Talk:Nikolai Tolstoy

POV

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)

That comment is entirely your own (anonymous) POV. As with all Wikipedia articles they are invariably added to by numerous editors. This sometimes produces an uneasy article. If there is something in the article which is patently untrue call for citations. regards, David Lauder (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is not "poorly written". It is well written. Nor is Nikolai Tolstoy "a pretty much unknown person", given his publishing career and colourful life and family history, not to mention the great excitement he caused in the upper echelons of the Tory party some years ago. If this article has a fault, and in my view (which is only that, a view) it does, it is not what it contains, but what it omits. Evidently it's best to skate over why a jury of twelve people, having heard extensive evidence from both sides over a period of several weeks, felt it appropriate to award such punitive damages against Tolstoy, three times the previous highest ever awarded. The article simply says "He lost". Perhaps the article should include more about why Max Hastings has described him as "an ardent controversialist" [1]. Just my point of view though. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Was the libel case a jury trial? I thought he elected for a non-jury trial. I'll have to look that up. In any case British juries have no say in costs etc., (that is American), its all a matter for the judge. Given that post-trial it was revealed that the judge used to play golf with Aldington I'd say there is more to the whole matter than meets the eye. The general view in most circles, especially given that crucial documents went missing etc., was that the whole thing was a stitch-up. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are quite mistaken. The libel damages were set by the jury, even against the plea of the judge to avoid "Mickey Mouse" sums. [2]. As to the "general view in most circles" I have no idea, frankly. On that point I submit to your authority. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah well! I learn something new every day. I shall ask a friend of mine who is a barrister in Chancery about all this. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear what your friend has to say. Regards, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Horrible Article

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)

Questionable statement

"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)

Libel action against Aldington

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)

IMHO, there have been rather too many anons contributing to this talk page. Remember, this is s BLP article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of interest (December 2016)

@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:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, schools, companies, clubs, or organizations
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on this Talk page (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

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)