Talk:John Mearsheimer

Archives (Index)

2014/June 2014/August 2017/April 2017/November 2018/February 2022/January 2022/February 2022/March 2023/April 2023/October 2023/November 2024/February

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Insertion of disputed material

@Manyareasexpert

First of all, can you point to a comparable article that contains inline criticism of the subject’s work in a similar format? IME it’s generally not done.

Now, as for the actual content being inserted…

The main (but not the only issue) is that it’s in pretty major contravention of WP:BLPBALANCE and related guidelines.

(It’s also amusingly cringe to criticize the reigning realist theoretician on the basis of a non-realist framework and then just conclude as the authors did that applying realist analysis makes you a Putin apologist. Like a progressive social psychologist criticizing a cultural anthropologist for not analyzing a pre-industrial society with an intersectional feminist toolkit and that they’re an instrument of the dominant group for using any other framework.)

“An RS publication hosted an opinion piece that said it, so let’s just quote them because RS!” is a pretty common fallacy (there’s prob an essay but I can’t find it rn). Sometimes editors can get away with that sort of thing…but not in BLP. Ever. BLP is sacred ground consecrated by the Policies and Guidelines.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hope I didn't step on your toes by amending some of this disputed material. I won't object if you want to remove it again while a discussion is held about it on the talk page. Burrobert (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

a comparable article that contains inline criticism
— User:RadioactiveBoulevardier 13:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean?

We should differentiate between the person and his works. I've added two more articles discussing subject's works on Ukraine war. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

…I think you may be missing the forest for the trees. Have you considered frankly what the overall effect of your edit(s)/restoration might be? Have you read the relevant guidelines? BLP is no joke. For example, one can't call a person convicted of common murder a war criminal if they technically aren't that.

You restored content that was quoting a source that had originally been added with the apparent purpose of essentially using said source as a transparent proxy to characterize the subject as a Russian apologist. Apart from the self-evident issues with the authors' process…this is a violation of BLP, pure and simple!

One does not simply bring one's POV into BLP. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC) RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

More editors to discuss are invited at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Academic criticism removed . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, both sources are behind paywall. Can you copy paste here specific statements that support your edit? Sources themselves seem to be good, but what exactly do they say? In general, including some criticisms is fine. But the whole "Ukrainian" section seems to be out of proportion for this page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

There were 3 sources removed which were in the article for long. Two are
It makes no sense to blame the west for the Ukraine war | Financial Times (archive.ph)
Rightsizing the Russia Threat: Whatever Putin’s Intentions Are, He Is Hemmed In by Limited Capabilities (archive.ph)

I also had a closed look at Anti-Mearsheimer: Putin's Unjust War and His American Apologists (irdiplomacy.ir) criticized for "unreliability" and it is the article by Kaveh L. Afrasiabi - Iranian-American political scientist.

There were also 2 journal articles removed [1] from "Links" section:
Mearsheimer, Realism, and the Ukraine War (degruyter.com)
Offensive ideas: structural realism, classical realism and Putin's war on Ukraine | International Affairs | Oxford Academic (oup.com) ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! 2nd ref: The political scientist John Mearsheimer ... has argued that “there is no evidence in the public record that Putin was contemplating, much less intending to put an end to Ukraine as an independent state and make it part of greater Russia when he sent his troops into Ukraine.”, and so on. But this should be properly summarized. My very best wishes (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Here is main problem of this page. It uncritically describes views of the subject at great length, mainly based on his own publications. But it does not provide well sourced criticisms of his views by others, which would be very much appropriate here given the non-orthodox views of the subject (to say this politely). Therefore, I think the recent edit by Manyareasexpert was an improvement, even though one could probably summarize the criticisms in a more neutral fashion. My very best wishes (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  I have no problem with applying summary style to the whole section. In terms of non-orthodox views, that would be measured within the specific field. To my knowledge, realism is, relatively, significantly more orthodox within int'l rel than analogues such as Austrian economics and certain schools of thought within psychology and sociology (the latter of which, as taught in the US at least, is based on somewhat heterodox theoretical foundations like Comte's positivism and Marxist economics, but I have a significant pro-anthro/anti-socio bias to be honest)…<scoots off to check the BLPs of heterodox economists and psychologists to see how it's handled there>… RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• So, @RadioactiveBoulevardier, please suggest how the removed material can be improved to meet BLP. Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  @RadioactiveBoulevardier, you commented Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#c-RadioactiveBoulevardier-20240318055000-Manyareasexpert-20240317205900 that The Mearsheimer removal was because of tone and BLP concerns, not so much the content but how it was presented and that the nature and formatting of the inline wikivoice rebuttal was inappropriate for that article. So, how the removed text can be improved? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  One sentence to the effect of "Mearsheimer's views have attracted much controversy/criticism in the press" would do it. The main issue is BLP which should be easy to understand given that it was immediately apparent to others. The tone can probably be sideslipped by using summary style; part of the issue with it is that it was presenting opinion pieces as an academic rebuttal, and IIRC leaning toward a Wikivoice endorsement. My general principle is that if oneself or another editor feels an urge to stick it in, it helps to look and consider whether it's because there's objectively a gap in coverage or because one's POV feels certain info should be in there (this is a significant problem in AmPol and so significant that a WP article about a certain prominent Wikipedian shows hints of it when describing that Wikipedian's work).

  The biggest sub-issue with the presentation is that a consensus by pundits doesn't not necessarily translate to an academic consensus in the specific field of international relations.

  Also, you could find other non-BLP articles to stick these things in if you so wish, since it's much less straightforward to contest stuff outside BLP. Albeit that I don't think realism is even discussed in one of the sub-articles yet (although it should be, considering the length of those articles and the thing that Mearsheimer is not the most prominent person to have said such things).

  Does that help? Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)