Talk:Edward Lucas (journalist)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sikorski et al

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  La Russophobe 

message: 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)
replies: text: Brilliant review of the Cold War book HERE. Still laughing! Sarah777 (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New Cold War: The Future of Russia and the Threat to the West 

message: This was a remarkable job, almost three months before the war turned hot. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prediction 

message: 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 <SMALL><SMALL>     </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 08:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haven't traveled by recently 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  new book 

message: 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)
thread_title:  new book 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rant rant rant