This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nikolai Tolstoy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This is a poorly written and biased article about a pretty much unknown person. There are so many POVs, it is hard to know where to begin.38.117.213.19 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
What a sham of an article. It sounds like an an endorsement for Tolstoy. Unfortunately, I don't have the patience to argue with those who have a personal interest in this poorly written and annoying article. Good luck Nikolai! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.213.19 (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Prominent English Historian????? Hnuh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.109.55 (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
"When Grand Duke Kiril succeeded to the imperial inheritance and rights, he granted Pavel Tolstoy-Miloslavsky the title, an elevation which was approved by the Dowager Empress Maria Fyodorovna" Given that Maria Fyodorovna, amongst other senior Romanovs, never recognised Kiril's assumption of power, this statement requires a source.Engleham (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
This is, even after editing a very poor section indeed that uncritically accepts 'Count' Tolstoy's version of events. It claims his 'right' to an appeal was refused, that new evidence 'proved' he was right all along and that a cover up was 'shown' by certain documents, unspecified. It also relies heavily on newspaper sources despite the fact that there are several books on the subject. Some claims are not even cited at all. To put the matter into context:
1) Watts was trying to force Aldington into paying out his (Watts') brother's life insurance policy. One of the reasons why such large damages were awarded is that the jury took the view that the case was clearly a malicious libel written in the hope of material gain.
2) There is a second version of Tolstoy's involvement - not that he was 'honour bound' to be involved despite not being in the original citation, but that he was hoping to force the release in open court of documents that would prove his point of view, that Aldington was lying, so he could at one and the same time generate publicity for his next book and use the material to write it. This did not of course happen, although there was more than a suspicion of a cover-up and several books have questioned whether the MoD was batting for Aldington.
3) It was not a question of his 'right' to an appeal. Appeals are allowed in such cases only on points of law. He appealed on the basis of 'new evidence' that he claimed 'proved' Aldington had committed perjury. To appeal on that basis, he had to ask the Court of Appeal to meet to consider the evidence and decide whether it is grounds for an appeal. They did, said there were no such grounds and threw out the application. That entire sentence was potentially libellous to the appeal judges in question as it stood, because it implied they had decided to illegally refuse an appeal.
4) Far more citations are needed to back the points. The absence of them leaves me with a very strong suspicion Tolstoy wrote this section himself and just put in his version of events to vindicate himself, which, given he was on the losing side, raises all sorts of ethical issues. That's not good enough for Wikipedia.
There are problems with the wider article - he's not usually referred to, for example, as an historian, rather as a popular author - but those are just pinpricks compared to what was going on here.86.182.118.194 (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
@Gwriad: Wikipedia welcomes your contributions, but if you have a personal relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Nikolai Tolstoy, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. If you are personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article, relevant policies and guidelines may include Conflict of interest, Autobiography, and Neutral point of view. In particular, we ask that you please:
Once again, please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)