Talk:Robert Conquest

An anonymous editor wants the article to begin by describing Conquest as a "propagandist, historian, novelist, and poet." In the first place, Conquest is clearly better known as a historian than for his work for the IRD, so it makes little sense to put "propagandist" before "historian" (or even "novelist" and "poet") in terms of what he's known for. Secondly, I'm not aware of any historian (quite a few of whom were critical of him) who uses the word "propagandist" to describe him. Hence why I'm reverting the edit. --Ismail (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The article itself states his early career as an employee of a British propaganda organization and describes his early published writing as material produced during employment for said propaganda organization, as well as its later publication in the USA by a publisher with publicized CIA connections. However he may have been referred to by people with professional discretion and whatever else he is known for, these are established facts about his career that are not controversial. Whether or not he was an amateur propagandist later in life may well be a matter of opinion, and whether or not he was a professional propagandist a matter of research.

That he was, in fact, a propagandist for eight years of his early career which led to his initial publications is neither. It is a notable fact about an author of non-fiction which ought to be accurately, clearly, and neutrally summarized in the header that serves as its overview, and the word which accomplishes that for his work before he became a published historian is "propagandist", which is why I'm placing it back there. ~2026-48619-7 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Him belonging to the IRD isn't controversial, but labeling him as a "propagandist" is another matter since, like I said, it doesn't seem to be a widespread term applied to him by historians. Compare that with, say, Willi Münzenberg or Tokyo Rose. As I mentioned in the archives of this article's talk page, Conquest was employed in the IRD's research wing, and his writing while employed in the IRD seemed to chiefly consist of texts that were only intended to be read by other IRD members or government officials rather than the public. After leaving the IRD he began writing books on the USSR (in fact in a 1999 article he claimed he left the IRD because it wasn't interested in what became the subject of his first book, Power and Policy in the U.S.S.R.) and in the 60s put out a bunch of books utilizing materials from the IRD (presumably its collection of Soviet books, newspapers, journals, etc. plus summaries of subjects written up for internal use within the IRD by himself if not also others.) So he indeed worked for a propaganda agency, but he seemed to do little actual "propagandizing" to other people on its behalf. That is why, together with the overall lack of "propagandist" being used as a term by historians to describe him, I can't agree with having him described as such in the opening of the article. --Ismail (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

To add onto what I wrote, a 1978 article in The Guardian mentions Conquest stating that after he left the IRD it "suggested to him that he could combine some of the data he had gathered from Soviet publications into a book. He sold Bodley Head a ready-made series of eight called 'Soviet studies.' Bodley Head says it published as a normal commercial arrangement selling 1,500 copies, a third of the the total to a US publisher Fred Praeger. Praeger who had published a number of books previously at the request of the CIA, also says this was a normal commercial arrangement." I'm not aware of any historian who describes that series of books as propaganda, nor did the series ever generate any controversy among historians (very much unlike his later works The Great Terror and Harvest of Sorrow), and yet it was this series that consisted of material he gathered while working in the IRD and it was none other than the IRD which suggested he publish said series. So again, I see little reason to have him described as a "propagandist" in the opening of the article. --Ismail (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

In the later life section, the New York Times article on Robert Conquest's death is cited as the source for his status as a visiting scholar with the Heritage Foundation. The problem with this citation is that it is not mentioned once in the article, nor are several other of the positions listed under the citation. 138.78.192.253 (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)