Talk:Richard Sakwa

message: If possible, please add more information about the published works, such as publisher, exact publication date and exact titles.  If there are links to these works, please include them.
-- Mkamensek (talk) -The LeftOverChef 20:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. As it stands, this article should be deleted. It has no any outside references to establish notability of the subject.Biophys (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Information On Publications 

message: Biophys keeps adding the notability tag. However, I think that the sources used in the article are more than enough to demonstrate notability. As the article says, "Professor Sakwa is one of the UK's leading scholars of Russian politics." Offliner (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Sakwa seems to be active participant of Valdai meetings The New Atlanticism, which should be mentioned. Xx236 (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valdai  

message: To what extent WP:GEVAL applies to academic sources on the Ukraine-Russia conflict? Kkostagiannis (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Summary of my rationale for requesting RFC: I must apologize for the rather awkward formulation of the question, I tried to keep it as broad as possible. The details of my disagreement with another editor can be found in the thread above. My question does not refer to press items, blogs, evidently partisan sources etc but on the use of academic material. In this page WP:GEVAL has been invoked to revert the addition of properly cited academic material on the grounds that it is not "mainstream". As a result only one source remains. I am not an expert in the subject so the research I did was by no means comprehensive but when I searched for reviews of the book discussed here 3-4 were negative, 1 was mixed, and 2 were positive (and a couple more I could not access because of paywall). My objection has to do with the way the policy is invoked here as it seems to me to be stretched way beyond the intentions highlighted in the relevant page and as a result counterproductive. I am wondering if anyone has any input on the concerns raised above about the various sources and their notability and/or whether someone who researched the topic extensively can provide any input about the relevant academic discussions.Kkostagiannis (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Speaking about "due weight", this book should be mentioned on the page only in a couple of phrases. The author is barely notable to have a WP page about him, and the book is also not notable. Yes, there were several reviews, but they were very brief and formal. The only source to discuss the book in depth was this article by Taras Kuzio, who asks how did it happen that a Western politologist has become an apologist of the military intervention in Europe. My very best wishes (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Two points here. First, you cannot seriously base any assumption of what is the mainstream in a field based on what you found in Wikipedia pages. I am sorry, but those pages are very rarely well-researched and in several cases are edited by people who feel very strongly about the subject (or possibly even by the subject itself if it is a person). Wikipedia itself recognizes as much in the discussion under WP:WPNOTRS where it states that "Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose" (emphasis in original). You are yet to provide any real sources for your claims regarding mainstream interpretations apart from Wikipedia pages (of questionable reliability anyway as the vast majority of them are either stub or start rated) and the occasional links to google scholar. The mainstream in a field is not established through Wikipedia entries or by number of citations (those might be negative citations too), but through tertiary sources like introductory textbooks published by reputable presses. Second, I am not misconstruing the WP:GEVAL policy, the policy is very restrictive as it stands and to read it as you did in past edits is to stretch its meaning so much so as to render it, well, meaningless. The other policy, WP:FRINGE, seems to be another (and new) thing altogether. We can continue the discussion about policies ad nauseam but this will not improve the article. The point is, that like so many articles, it reads one-sided because apart from a couple of sentences about the author, it already has a section dedicated to criticisms. So, unless someone takes the time to do some actual real research on the person, properly summarize his work and its reception, I think that either the entire removal of this section or its balancing would be better. Wikipedia should not be the place for activism and sadly a lot of articles read just like that.Kkostagiannis (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the widely accepted "majority view", Russian military intervention in Ukraine was an unjustified military aggression by Russia. Hence the international sanctions, etc. The book by Sakwa is trying to challenge this majority view. If not an outright "fringe", this is certainly a very small minority view. Therefore WP:GEVAL apply, meaning that: (a) we should clearly describe such cases as criticized (or not generally accepted) views, and (b) we can not give too much weight and space to such views on WP pages, unless this is something really notable, which is clearly not the case here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you citing a Wikipedia article as evidence? It is merely describing the situation (as it should) not the academic debates about it. Even if it did, it would hardly be enough to establish "widely accepted majority views" so as to justify using a quite restrictive policy like WP:GEVAL. If you have any actual tertiary sources like the ones preferred by Wikipedia please be my guest. Not claiming here that Sakwa's view is some sort of majority view (most likely it is not) but no-one here has even attempted to establish with any credible evidence whatsoever that is some sort of marginal minority.Kkostagiannis (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not read the book, but according to all reviews cited in "your" version of the page, he is challenging the "majority view" about Russian military intervention in Ukraine as unjustified military aggression by Russia. He tells two things: (a) it was not a military aggression by Russia, and (b) it was justified.  Yes, I know: these two statements probably contradict each other, but such things are common in pseudoscientific or strongly biased sources. My very best wishes (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, statements like "unjustified military aggression" carry a heavy normative load which a lot of people in social sciences would be uncomfortable with accepting as self-evident (This is why the relevant article is titled "Russian military intervention" and not "Russian unjustified military aggression" in the first place). To be honest the only element in your three-word description that is not value-loaded is the military element. Such phrases may be fine for public statements by politicians, but have little value for detached academic study (depending on the field of course). So I doubt that secondary or tertiary sources would necessarily agree with you that this was an "unjustified military aggression" (some will agree but not use the same phrasing and leave normative considerations outside it, some others will have issues with either the "aggression" or the "unjustified" dimension or both as you too mention). Academics try to interpret events. You are correct on (b) probably: all reviews state that he is partial to the Russian viewpoint (some think this is for good, more think it is for ill). That said, the two statements are only contradictory from certain viewpoints (I am no expert in international law but usually in such things it is easy to establish legality (or lack thereof as in this case) but legitimacy or ('Justification' to use your terms) remains open and leads to debates such as those in which Sakwa is currently engaged). Kkostagiannis (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just a matter of sightly different wording. He tells: (a) that the military intervention by Russia in Donbass did not happen, and (b) that it was fully justified. This is known as doublethink and not a reasonable/majority academic view on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure he claims both things that you mentioned here? Like you, I have not read the book but most of the reviews attest towards b. I have not seen much on a though. Do you have any specific sources in mind? Be that as it may, in principle the claim that a military intervention can be justified is not self-contradictory (see responsibility to protect, humanitarian intervention, just war theory etc). Disagreements in academia are not usually about facts (military intervention) but about their interpretation (justified or not). Since my similar point previously was erroneously interpreted as some sort of personal diatribe, please see also the part about social sciences in WP:TRUTH Kkostagiannis (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Please stay on topic. This is not a soapbox for your own personal point of view as to what social scientists would be 'comfortable' with or not (as is evidenced by commentary by social scientists in reliable sources). This is an article on a specific subject - being Richard Sakwa - not a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS forum in which to make pointed remarks about what you believe to be the calibre of sourcing for other articles in the specific field of Eastern Europe, or any other disparaging remarks about the editors of those articles. If you think that those articles were written by some clique of editors who 'feel very strongly' about the subject/s, you would be very, very wrong. I'd suggest that you check the RSN, ANI, DRN, NPOVN in order to assure yourself of the fact that decisions and opinions have been thoroughly discussed by the Wikipedia community at large. This is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, so please try to keep your tone and comments in check. Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I am sorry but your answer is entirely beyond the point here. First, I was simply saying that normative judgments like the ones implied in the above statement by BestWishes are not part of all social sciences (they might be in political philosophy, but not necessarily in area studies). And this is not my personal view either. There is a whole debate about it (since the Enlightenment actually). The fact that some social scientists make value judgments does not mean that all of them will or that they even will do so as part of their work. Second, I have no cliques in mind, only that Wikipedia is edited by everyone and several articles are not reviewed. Still, I see no reference to sources, however, and only mention of new Wikipedia policies every time. Finally, since we mentioned Wikipedia policies, can we stop at least referring to other Wikipedia entries as if they are somehow normal sources that can prove assertions about mainstream views as per WP:WPNOTRS? Furthermore, as mentioned above, and as per WP:RS/AC which makes abundantly clear "any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors", I would expect some sources to back the claims of such consensus explicitly.  Kkostagiannis (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on sources