Talk:John Mearsheimer/Archives/2024/June

Reversions

@Hipal. You have given me WP:NOT, WP:POV, WP:BLP, WP:PROMO and WP:SOAP in edit summaries. You have yet to satisfactorily explain how any of these have been violated. I requested you take it to the talk page before your last revert. Yes, I know for BLP consensus must be reached first. But again I have to initiate the talk page discussion. I'm interested in improving this article. Ivan (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Media appearances

From 2012–2018, Mearsheimer was a regular commentator at PBS NewsHour, commenting on the Iranian nuclear program, the U.S. Intervention in Syria, Operation Timber Sycamore, the legacy of World War I, ISIL, Sanctions against North Korea, Trump–NATO relations and other issues.

Iranian nuclear weapons

Mearsheimer argued in debate with Dov Zakheim that "a nuclear-armed Iran would bring stability to the region" because of the deterrent capabilities of nuclear weapons, singling out the United States and Israel as examples of nations they would deter, and using the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the 2011 military intervention in Libya as examples of a wars that could have been prevented. At the same time, he warned of the possibility of Inadvertent Escalation should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, in the event of a conventional war that inadvertently escalates to a nuclear level.

In a debate alongside Stephen Cohen against Derek Chollet, Kori Schake and Reuel Marc Gerecht, he considered the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPoA to be a "fundamental mistake", arguing that the best way to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons would be to "remove the incentive" for their acquisition.

In a 2019 opinion piece for the New York Times, he reiterated his former stances and expressed the view that Iran would "almost certainly" attempt to acquire nuclear wapons. Once acquired, the risk of inadvertent escalation, such as to shut down the flow of oil in the Persian Gulf, would be highst if Iran was in a situation of desperation comparable to that in Japan prior to the Attack on Pearl Harbor or Egypt prior to the Yom Kippur War.

In a 2022 debate hosted by the Center for Russian Studies of Bilkent University and the WWICS, Mearsheimer guessed that Iran would acquire nuclear weapons "within the next ten years", and then cross the threshold to become a nuclear weapon state. Regarding their motivation for acquisition, he used Ukraine as an analogy of a state that could have avoided invasion had they possessed nuclear weapons, alongside previously mentioned examples.

My defense for inclusion against WP:SOAP. Mearsheimer wrote:

• "Nuclear Weapons and Deterrence in Europe" (PDF). International Security. 9 (3): 19–46. 1984.
• Mearsheimer, John J.; Hardin, Russell (1985). "Introduction". Ethics: An International Journal of Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy. 95 (3): 411–423. doi:10.1086/292651. ISSN 0014-1704. Republished in Nuclear Deterrence, Ethics and Strategy. 1985. ISBN 0226317021.

Both articles, published in a peer-reviewed journal and an in-field-acclaimed book respectively, received both praise and detraction from within the field of nuclear deterrence studies. Notable independent sources within that field have commented enough on Mearsheimer's nuclear analyses to make them notable, and that includes academic commentary on his views about the Iranian nuclear program. They have received much more attention from WP:RS-classed media outlets, such as the one that published his opinion piece, the New York Times. I would hesitate to put it in an article on the Iranian nuclear program, but here they are prominent opinions held by a prominent individual whose academic specialty covers this topic. Maybe you are thinking specifically of WP:NOTOPINION? That does not apply when the opinions are those of the article's subject. Ivan (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

My defense for inlcusion against WP:PROMO. These are debates, in which an individual's stances are challenged. Take the second debate. Watch it and judge for yourself whether or not that debate was the type someone would include to promote themself. Dov Zakheim, Derek Chollet, Kori Schake and Reuel Marc Gerecht are all notable people. The first debate was with PBS News Hour, the second at Open to Debate and the third hosted by Bilkent University and the WWICS. The first two are notable for the individuals featured, whereas the last is more notable for the hosting institutions. But it is the views expressed rather than the debates themselves that are important to the section. Ivan (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

My edits (general comments)

The article already over-relies on Mearsheimer as a primary source for his own positions. This is a subtle form of editorializing, since he has countless opinions, and it shouldn't be up to editors to pick-and-choose which are important and which are not. This should instead be supported by reliable, independent sources. Primary sources can be used, if necessary, to briefly summarize his positions, but only if necessary, and I don't see any indication that it's necessary here. It is always better to cite independent secondary sources for this. Any quotations should be emphasized by reliable, independent sources, not editors, because for editors to select quotes risks cherry-picking, and is a form of subtle editorializing. Likewise, media appearances are not automatically significant enough to mention. More leeway is typically given form primary sources here, but without context the focus should be on brevity, to avoid subtly promotional name-dropping. Grayfell (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. This I can work with. Mearsheimer does indeed have countless published opinions. If I compiled them all, the page would be too long to load. I normally write articles by expanding and then summarising. The Iran section could probably be condensed to a single paragraph, for example. But it is very difficult to do that when your edits disappear within seconds of their addition to the article.

@Hipal I have a proposal. If @Grayfell is willing to ensure the quality of the final result of my edits (which could take a week or a month), could you not revert any more?

The independent sources criterion I can generally follow once I reach the summarising stage. I will still need to make use of primary sources to fill in gaps, though I can relegate most primary sources to a supporting role, and I think I can reword most of the quotations and condense them. A lot of commentary in independent sources focuses on only a part of the argument, so it is impossible to rely only on independent sources. Ivan (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

You should develop the article in a WP:SANDBOX and post a proposal here, on the talk page, instead of edit warring. I'm not interested in being an intermediary here, nor do I think that would be appropriate. I will offer my evaluation and work to build consensus, same as any other article.

I am reluctant to accept the claim that it isn't possible to rely only on independent sources. If reliable, independent sources only focuses on part of an argument, that helpfully informs us which parts of the argument are worth mentioning in this article. Since we agree that not every opinion is going to belong in this article, we must also accept that not every opinion needs to be contextualized by an editor's interpretation of any particular primary source. Grayfell (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Because it is a WP:BLP, the sandbox version will likely be deleted with justification. I had no recourse but to seek a third opinion. If you are not interested, that is fine. I made no interpretations, edited with a WP:NPOV to the best of my ability, refrained from edit warring. I have always stuck to 1RR on this page. With the justifications given here, there is cause to present an alternate, summarised version including independent sources. But none of this is inclusion-breaking, and so long as there is an editor willing to improve the article (myself), there are no grounds for exclusion. There are no actual violations of policy, only improvements possible. Given my commitment to carry out those improvements, any reversion is WP:HASTY. All I need is for another editor to agree to the inclusion of the content I have added so I can work on it. Without consensus for inclusion, @Hipal will delete it before I can improve it. Ivan (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Independent sources are almost always required to avoid NOT and POV problems.[1] Identify reliable, independent sources first, then build upon them. --Hipal (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Please state concretely and with quotations from the policy pages which additions you believe violated which WP:NOT and WP:POV clauses. I am well aware of the recommendations in WP:IS (an essay, not a policy, but it has been used in the argumentation on this page). But even that essay notes The core policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not requires that it be possible to verify a subject in independent sources, or else the subject may not have a separate article in Wikipedia. There is no requirement that every article currently contain citations to such sources, although it is highly desirable. It is my intent to add such sources for every claim, but I am a systematic editor. First one step, then another. I will eventually get to removing from the article all of the author's theories and views not covered by WP:RS, and probably more. Reverting my otherwise-unproblematic edits within seconds of their posting is an extreme example of WP:HASTY, and causing me much delay. To quote another essay, WP:USESPS, If you are supporting a direct quotation, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources. That way I can verify quotation accuracy in the independent sources introduced, to avoid transmitting cherry-picked quotes in the WP:RS themselves, thus adhering to WP:NPOV. That is why I am starting with self-published (in one of these cases and primary but WP:RS-published in the rest) sources. Not because my end goal is WP:SYNTH. For every inclusion, I know of a WP:IS that can back the claim up, but my edits will be extensive and I don't want to accidentally skip steps. When rewriting an article that is a WP:BLP, a sandbox draft is inappropriate. Ivan (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Because it is a WP:BLP, the sandbox version will likely be deleted with justification. What?? Linking to WP:SANDBOX was a mistake on my part. I meant your personal sandbox. See Help:My sandbox. If you are planning on adding anything to your sandbox (or anywhere else) that would violate BLP, you shouldn't be adding it to this article, either, and we would be having a very different conversation. Your sandbox is specifically designed to be a place to develop content for articles.

The article already suffers from too many primary sources. If you want to change consensus, start with reliable, independent, secondary sources and demonstrate much, much more restraint with primary sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Иованъ, you've been told multiple times now how to address the problems. If you're going to continue to ignore those instructions, then you'll not gain consensus for any changes that require them. --Hipal (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Grayfell No, I do not plan to violate WP:BLP, but for obvious reasons there tends to be a low tolerance for rewriting a BLP article in one's sandbox (and new BLP articles are strongly encouraged to be written in Draftspace), and WP:BLP is one of the policies cited for the reversions here, though which part has not been explained. If @Hipal will agree not to revert anything in my rewrite within reason (such as violating WP:G10) while I am still actively improving the draft, then I will create a draft article in my userspace. As I have said, I plan (and always have planned) on adding WP:IS for every addition that I retain, but when I write articles on scholars I usually begin with primary sources if there is no biography available and then move on to secondary sources, which has a tendency to shrink the article ~fourfold to tenfold. Do I have your permission to go ahead with a userspace draft, @Hipal? Ivan (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

In my experience, you'll be wasting everyone's time. Wikipedia is collaborative and consensus-based, and you appear to be trying to avoid both (eg John Mearsheimer bibliography). --Hipal (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:AGF, please? I am in agreement with the need for the final version to be WP:IS-based. I just have a different writing order. I will go ahead with the sandbox creation. Ivan (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

References