Talk:Edward Lucas (journalist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Edward Lucas (journalist), has edited Wikipedia as
Edwardlucas (talk · contribs)

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

[edit] 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)
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. [1] 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. [2] [3]

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.[4]

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)
  1. ^ Edward Lucas' blog - provides articles from the Economist and other publications, as well as unpublished thoughts
  2. ^ Disinformation - Cold-war propaganda wars return, The Economist, August 3 2006
  3. ^ Covering tracks - How to disguise, inflate and disappear on the internet, The Economist, August 3 2006
  4. ^ An excess of conscience, The Economist, Dec 14th 2006 (Same content on personal blog)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)