| Revision as of 19:15, 23 December 2010 edit95.146.239.71 (talk) →Reviews in Amazon.com← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:30, 24 December 2010 edit undoRachelPolonsky (talk | contribs)12 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
| :::::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 ] problems on another side. But this is not the way. Instead, one should simply fix ]. 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... ] (]) 17:04, 23 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 ] problems on another side. But this is not the way. Instead, one should simply fix ]. 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... ] (]) 17:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::Another sleepless night for Jimmy Wales, then. --] (]) 19:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC) | ::::::Another sleepless night for Jimmy Wales, then. --] (]) 19:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC) | ||
| In conformity with BLP policy, I have deleted a false statement which concerns me. | |||
Revision as of 11:30, 24 December 2010
 | Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
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.
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)
Pronunciation
{{editprotected}} Administrator, could you add the pronunciation of Figes' name (IPA pronunciation: ) ?
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)
Y Done. Sandstein (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please see List of fellows for citation GrahamHardy (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Request disabled until citation provided. Sandstein (talk) 13:06, 19 January 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)
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. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Biophys (talk) 02:29, 21 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)
- All right, I checked the sources and made a shorter version as a compromise solution.Biophys (talk) 16:29, 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)
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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
In conformity with BLP policy, I have deleted a false statement which concerns me.
Categories: