Talk:Nikolai Tolstoy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
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)
- 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'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)
- 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)
