Talk:Luke Harding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I'm amazed that this article doesn't include Luke Harding's well-publicized act of plagiarism in 2007. The Guardian admitted it, and apologized for it, but to the best of my knowledge Harding himself never apologized. The article on the incident is here, and the Guardian apology can be found here. I say I'm surprised, because among the Moscow expat community this is what Harding is best known for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I added a one-sentence description dsol (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I honestly doubt that this is what Harding most known for. And if it is true, it's quite pathetic of "the Moscow expat community", so please don't make generalizations like this. Thanks. Cosainsé (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I have removed what had grown into a whole section. As the website and The Guardian's amendment at the beginning of Harding's article are the principal sources. As third-party reliable sources are absent, as far as I have been able to determine, it has the appearance of being non-notable. Comparable to the malpractice of Johann Hari it isn't. Philip Cross (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Here are 6 different sources regarding this event, including a few third-party sources: RT, VoR, Foreign Policy Blogs (which points to another possible act of plagiarism, apparently), The Guardian, The Exile, and Exiled Online. That's more than enough sources, in my opinion. Johann Hari's plagiarism doesn't have anything to do with qualifying this specific act for notability. Surely any plagiarism, especially from a published journalist, is notable? It's considered a breach of journalistic ethics. This seems especially relavent given the recent controversy surrounding Harding's latest published work on Snowden. That is certaintly a factor that is important to consider when assessing a journalist's integrity. I think that completely removing the section is too extreme - perhaps we could move it into another section, reinstate it given the existence of third-party sources, or create a new section titled "History" where we can provide this, as well as other chronologically ordered details on Harding? I don't think removal of factual, and in my opinion rather notable (due to his profession), information is appropriate. Depending on the response to this comment, I will determine a more appropriate way to include this information.Sashaarrabi91 (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
RT/Russia Today and Voice of Russia are not reliable sources, the former is well known for allowing people with fringe views on its programmes, and Voice of Russia is likely to be similar. Given the nature of the beast, and Harding's history with the current Russian regime, RT is liable to use anything to attempt to discredit Harding. Foreign Policy magazine has a mixed reputation as an admissible source on Wikipedia. The Exile/Exiled Online site (same source, but different html) has a mixed reputation if you look on Google adding "Mark Ames" to the string. So none of these citations should be used for an article on Luke Harding's brief brush with plagiarism, probably. The Guardian apologises for the three plagiarised paragraphs in one article, which in itself does not determine whether something should be included here. Notability of a detail in an article is established by the quality of third party source material, what we have fails this test. Philip Cross (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
@Philip Cross,using all your motives in the same way and judging by your twitter-page(tweets history), you are not allowed to edit Russia-themed articles/paragraphs, then. hm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

First foreign journalist to be expelled?[edit]

I know that Harding states in his book that he was the first foreign journalist to be expelled from Russia since the end of the Cold War, but is that really true? The same situated that happened to him also happened to the Swedish Moscow correspondent for SVT Bert Sundström already in 2005 [1] and I suspect there must be several other cases. Närking (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi! Mention sources not truth: so how about adding a caveat like "but according to ____ Bert S was expelled in 2005"? Then the reader will note the contrasting info.Malick78 (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that could be a good solution. At least here in Sweden it was a minor scandal when Bert Sundström, who has reported from Chechnya, Beslan etc and has a very good knowledge of Russia and its culture and history, suddenly was denied a prolonged visa. The head of the Swedish Television said that "Nothing like this has as far as we can recall occurred since the days of Soviet dictatorship. Today Russia call itself a democracy and embraces freedom of speech and information. For this reason, we find the expulsion of Bert Sundström astonishing". I guess Harding didn't know about this since it happened before he arrived to Russia. And there might be other examples too, that I don't know about. Anyway I haven't heard of any Scandinavian correspondents that have been expelled. Närking (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
When an impudent mosquito keeps on drinking your blood you may not want to kill it but you do not have to tolerate this discomfort. When a moscuito wants to sting it stings even by faking excess of blood. In all, good propaganda whining after a good decision. Some works by this brave hongweibing are insult not for crappy Putin but for common Russian citizen guilty only for US' fail to perform a Morgenthau plan for Russia.-- (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Mafia State/ additional information[edit]

It should not be forgotten that Russia was described as a Mafia state in Claire Sterling's book "Crime without frontiers, the worldwide expansion of organised crime and the Pax Mafiosa". Copyright 1994, last events described 1993. ISBN 0751513504. This is well before anybody knew the name of Vladimir Putin. There must be something in the structure of the country or more interestingly, it would be good to see an expert comparison whether it got worse under Putin or whether it was worse before Putin who entered the stage on 1st January 2000. (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Now find reliable sources stating what you "know" to be "true" as statements of fact. Collect (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of Harding[edit]

I've just made several edits to this page because I found it to be enormously unbalanced in favour of giving a positive image of Harding. Let's face it, criticism of Harding does exist, and when it comes from such high sources as an op ed written by Julian Assange himself and published in Newsweek, it should also be included on his Wikipedia page. I had to go all the way to the Russian version of this article just to see FM Lavrov's response to the "first journalist expelled from Russia since the Cold War" claim. Whether we believe Lavrov's response or not, it merits to be included here. This article cannot be considered complete without inclusion of criticism. Furthermore, some of Harding's claims about how he was harassed by Russian security services and banned from re-entry are either incomplete or entirely based on his own personal conjecture. Therefore, this article cannot state affirmatively that he was harassed and denied re-entry to Russia, although it can state that this is what Harding & The Guardian claim.

Harding is a Nimmo clone. See him that way and his bizarre and erratic behaviour becomes understandable. So paranoid...

I have edited this article in an attempt to correct such flagrant bias and I hope that others will assist me in this endeavour. Newuser1138 (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I find your desire to tell the WP:TRUTH to be interesting - but suggest that we are required to follow WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:NPOV and it is not our job to expose the evilness of those whom you "know" are evil. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
As previously stated in response to your complaint on the BLP noticeboard, I am not claiming to tell the truth but simply to present both sides. Notice that on 9 February, the passage making reference to Assange's scathing criticism of Harding was removed by a new user who's account has only ever effectuated this sole edit which also included updates regarding his book's publishing house... Therefore I am not so much introducing new material as restoring material that was previously added by other Wikipedians along with a few corrections to show point of view ("according to", "claims", etc.). Newuser1138 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The Edward Snowden section is a pure snow-job. Stone could hardly have used that book much, but instead guarded against litigation. The book is not based on any first-hand experience, only hearsay, and bursts at the seams with weasel words. Citing the book's own publisher for a review is just unethical. It's time to apply the good old NPOV.

Russian expulsion[edit]

In February 2011, Harding was refused re-entry into Russia

If he was denied reentry (for reasons many foreign correspondents openly appreciate) then he wasn't expelled, was he?

Plagiarism redux[edit]

So the Guardian retraction does not say he plagiarised others, well it wouldnt would it, it states he used work without proper credit. While this is commonly consider plagiarism, without it being explicitly named as such by independant secondary sources, it cant say that as a statement of fact in wikivoice. Accusations by Julian Assange and the subjects of the borrowed paragraphs are obviously not independant, but are relavant so can be used properly attributed. Likewise it is a fact he was awarded Plagiarist of the Year by Private Eye. Private Eye are a satire magazine, however they do have a history of fact checking, mainly due to the amount of lawsuits they have incurred over the years. If they say someone is a plagiarist, you can bet that will have been editorially vetted. I suspect there *are* more secondary sources that would support a plagiarist label, but as of yet they are not in the article and I dont have time to look for them right now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It would be noted on the pages of virtually any other writer guilty of plagiarism that he/she is guilty of it. It is 1 of the worst things a writer can do, along with fabricating evidence, in his/her profession. Are the editors here rabid fans of his? Do they seek to protect him from having his wrongs exposed or credibility and ethics questioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7226:A00:3D82:4758:26F5:C18B (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Luke Harding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)