Talk:Edward Lucas (journalist)

Untitled

See: User:Edwardlucas.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Estonia and Amnesty

I have removed the reference to my recent column about Estonia and Amnesty. Given that I write two or three pieces every week, this would rapidly become cumbersome. All my articles are available on the website, which is referenced here

Edwardlucas 15:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that's sensible; I don't see any reason why we should highlight one particular article above all the rest. -- ChrisO 22:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If he writes "two or three per week" we can hardly highlight them all. But that is no reason to ignore particular ones. There is no such "general principle" on Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There is information on two articles. Feel free to add more. The Estonia article has been the focus of international attention. In fact it may be the only thing that makes Edward Lucas notable. If we leave the articles out, there is nothing left in the article that points to notability. -- Petri Krohn 16:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What international attention and where? You haven't substantiated anything you've added so far, I'm afraid. As far as I can see, you appear to have an issue with two of Edward Lucas' articles - I don't know why - and you want to draw attention to them. I think the onus is on you to explain why these particular articles are somehow special and why they should be addressed in what is supposed to be a general encyclopedia article. Are they really the most important thing that EL has ever written?

BTW, to answer your question on my talk page, I'm not Cristina Odone - but thanks for the laugh! -- ChrisO 21:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm flattered by the attention. I'd just point out that all articles in the Economist are anonymous (barring occasional special reports) so it would be quite misleading to describe the Amnesty pieces as "anonymous editorial". Edwardlucas 20:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I really don't agree with what Petri Krohn has done. For a start, it seems odd to mention that "Lucas has written numerous articles to The Economist. Writing articles is what staff correspondents do. If you were writing about an academic you would not say "He has taught numerous students".

Secondly, The mention of my article about wikipedia seems a bit self-referential (would you want to include an article I had published about another encyclopedia?)

Thirdly, and more importantly, why is this article about Amnesty more significant than the hundreds of others I have written over the past 25 years? Why not highlight my arrest and deportation from Romania, or my coverage of the collapse of Communism in Czechoslovakia in 1989, or my expulsion from the Soviet Union, or the journalistic scoops, or my criticism of Vladimir Putin at a time when everyone else regarded him as a good thing. I very much doubt that in a year's time anyone will still be interested in this Amnesty article, proud though I am of it. Surely an encyclopedia entry is meant to give the lastingly important facts about someone, not stuff that is temporarily newsworth y. Edwardlucas 13:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the deleted text: I suggest that we discuss the issue here before making any further changes to the page

Lucas has written numerous articles to The Economist. In August 2006 he wrote an article critical of Wikipedia, for promoting false information about the International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty, and organization that according to The Economist only exists as a web page. He is also the author of the editorial An excess of conscience - Estonia is right and Amnesty is wrong published by The Economist in December 2006, condemming Amnesty International and their critical report on Estonia.

If you feel there are other articles or points in your career, that should be included in the article, please provide references to reliable sources. I have nothing against including them and expanding the article. Please do not edit or delete materal from the article yourself (or ask your friends to do). It is not the way Wikipedia works. -- Petri Krohn 13:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Notable criticism of Wikipedia in the mainstream media is not a self reference, and can be included in the articles. -- Petri Krohn 14:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Petri, I posted the following to your talk page yesterday but you haven't responded:

It's your personal contention that the two articles are "the most notable parts of his journalistic career". I'm afraid that counts as original research. Do you have any independent sources to support your claim? If you don't, then it can't be included in the article - original research is specifically disallowed (see Wikipedia:No original research).

I'll repeat the question: do you have any source(s) to substantiate your personal opinion? Original research is not eligible for inclusion and it will be kept out of the article. -- ChrisO 17:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not a "raving russophobe". This is POV, unsourced and insulting. I would be grateful if someone would remove it asap.Edwardlucas 13:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The IP shows that the person who wrote it is in England. I will get rid of it for you right now. - Mauco 13:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sikorski et al

This is inference and not justified by my subsequent coverage. I have been critical of Polish foreign policy under this government, where Mr Sikorski is foreign minister. It seems to me that this paragraph is non-notable and also seeking to make a political point. Given that I write about 22 countries and have been covering the region for 20+ years, why is this particular detail of my Polish coverage deserving of such mention? Isn't that "recentism" Edwardlucas (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's recentism, but perhaps more to the point it's undue weight - I think it unnecessarily exaggerates the historical significance of the matter in question. I've removed the addition on this basis. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

La Russophobe

Maybe we should say that Edward Lucas has another blog, named " La Russophobe ": http://russophobe.blogspot.com

I don't see any evidence that it's his blog. The front page says: "We are a team blog, and our content is the work of many talented people. Our fearless leader is Kim Zigfeld, a Pajamas Media blogger (Publius Pundit) and a Pajamas Media Russia correspondent." No mention of Lucas there. His blog is linked from LR, but that's it. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

shotlandiya's edits seems to me to be highly selective and unfair. Being criticised by John Laughland and the Exile is not really notable. If there is to be a criticism section, what about a "praise for" which would have comments from eg the reviews of my book, or something like that? Edwardlucas (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

John Laughland has a doctorate from Oxford and has lectured at the Sorbonne, as well as having published more than ten books on international relations. The Exile might be purile, but Mark Ames and company certainly know their stuff when it comes to what's going on in the world of Kremlinology. By all means, however, tack a sentence onto the end of mine telling us how wonderful the shrill and hysterical, borderline-racist "La Russophobe" thinks your book is, if you think it adds balance to the article. Shotlandiya (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph regarding La Russophobe. There is no reliable sources offered linking Lucas to the blog other than one suggesting it's author is influenced by his writing. That may be useful for an article on the blog (were it notable), but a non-notable blog isn't particularly relevant to Lucas' bio. Rockpocket 06:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems fair to me. Lucas writes extensively on Russian affairs and almost always takes the anti-Russia line, so the fact he thinks this website is an acceptable one to link to speaks volumes about his reliability as a credible commentator. If a writer were to regularly comment on Middle Eastern affairs and consistently take a pro-Palestine line, and at the same time link to an anti-Semitic website, that would be worthy of comment. "Guilt by association" doesn't appear to be a problem on other Wikipedia articles, e.g., the one for the UK Independence Party. Shotlandiya (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be your opinion that he "always takes the anti-Russia line" and that "it speaks volumes" that "he thinks this website is an acceptable", but there are no sources provided that support that opinion. As it stands it is a WP:BLP violation, since it makes claims about him without sources and associates him with a "racist" website (again, without sources). I'm removing the major BLP problem and requesting sources for the others. If you can't provide them, I will remove the rest in a day or two. Rockpocket 16:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

From Edward Lucas

I am flattered that my FT piece attracted such attention but I really don't think it is the role of an encyclopedia entry to give extensive extracts from recent articles. I think the wiki term for this is "recentism". Or grotesquely self-important. People wanting to read my articles can find them all on my website. Please can someone delete and just say "Edward Lucas writes and broadcasts extensively" which would sound better. Edwardlucas (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have restored that piece Edward. I think it important that people realise the faith you had in Western Financial Institutions just before they crashed; this is about you, and such an article is especially illustrative of your judgment in this matter. Could hardly be more relevant or appropriate. Sarah777 (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I note that this isn't the first quote from one of your articles you have sought to have removed. I imagine your notability comes from your journalism - yet you seek to censor an account of your views as expressed in your journalism? That is hardly consistent with Wiki policies in this area, is it? Sarah777 (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I do think a lengthy quote from a recent article is somewhat undue in a short bio such as this. The article is about him and we should ask ourselves is one paragraph from a recent article significant enough to take up 1/3 of his entire biography? If the point is to give us information about his political/ideological positions, then we need more context because this quote itself doesn't tell us much. As it stands its a bit of a "gotcha" statement, due to the recent financial crises. We should be writing from a much wider perspective, not simply reacting to recent events. Why don't you expand the section to provide us some insight, Sarah? Rockpocket 18:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd never heard of Lucas till I read the FT article to be honest - but the timing of the sentiments in the article; I read it at the height of the wholesale nationalisation of Western Financial Institutions - struck me as super-ironic! It takes up one third of the article mainly because the article is so short; not surprising if the writer insists in having any specifics of his writing kept off the page. Quantitarianism is no reason to delete such relevant material. As for expanding the article - is there some rule preventing Mr Lucas from doing that himself? (All I know about him is his website and that article). Sarah777 (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to include any bio Edward wants included if he isn't allowed do it himself, btw. I have no axe to grind on a personal basis; as I said, till I read the FT article I'd never heard of Mr Lucas. (Though I may have read some of his Economist contributions by the sound of it - that magazine takes a bizarrely hard-line anti-Russian line which I have found somewhat grating and hypocritical; their attempts to argue that Ossetia was not in any way comparable with Kosovo being especially laughably pathetic). Sarah777 (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Have a read of Wikipedia:Coatrack, specifically "Coatrack articles ... can accidentally evolve through excessive focus on one aspect of the subject. [They] run against the fundamental neutral point of view policy: in particular the requirement that articles be balanced. When a biography of a living person is a coatrack, it is a problem that requires immediate action. Items may be true and sourced, but if a biography of a living person is essentially a coatrack, it needs to be fixed."

In other words, if we just insert unfortunately timed comments that strike us as ironic then we are going to end up with an article making the person look like an idiot (no offense meant, Mr Lucas). Thats not what bios are about. They are not a collection of disparate facts that by themselves are true and therefore must remain. They tell a story that, as a whole, must be neutral, fair and balanced. So while your insertion is, by itself, sourced and accurate and may be fine in a 100k article extensively covering his writings, It is currently given undue weight considering how sparse the rest of the bio is. This is what WP:UNDUE is about. Now, I know nothing about Lucas, but I'll also do a little bit of research to see if I can flesh out the bio and include your material in that. But if you are really keen for this to remain, I would encourage you also attempt to establish some context. Rockpocket 18:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Point taken Rock; I've removed the text. Sarah777 (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarah. I'll see what I can find later on today and may add it back in some form myself. Rockpocket 19:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I just point out that I am querying (not "censoring") mention of the FT article? I don't mind being judged by what I write--and that's why everything I produce is on my website (edwardlucas.blogspot.com) where comments are welcome. But it seems to me that an entry about a journalist should not just highlight the most recent articles. Over the past 25 years I have written thousands of pieces. It looks odd (and a bit lazy) to mention just one or two recent ones. On a separate subject, I see that the entry mentions only the US edition of the book. For non-US readers of Wikipedia it might be useful to mention the UK version (published by Bloomsbury, under a slightly different title)http://www.bloomsbury.com/Books/details.aspx?isbn=9780747596363. Finally, I am glad to confirm here that I am not a Russophobe and object to being called one. Thanks. Edwardlucas (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. I think any direct claims of you being a 'Russophobe' have been removed. Sarah777 (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not how WP operates. If reliable sources state Lucas is a Russophobe, then this can be covered in the article. I am sure that the subjects of his articles also object to many of the terms he uses to describe them, but he prints them anyway. It is no secret that other Russia-based journalists have used the "Russophobe" moniker, including Alexander Zaitchik, Mark Ames, and others. Then there is also other sources such as this (which apparently is a reliable source, due to it being used on WP already). How did I find this discussion? It's interesting really, I am working on User:russavia/eSStonia at the moment, and two of the references for that article in progress are Lucas' own writings. In one of his articles he starts of with "A good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument." However, if you look at Putinjugend, Lucas' articles are also used as references, and not only does he invoke a term comparing Russian groups to Nazis, but justifies doing so also. According to Ames, the Economist over the last 10 years (which the above link to Johnson's list also makes mention of) has taken a vile anti-Russian slant in its reporting, and regularly envokes Nazi imagery in its descriptions of Russia and Putin, and it since Lucas took over the reigns. This is why he has been called a Russophobe, and that is verifiable by using reliable sources. Of course, we can't state "Lucas is a Russophobe", but we can attribute it to who stated it, and context provided. NOTE: You will notice that I have used blogs as my links above for Ames/Zaitchik, the actual sources can be found by using www.archive.org and waybacking to www.exile.ru. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 06:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I should state that the above has to be within the confines of WP:BLP. --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The New Cold War: The Future of Russia and the Threat to the West

Typed "Edward Lucas" into the 'Barnes and Noble' booksearch to see if I could get a bibliography of Mr Lucas. At #1 came the Cold War book; immediately below at #2 was Andersen's Fairy Tales translated by E. V. Lucas!!! Synchronicity or what?! Sarah777 (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant review of the Cold War book HERE. Still laughing! Sarah777 (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Prediction

This was a remarkable job, almost three months before the war turned hot. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Haven't traveled by recently

I must say I'm ROTFL that the best that editors could come up with for detractors to the book are the maven of the so-called British Helsinki Group, John Laughland--to whom any enemy of the despotic Western powers is worth his support, even genocidal maniacs, and then we have Alexander Zaitchik--an editor of the defunct but not forgotten slavishly Russophilic The eXile. PetersV       TALK 08:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

russophobia

I object to the addition of the "russophobia" tag. Edwardlucas (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

new book

I realise that this wikipedia entry should not be a press release, but I wonder if it is worth mentioning that I have published a new book (out now in UK and USA) called "Deception". It is about east-west espionage and has been reviewed in various reputable papers such as the Wall St Journal and Daily Telegraph. If someone unconnected with me wanted to update the entry, it might help fans and foes focus their ire and glee more topically. The link is bit.ly/chekist Edwardlucas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

new book

Dear Enti342, you gave absolutely no valid argument for your illogical action. I don't see why positive reviews from Newsweek, Sunday Telegraph, and the Independent belong in this encyclopedia article, but the negative review by the Guardian doesn't. Your explanation that the Guardian review "didn’t appear constructive" to you personally doesn't seem to make sense to me, because we are dealing with a public encyclopedia page, not with your or Mr. Lucas' personal pages. The purpose of Wikipedia is not that of providing a free place to advertise books (or, as Mr. Lucas calls it, "lurid plug for book" (http://edwardlucas.blogspot.com/2007/07/nashi-sex-camp-shock-horror-latest.html Nashi sex camp shock horror--latest lurid plug for book, EDWARD LUCAS)) but to provide both sides of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad Rutenburg (talk • contribs) 07:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Rant rant rant

I realise that it is not for the subject of a Wikipedia entry to get involved in editing it, but I would like to put on record that I think this is getting messy and a bit odd.

"Lucas's own book, The New Cold War, appeared in 2008."

makes it sound as if I have written only one. Actually, it's four. I don't mind if they are mentioned or not, but the entry shouldn't imply something that is inaccurate.

The updated version of the New Cold War, if mentioned at all, should really be the latest one, from 2014, which includes material (not "opinions") about the war in Ukraine. I don't think it is necessary to include reviews, either positive or negative.

I mildly object to being a called a conspiracy theorist.

I wonder if it is right to include Russia Today as a source so prominently. Isn't it now RT, not Russia Today?

It's true I was in the University Challenge team in 1984 but there is no source mentioned. Shouldn't there be one (I have no idea where you might find it)

To state "Lucas has written numerous articles to The Economist" is odd. First of all it should be "for" not "to". Secondly, as a staff writer for more than 20 years, I must have written nearly a thousand articles (roughly one a a week s). Isn't this a bit like saying that a doctor has seen numerous patients, or an athlete has taken part in numerous races?

IN any case, why mention these two articles (one of them actually a blog post). If the entry is going to mention any articles (and I don't see why it should) then presumably there should be some notability involved. Perhaps a cover story, or one of the several long special reports I have written? Or better, none of them.

The bibliography mentions two books (one of them not mentioned in the text), but not the Snowden operation (which is mentioned in the text), and not Cyberphobia (which has done better than all the others combined). For the sake of academic completeness, should this bibliography not also give the ISBN numbers for the UK editions? It seems a bit brito-centric to use only the US ones

I hope I am not approaching this in a pooterish way. I don't particularly want a Wikipedia entry and if it simply stated "Edward Lucas is a British journalist and author" that would be plenty. But if there are going to be all these details, then they should be a) accurate, b) fair c) selected on some sort of rational/consistent criteria.

Thank you to anyone who has read to the end of this rant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardlucas (talk • contribs) 17:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Edward Lucas, I think most of your points are perfectly valid, and I have edited the article accordingly. Philip Cross (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I know subjects of Wikipedia entries aren't supposed to edit but I thought this entry was getting ludicrously long and cluttered. I don't think it is of any interest what reviews my books got nearly 10 years ago. I have cut it back heavily, but I am sure it could be cut back even more. I will be grateful to anyone who can fix the ISBN number — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardlucas (talk • contribs) 14:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)