set out and citing the Princeton Cohen archive.

3. The draft paragraph of Samuelsharga is longer than the entriees on my books Orlandofiges (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Orlandofiges, you might want to edit out your IP address in the identical comment above, both so that your comments on the talk page are clearly attributed to you, and for privacy reasons. As to your points:

1. Rude.

2. Lol no.

3. No it's not.

Samuelshraga (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Orlandofiges, I would encourage you to respond to this note I left on your talk page. I bring it up here in case you didn't see it. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Summary of discussion for incoming editors

I'll try to keep this brief for anyone who wants to jump in and help resolve an emerging content dispute. The dispute surrounds coverage of the Orlando Figes Amazon reviews story of 2010 (the word "story" used here so as not to say anything more prejudicial and start a fight).

This discussion rehashes debates that has been had on this talk page basically since the story came out in 2010[24][25], but certain information has been repeatedly removed and re-added to the article over the years. I want us to form an explicit consensus to stop this glacial-pace edit-warring.

Currently, the versions under discussion are the current one found in the article namespace:

In 2010, Figes posted several pseudonymous reviews under the moniker "orlando-birkbeck" on the UK site of the online bookseller Amazon. The reviews criticised works by two other British historians of Russia, Robert Service and Rachel Polonsky, but praised other books, including one of his own. After initially denying that he wrote these reviews, Figes took full responsibility for them, apologized and agreed to pay for legal costs and damages to Polonsky and Service who launched a lawsuit against Figes.[26][27][28][29]

and this one:

In 2010, Figes posted several pseudonymous reviews under the moniker "orlando-birkbeck" on the site of the online bookseller Amazon.[30] The reviews were critical of others' books, including those of rival historians of Russia Robert Service and Rachel Polonsky, but effusively praised his own.[31] After Rachel Polonsky uncovered evidence tying the reviews to Figes, he initially denied all involvement, and threatened historians, journals and newspapers with libel lawsuits for alleging his involvement.[32][33] Figes later admitted that he had posted the reviews, apologized and agreed to pay for legal costs and damages to Polonsky and Service, who had in turn taken legal action against Figes.[34] After admitting posting the reviews in April 2010, Figes went on sick leave from Birkbeck University for a number of months, and some in academia thought that he may not be able to return.[35][36] However, by October of that year he had returned to supervising PhD students[37] and after a confidential investigation, Birkbeck later returned Figes to a full-time role.[38]

It has also been suggested that no coverage at all is necessary. I won't try to fully represent the discussion, but I'll start out by saying that as an advocate of the second option, I think the content is notable, encyclopedic, found in a variety of gold-standard RS over a sustained period, and presents the material in a neutral way. The argument for the first option includes that option B is "scandal-mongering", that Figes is a WP:LOWPROFILE individual who does not merit this focused attention, that it presents Figes in the most negative light possible, that this section is receiving undue weight - but that side is more than capable of representing itself. Samuelshraga (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not an objective summary because the second variant is a very recent introduction by Samuelshraga with a maximally negative motive - far more negative than any other previous variant - and he is the only editor "discussing" it. Editors may want to compare my case with that of Salman Rushdie, whose negative reviews of other authors' books on the Goodreads site in 2015 (reported here https://theprint.in/opinion/when-salman-rushdie-rated-other-authors-on-goodreads/1080453/ and in many other newspapers) are NOT included on his wikipedia page, although he, far more than me, is a public figure. Orlandofiges (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll keep my response as brief as possible.

1. Attacking my motives without basis is against the Wikipedia behavioural guideline to Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

2. I'm not the only editor discussing it. There are four active discussants above, two explicitly accept my version, and two don't (one of whom, you, is conflicted).

3. If something is wrong with Salman Rushdie's article, you can fix it. (From the link you sent, I think Rushdie's reviews were in his own name). I can equally and easily bring up counter-examples like Johann Hari who has much more written about his pseudonymous online attacks than you. The truth is that neither are relevant, and each case should be evaluated independently. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

There are no disagreements on including the current (shorter) version. However, I think the suggested new (longer) version suffers from a number of minor issues which amplify negative aspects of the controversy that had happen 14 years ago. For example,

1. "rival historians of Russia". Why are they rivals? They are actually colleagues.
2. "Rachel Polonsky uncovered". Actually, it is not clear if it was her or someone else who had "uncovered".
3. "threatened historians, journals and newspapers with libel lawsuits" - What journals and newspapers? Was it he or his lawyer? Some sources are making contradictory claims about it.
4. "went on sick leave" and returned back to teaching. This is so petty. I think this is clearly "undue".
5. "after a confidential investigation". Which found what? This needs either be explained or removed. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

   1. This is the word used in the sources, there's nothing wrong with it.

   2. The BBC source makes clear that Polonsky discovered it. How is it unclear?

   3. Per the cited Guardian source " 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." You've also raised this above and been answered, and I don't know what is gained by repeating the previously answered point.

   4. The relevance is how the affair impacted on his career. Plenty of sources discuss it.

   5. The investigation was confidential, so we don't know it's findings. People can get more info from the source. Samuelshraga (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Speaking on #4 and #5, I understand that this story did NOT impact his or anyone else career, and it did not impact anything. Why include? As about other points, no, there are discrepancies in sources about all these minor details (see discussions on this page), which is not surprising. I think we simply need to omit all such minor and not entirely clear details. Who cares? I am a lot more interested in reading books by the author. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

You've made these points and been answered above already. I don't know why it needs to be rehashed in detail, in a section that is marked "Summary for incoming editors". Samuelshraga (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@My very best wishes and @VampaVampa, doesn't look like I've succeeded in bringing any attention here. I'd love to hear your views on a way forward. Do either of you want to take a try at getting some eyes on this discussion? If not, perhaps a mediated discussion of the content dispute? Samuelshraga (talk) 11:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@My very best wishes @VampaVampa input please? Samuelshraga (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This is fully explained on the page already. I think that the shorter version of the section is OK as a compromise (we are keeping it because you want to keep it), but the longer version has a number of issues listed above. As of note, I double checked WP:COI as applies to editing by OF on this page. It says [39] "You should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself". Important words here are "generally" and " creation". Looking at discussions elsewhere [40], it appears that "an editor with a COI on a topic is allowed to edit articles in which they have a COI with, as long as they have disclosed any contributions covered under WP:PAID and they adhere to Wikipedia's policies and procedures, including having a neutral point of view in their contributions.". That means OF could edit this page if he "adhered" (I do not think he did by playing loose with multiple accounts, but this is something for admins to decide) My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the lack of interest from others (as you noted) is an indication this is the case of WP:DEADHORSE. My very best wishes (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

My failure to reply has been due to unavailability and not lack of interest. It is advisable to avoid assumptions about things one does not know.

as long as they ... adhere to Wikipedia's policies and procedures, including having a neutral point of view in their contributions is a condition repeatedly violated by Orlandofiges, who in addition to extending his exemplary sockpuppetry to this page has been warned against issuing veiled legal threats over the other question discussed on this page. OF's sockpuppetry being discussed in the Wikipedia article on this subject more than justifies giving the incident a complete and trustworthy coverage here.

I think that the shorter version of the section is OK as a compromise (we are keeping it because you want to keep it) - since you were brought by policy and argument to accept back in 2011, however reluctantly, that the section belongs in the article, you are not conceding anything now in agreeing to the shorter version. As Wareh put it to you at the time, "saying more than the sources or not attributing it" "are the only real BLP crimes". VampaVampa (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the lack of interest was compounded by you writing long nitpicky threads, repeating arguments you've made repeatedly for over a decade, on what was meant to be a short accessible summary of the alternatives under discussion. I don't want to waste time re-hashing a debate with you that I agree, has fully played out. I assess that there is a rough consensus (2 out of 3 non-conflicted editors) for the longer version. I've only held off from making the edits in the hope of avoiding an edit war and out of respect for you.

If you say at which forum, or in which manner, you would agree to see a consensus formed that you would respect - dispute resolution noticeboard, rfc at NPOV/N, a Wikiproject, whatever you say, we can move forward there. Otherwise I don't know why we should delay making the edits any further. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

How do we know that you and Vampa are not conflicted? Who are you? Your only interest here is in this petty "scandal" of 14 years ago. Neither of you has made a single edit showing any knowledge of my work. As for the longer version you seem so intent to force through, it can surely not be BLP policy to speculate on the living subject's mental health. Do I not have any right of privacy, for heaven's sake? The Evening Standard article on which you have based your proposed edit was published before the Leveson enquiry (it would not be passed for publication now) and is not a reliable source. Apart from the fact that the Standard is a tabloid, I can tell you now (and prove it in emails) that its speculation on my health and employment status was based on talking to students at Birkbeck and that nobody in Birkbeck's HR or External Relations Department talked to the "journalist" (muck-raker) who wrote the article. Orlandofiges (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS/P#Evening Standard says that "There is no consensus on the reliability of the Evening Standard. Despite being a free newspaper, it is generally considered more reliable than most British tabloids and middle-market newspapers." I take this to mean that we should use this source cautiously, not rely on it for contentious material, and prefer other sources where there is disagreement. What material sourced to this paper do you believe to be contentious? What other sources disagreeing with any statement sourced to this paper are there?

There is no speculation on your mental health in the proposed paragraph, only that you were on sick leave. That you were on sick leave is reported twice in the Guardian, once on the BBC, and sundry other places as can be discerned from a simple google search. There are multiple sources that question contemporaneously whether the scandal is career-ending, and others that remark on the fact that it wasn't when you returned.

In general, at Wikipedia we are enjoined to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, but if you want to report my, Vampa's, or any other editor's behaviour for any violations of Wikipedia's guidelines, you are free to raise them at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you think anyone has a conflict of interest, you are free to raise it at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Speaking of violations of WP policy, just a reminder that your obvious abuse of multiple accounts on this site has already been noticed by myself, and @My very best wishes, and I did you the courtesy of suggesting on your talk page that you come clean about this there before an administrator takes action on it. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

At MVBW's suggestion (here) I guess we'll move to RfC. I've never started one before, so if it's me it will take me a while to get it going, but feel free to preempt me if you know what you're doing. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@VampaVampa/@My very best wishes I obviously haven't got around to this. I'm not likely to soon either, real life intervenes and I can't put in the time. My views on the content have not changed, and I suggest that either we declare a rough consensus for the change, or one of you starts an RfC on the topic or finds another way to bring fresh eyes in. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

"Whisperers" and Memorial Society

The unsourced rewrite of the initial section on The Whisperers is bizarre, because having checked the Afterword of the book on Figes's own suggestion I found that my reconstructed version corresponds very closely to his own account. After recounting his own initial search in the state archives, some first visits to families (a dozen were recruited), and the building of a network of contacts, Figes explains that the expansion was only possible through funding and assembling of the research teams: "Supported by these grants, I employed the Memorial Society in St Petersburg, Moscow and Perm to interview survivors of the Stalin years and collect their family archives for transcription and scanning." As the project leader, he "made the selection of the families to be included in the project from a database assembled by the research teams through telephone interviews with more than a thousand people in total". Obviously, it was Memorial who did the interviews, nothing strange in that. But now Figes wants to inflate his role pointlessly.

I have not read the book and it would help to check reviews, but there is also no mention of "perpetrators" in the Afterword - since the interviewees all agreed to reveal names, it would have been unlikely for such people to volunteer. Figes did add "interpretations" casting people in negative roles though, about which the Russian fact-checking team later complained. VampaVampa (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The included text does not say that Figes conducted interviews. It says that he gathered archives. Yes, the book includes materials about specific people who willingly reported on their innocent neighbors to the NKVD, for example. Apparently, you did not read the book. These are not "interpretations". These people told about themselves in their own words, that's the point. Long after Stalinism was gone, they continued to believe that they did right thing by willingly bringing their neighbors and colleagues to Gulag merely because they expressed a dissatisfaction with their life. I think all recent changes are correct and sourced right now. Yes, one could add a lot more defamatory claims and insignificant details, but I believe they are not due on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@vampavampa - you have published a private email addressed to a limited number of academics. I assume this contravenes Wikipedia policies so am asking you to remove it. If not I shall make a formal complaint. I would also like to know where you sourced this document? I ask because your possession of it raises suspicions.

As to the contents of the document, I would not read too much into them. If you are under the kosh of Carter Ruck - the notoriously aggressive legal firm employed by Polonsky - you will admit to anything that does not add to the eye-watering fees they charge you for sending you threatening letters on a Friday evening (including threats of reporting me to the police for criminal fraud for the reviews)!

As to Gornostaeva's statement in the archive, it is incorrect, and clearly contradicted by the statement of Roginsky (the head of Memorial) in the Cohen archive.

As to your claim that I am trying to "inflate" my role in the oral history project for The Whisperers - a claim that raises more suspicions about your neutrality - I reiterate that I was simply trying to establish that I had been working on the project for several years before Memorial became involved - which, as I have said already, means that your rewrite of the first paragraph is misleading and inaccurate, Orlandofiges (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I see that you have taken my private email from the Carter Ruck website - that they should post it there is just a small example of the tactics they employ. If you want to go down the road of publishing the legal correspondence pertaining to this dispute, this will get very ugly indeed, because I was subjected to 3 months of legal threats from CR on the instigation of Polonsky, who tried to use my culpability for the reviews to open up a whole series of old disputes (including one where she had already sued the Guardian and received substantial damages). I have all this correspondence and can also upload it to my websites, as CR did with theirs. Orlandofiges (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I am using the information that is in the public domain, to which you have pointed me yourself, so please spare me your suspicion. The email comes from the Stephen Cohen Archives, the 'primary sources' box, p. 92 - as you should have been able to deduce from the URL. The Roginsky email is not there, as you yourself admitted above, so cannot be used. No evidence therefore contradicts the statement by the head of Corpus this far. You are free to submit new evidence.

As Carter Ruck are a legal firm still in business they can be assumed to have stayed within the law in sharing the information and with regard to the accuracy of its contents. I will not enter disputes about that on no evidence presented. As a rule, if you want to introduce any corrections, and I think the above record shows that you are willing to push for changes that have no foundation in available evidence, then please indicate that evidence in an unambiguous manner and it will be used as per Wikipedia guidelines (on primary/secondary sources).

As to your preliminary work in gathering archives, which I referenced quite clearly above, it could be mentioned at the expense of brevity, but clearly the bulk of the gathering and interviewing as per your own Afterword was done by Memorial once you hired them. Therefore my passage, echoing your own phrasing from 2007, was entirely correct in its emphasis and you showed a partisan agenda in questioning it. I am not your employee to carry out your wishes, although you appear to think otherwise. VampaVampa (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I have noted above where the Roginsky email is located. It is in Russian. I am done arguing with you otherwise. Most unpleasant. Orlandofiges (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, a letter from Arseny Roginsky to Stephen F. Cohen could be of interest for this page if reliably published. The archive by Cohen in Princeton is apparently an WP:SPS, but I am having a difficulty accessing it right now. Having a PDF of the letter from that archive would be probably helpful. My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

https://findingaids.princeton.edu/catalog/MC314_c14489-35167

Orlando Figes controversy: SFC correspondence & 'primary sources', 2012

pages 82-3 and 90-91 of this file contain the letters from Roginsky to Cohen: on 82-3 he refuses to enter the dispute on any side because he says Memorial is an archive and should not determine how researchers interpret its documents; on 90-91 he says Memorial took no part in the decision to cancel. In both documents he refers to Irina Ostrovskaya as the sole author of the report. Orlandofiges (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Those are the page numbers as they appear on the downloaded PDF file Orlandofiges (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, he is saying that Memorial took no part in the publishing decision, that it was the single named researcher who looked at the book and compiled a list of issues, and that the researcher did not actually compare the English version to the original Russian texts of the documents. My very best wishes (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Exactly - and no could she because Irina Ostrovskaya does not have a word of English (I know because I let he stay for free in my London flat for two weeks in 2005). Orlandofiges (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

So, Arseny Roginsky responds in his letter to Cohen: "you complain that Memorial does not participate in the polemics about Orlando Figes. But the Memorial in this case is merely an archive that must work with researchers and provide them all necessary materials. Just as any other archive." But I do have a question. Roginsky mentioned "a review of our archivists [plural]" that they sent to the publisher. What review he is talking about? Based on his letter, it seems there might be two reviews. However, I am not sure because there is another letter from Roginsky to Cohen (pages 97-99), which is even more instructive, but it does not mention any reviewers except Ostrovskaya. My very best wishes (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not see where Roginsky refers to "a review of our archivists [plural]" - please be more specific. There was only one review. It was sent to me in 2011 and was written by Ostrovskaya. Orlandofiges (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Page 88. "...возможно что отзыв наших архивистов сыграл роль в том что книга не появилась в том издательстве...". Based on context, it seems he is not talking about the review by Ostrovskaya. Perhaps they did not send it you, but to the publisher? But I am not so sure after reading his another letter. It is precisely why wikipedians should not interpret themselves primary sources per WP:PRIMARY. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I have not looked again at the document for context but that immediately strikes me as the way they refer to themselves at Memorial - as a collective, it'e the language of the dissidents, it should not be read so literally! Art the very most, it is possible, indeed likely, that Ostrovskaya asked the opinion of other archivists (e.g. Kozlova) who know the background of the family member interviewed better. But I repeat, there was one report and it was written by Ostrovskaya. I know how she writes, I know how she speaks, I worked with her for several years. Orlandofiges (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, probably. I have no further questions. My very best wishes (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, Roginsky, the head of the Memorial, wrote in his letter (page 98 in the archive, in bold letters!) "We [Memorial] never were against publishing the Russian translation." He also clarified on the same page the agreement with OF. It did not include any role of the Memorial in evaluating the quality of the work by OF. They were not supposed to make any reviews. But in fact, a review was written by Ostrovskaya, and apparently was used by the publisher as an argument not to publish. This is nothing extraordinary (publishers can ask anyone they want), but the reviewer appears here just as an individual researcher trusted by the publisher; she could work anywhere. It was not an official view or review by Memorial as an organization. The letter by Roginsky makes it clear. My very best wishes (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Figes" is incorrect

In a video titled "Five Books That Changed History - Orlando Figes", Orlando Figes introduces himself, and he pronounces his surname /ˈfaɪjɪs/, not /ˈfaɪjiːz/. 68.193.141.193 (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)corpho