This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Luke Harding article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 85.141.64.252 ( talk) 14:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I added a helpful clarification to the previous wording (it could have been read as Harding was simply repeating paragraphs he himself had written for eXile). A bot undid that for reasons unknown so I re-wrote it to include references. Then Zefr undid it with no dicussion here and reported me for distruptive editing! Why is this so difficult the Guardian apology is a mea culpa. Why have I been accused of disruptive editing a bot? I correctly logged the bot error at the time. 51.6.235.55 ( talk) 23:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
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. 58.174.193.2 ( talk) 06:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
An IP user is edit warring (9 times since 28 March) over Mueller report material where Harding has no involvement, shown in this edit. The IP user makes the edit comment: "scrubbed updates show Harding endorsed/profited from material determined by DOJ to be utterly false. He and wikipedia sycophants show themselves deceptive frauds pushing false narratives." This is such soapboxing nonsense – and no source indicating Harding's involvement – that it is conspicuous pro-Trump blow and hardly deserves discussion. The IP is on notice and has been short-term blocked twice (Mar 30, Apr 2) for disruptive editing and WP:3RR. The argument of the IP user above crosses the line of several policies of WP:BLP. Out of fairness, I'm starting this discussion here and removing the edit per WP:BRD, but if there is further disruption, the IP will be reported again to admin.-- Zefr ( talk) 16:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I just read Philip Bump’s WaPo article "A blockbuster document purportedly from the Kremlin raises lots of questions — about itself" four separate times, in the hopes that I could understand how and why it is used in this article. The more I read it, the more confused I became. It is currently used in this article to cast so-called skepticism on Harding’s story about the Kremlin papers. But after reading it four times. I quickly learned that Bump agrees with every aspect of Harding’s coverage and of the general veracity of the claims made by the leaked papers. But Bump somehow remains "skeptical" because Harding wrote a very different article in 2018 about Paul Manafort allegedly meeting Julian Assange before the DNC was hacked. Even stranger, Bump argues against trusting Harding on the Kremlin papers because the meeting between Manafort and Assange was "not corroborated in Mueller’s research or in subsequent reporting." Even stranger still is that Mueller went on record in public testimony saying he didn’t address the question nor did he find it unsubstantiated, which is the exact opposite of what Bump claims. For this and other reasons, I would like to respectfully suggest removing Bump as a source from this article, as his treatment of this topic reads not just as a petty hit piece on Harding, but as someone who is playing fast and loose with the facts for unusual reasons not known to us. I also find it concerning that a pro-Russia propaganda site cites Bump and makes similar arguments. Viriditas ( talk) 00:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
But one week after publication, the Guardian's bombshell looks as though it could be a dud. No other news organization has been able to corroborate the Guardian's reporting to substantiate its central claim of a meeting. ... The lead reporter on the Manafort article, Luke Harding, declined to comment on Monday and referred questions to the newspaper's spokesman, Brendan O'Grady. ... However, the Guardian did tweak some of the language in its original report to sound less definitive in its conclusions. ... WikiLeaks on Monday identified the alleged fabricator as Fernando Villavicencio, an Ecuadoran journalist and activist. A government ministry under Ecuador's previous government accused Villavicencio of fabricating documents; Villavicencio's supporters call him a crusading journalist who exposed corruption under former president Rafael Correa. Villavicencio's byline appears on the Guardian's Manafort article, but only in the newspaper's print edition, which doesn't circulate widely outside Great Britain. ... But the story doesn't specify the date of the alleged meeting. In addition, no photos or video of Manafort entering the embassy have emerged. The Guardian is silent about whether its reporters saw any such photographic evidence. [Glenn] Greenwald notes that the embassy is surrounded by cameras that record who enters and leaves. "If Paul Manafort got anywhere near that building, let alone three times, there would be mountains of evidence" in the hands of Ecuadoran intelligence officials, whom the Guardian cited as the source of its story.
There is no mention of any of the well known criticisms of Harding- plagiarism, the shoddy book, onesided cheerleading in Ukraine. This article makes a complete joke of Wikipedia claims to be impartial. It reads like a puff piece written by a PR team. Felimy ( talk) 08:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Luke Harding article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 85.141.64.252 ( talk) 14:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I added a helpful clarification to the previous wording (it could have been read as Harding was simply repeating paragraphs he himself had written for eXile). A bot undid that for reasons unknown so I re-wrote it to include references. Then Zefr undid it with no dicussion here and reported me for distruptive editing! Why is this so difficult the Guardian apology is a mea culpa. Why have I been accused of disruptive editing a bot? I correctly logged the bot error at the time. 51.6.235.55 ( talk) 23:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
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. 58.174.193.2 ( talk) 06:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
An IP user is edit warring (9 times since 28 March) over Mueller report material where Harding has no involvement, shown in this edit. The IP user makes the edit comment: "scrubbed updates show Harding endorsed/profited from material determined by DOJ to be utterly false. He and wikipedia sycophants show themselves deceptive frauds pushing false narratives." This is such soapboxing nonsense – and no source indicating Harding's involvement – that it is conspicuous pro-Trump blow and hardly deserves discussion. The IP is on notice and has been short-term blocked twice (Mar 30, Apr 2) for disruptive editing and WP:3RR. The argument of the IP user above crosses the line of several policies of WP:BLP. Out of fairness, I'm starting this discussion here and removing the edit per WP:BRD, but if there is further disruption, the IP will be reported again to admin.-- Zefr ( talk) 16:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I just read Philip Bump’s WaPo article "A blockbuster document purportedly from the Kremlin raises lots of questions — about itself" four separate times, in the hopes that I could understand how and why it is used in this article. The more I read it, the more confused I became. It is currently used in this article to cast so-called skepticism on Harding’s story about the Kremlin papers. But after reading it four times. I quickly learned that Bump agrees with every aspect of Harding’s coverage and of the general veracity of the claims made by the leaked papers. But Bump somehow remains "skeptical" because Harding wrote a very different article in 2018 about Paul Manafort allegedly meeting Julian Assange before the DNC was hacked. Even stranger, Bump argues against trusting Harding on the Kremlin papers because the meeting between Manafort and Assange was "not corroborated in Mueller’s research or in subsequent reporting." Even stranger still is that Mueller went on record in public testimony saying he didn’t address the question nor did he find it unsubstantiated, which is the exact opposite of what Bump claims. For this and other reasons, I would like to respectfully suggest removing Bump as a source from this article, as his treatment of this topic reads not just as a petty hit piece on Harding, but as someone who is playing fast and loose with the facts for unusual reasons not known to us. I also find it concerning that a pro-Russia propaganda site cites Bump and makes similar arguments. Viriditas ( talk) 00:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
But one week after publication, the Guardian's bombshell looks as though it could be a dud. No other news organization has been able to corroborate the Guardian's reporting to substantiate its central claim of a meeting. ... The lead reporter on the Manafort article, Luke Harding, declined to comment on Monday and referred questions to the newspaper's spokesman, Brendan O'Grady. ... However, the Guardian did tweak some of the language in its original report to sound less definitive in its conclusions. ... WikiLeaks on Monday identified the alleged fabricator as Fernando Villavicencio, an Ecuadoran journalist and activist. A government ministry under Ecuador's previous government accused Villavicencio of fabricating documents; Villavicencio's supporters call him a crusading journalist who exposed corruption under former president Rafael Correa. Villavicencio's byline appears on the Guardian's Manafort article, but only in the newspaper's print edition, which doesn't circulate widely outside Great Britain. ... But the story doesn't specify the date of the alleged meeting. In addition, no photos or video of Manafort entering the embassy have emerged. The Guardian is silent about whether its reporters saw any such photographic evidence. [Glenn] Greenwald notes that the embassy is surrounded by cameras that record who enters and leaves. "If Paul Manafort got anywhere near that building, let alone three times, there would be mountains of evidence" in the hands of Ecuadoran intelligence officials, whom the Guardian cited as the source of its story.
There is no mention of any of the well known criticisms of Harding- plagiarism, the shoddy book, onesided cheerleading in Ukraine. This article makes a complete joke of Wikipedia claims to be impartial. It reads like a puff piece written by a PR team. Felimy ( talk) 08:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)