Talk:Luke Harding

Plagiarism

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 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 83.237.223.251 (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2014 (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 have I think just recorded a disruptive editing warning with Zefr on his talk page. Don't suppose much will come of it except a ban for my IP:( 51.6.235.55 (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Now Kirbanzo has reverted my text for "not providing a reliable source" . But the "source" was the very website that wrote the original which the Guardian has apologised for plagarising. It is not a source in the sense of a news organisation reporting on an issue, it is the the eXile's response directly from them. From the horse's mouth. Better than a news organisation report, surely?51.6.235.55 (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• You do realize that their response isn't really that notable, right? Also see WP:PRIMARY. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 00:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see how it could not be notable it is the published reponse directly from the victim, not via some news agency. If you record the crime and the apology surely a direct statement from the victim is somewhat notable? Anyway I have now given up arguing with bots and you (incidentally why is Harding so "must protect" in Wikipedia?). Instead I have added a new section - he won Private Eye's Plagiarist of the Year award which is about the most notable (damning) award a journalist can get. If you remove that from an article about a journalist your bias will be apparent. I have referenced it with Newsweek and the Times of Geneva hope those are acceptable sources.51.6.235.55 (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Well rather predictably User:Zefr has reverted my section and warned me "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add defamatory content, as you did at Luke Harding. None of your sources has been compliant with WP:RS, and you are edit warring, WP:3RR, and violating WP:BLP. Final warning before reporting you to admin." He has also removed my vandalism complaint against him from his talk page (can he just do that?). Clearly my IP is about to be banned. How is Newsweek not RS? How is reporting Harding's Private Eye award defamatory? If so why didn't Harding sue Private Eye, Newsweek et al? Help! 51.6.235.55 (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• You might want to check Newsweek#Factual errors for why we consider it an unreliable source. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 16:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• That may be a little disingenuous Kirbanzo, Newsweek is not actually an unreliable source, it is:"
  No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable (i.e. neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable), and may be usable depending on context. Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Carefully review the Summary column of the table for details on the status of the source and the factors that should be considered." So carefully evaluating this particular use of Newsweek, are you suggesting Newsweek fabricated the Private Eye award? In any case there is always Private Eye itself.143.159.171.6 (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

First foreign journalist to be expelled?

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.--213.208.170.194 (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Mafia State/ additional information

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)

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

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)

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.

Plagiarism redux

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)

Absolutely. Please see my recent efforts recorded in the Plagiarism section above. They were undone by a bot! What is that about, is a bot set up to protect Luke Hardings's reputation? I reported the bot's false positive then two editors piled in, reverted me and one reported me for "disruptive editing". The current wording can be read as Harding's only sin was re-using his own words when actually he falsely attributed eXiles words to himself (according to eXile). Defintely the worst sin a journalist can commit.51.6.235.55 (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Spend some time reading WP:RS for quality of sources. The Exiled is not one, and the Newsweek article was an op-ed by Assange (not a neutral secondary review). You are violating WP:BLP, particularly the gossip and neutrality violation, and are warring beyond 3 reverts, WP:3RR. Zefr (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130715035326/http://www.guardianshorts.co.uk/browse-ebooks/news-and-politics-ebooks/libya-murder-in-benghazi-and-the-fall-of-gaddafi-ebook to http://www.guardianshorts.co.uk/browse-ebooks/news-and-politics-ebooks/libya-murder-in-benghazi-and-the-fall-of-gaddafi-ebook
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111122132657/http://uwc.org/uwc_life/alumni_profiles/media/luke_harding.aspx to http://www.uwc.org/uwc_life/alumni_profiles/media/luke_harding.aspx

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).

• 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)

Off topic ranting about unpublished Mueller report; no Harding evidence

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)

Philip Bump

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)

Contrary to Harding's thinly-sourced reporting, no credible source believes that Manafort secretly met with Assange in the Ecuadoran embassy. As noted by Paul Farhi in The Washington Post:

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.

Continuing to believe that such a meeting occurred without any corroborating evidence is irrational and neurotic.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the criticism leveled against Harding for the Manafort story in 2018 (which I reviewed before making my initial comment), it is still the case that Bump’s claim about Mueller is wrong and his argument amounts to an ad hominem on top of that ("you can’t trust Harding when it comes to the Kremlin papers because of the story he did about Manafort meeting Assange"). Why, if Harding is such a terrible journalist and has a history of poor reporting, would Bump need to lie about the Mueller report? Mueller is on camera (I tried posting the video directly to this discussion but Wikipedia doesn’t allow it to be added through the filter) denying what Bump claimed. Also, the primary issue at hand isn’t that Harding can’t be trusted, it’s that there’s no way to confirm or deny a leaked document from the Kremlin. There’s a lot of strange things going on here, and it doesn’t go unnoticed that there’s a bit of propaganda war occurring with Harding as a target. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Here’s the link to the video I’m having trouble posting. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

No mention of controversies in the entire article

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)

The article does mention an allegation of plagiarism and shows where claims made by Harding have been challenged. How closely did you look at the article before making your comment? As for "onesided cheerleading", the article mentions that Harding wrote a book on the invasion of Ukraine: what is the specific, published accusation of "onesided cheerleading" and who has made that criticism? MartinPoulter (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)