Talk:Richard Sakwa

More Information On Publications

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)

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)

Notability

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."[1] Offliner (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism?

Professor Sakwa's pro-Putinist views are bound to have generated some controversy in the academic community. Could we get some information about what supporters and detractors have published about his work?68.178.50.46 (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll ping Toddy1 and My very best wishes on this issue. I'd agree that Sakwa's works/analysis have been met with a mixed reception, and that it's misleading to overlook the obvious: that a 'Criticism" section is warranted. I'll defer to the two excellent editors I've asked to join in here and will try to find more comprehensive RS regarding the matter as soon as I'm able. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I have not read Sakwa's book Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands myself, though I have been aware of it since February. Based on excerpts and reviews, it seems to make some good points that will be unpopular with wiki-nationalists. I think the book needs to be taken with caution. Another of Sakwa's books (Putin: Russia's Choice) was panned in the Moscow Times in June 2004 for its naive acceptance Putin's words. Eleven years after that review, Sakwa's naive optimism is risible.

There have been three reviews in English newspapers that are worth looking at:

1. There is a favourable review of the book in the Times Higher Education Supplement by John Barber (someone who has done a lot of book reviews on Russian-related topics).
2. A favourable review of the book in the Mail on Sunday, by Peter Hitchens. This should carry more weight, since other examples of Mr Hitchens' writings show an honest approach to Eastern European issues.
3. A very favourable review in The Guardian, by Jonathan Steele. Mr Steele was a propagandist for East Germany during the Cold War (see this Daily Telegraph commentary: How Labour politicians and The Guardian helped keep the Berlin Wall standing).

-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Iryna. In my opinion, this page should deleted (as not passing our notability criteria), not improved. Period. My very best wishes (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Sakwa does appear to meet WP:SCHOLAR, but the RS create extremely disparate views as to his significance and stance. I don't see any evidence of his being a scholar with a genuine global profile as this article currently implies. To be honest, given that the sources are op-ed critiques or accolades, I'm even further unconvinced of there being genuine merit it retaining it. As noted by Toddy1 we seem to be making determinations based on much earlier works and more recent works. At best, I'd prefer to cut this down to a stub... which would include cutting down on listing every one of his publications to works that can be sourced as being noteworthy for being controversial or insightful. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

As it stands right now, this page has exactly zero 3rd party RS telling about this person, although he obviously has some citation index (one could check; having book reviews does not necessarily show notability). He has zero national/international awards, etc. This is unlike page Ihor Pavlyuk you insist to delete (there are 3rd party sources about him, and he is a winner of several awards). Therefore, I would vote delete for this page.My very best wishes (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I can see great merit in an article for deletion discussion. Such discussions sometimes produce useful information from people on why subjects are notable (or not). I am not sure which way I would "vote" in such a discussion - it would need more research for me to make up my mind. He participates in events at Chatham House, so he may be a significant opinion-informer; I do not know.

Please could you hold fire on trimming down the list of publications. That list is potentially useful for anyone seeking to evaluate the man.

Have you read the some of the reviews of his books on Amazon? You can filter by how many stars people gave the book. Though such reviews do not count as a "reliable source" on Wikipedia, they are very informative. I saw reviews on Amazon of Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands that echo the criticisms made of (Putin: Russia's Choice) by the Moscow Times 11 years earlier - i.e. that he naively/uncritically accepts Putin's version of events as the truth.

I have removed the claim that he is an expert on Russia, and replaced it with a more neutral text.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia has articles on prison library-book authors such as Robert Greene (American author) and each of his worthless books. (According to Greene: "Afghanistan was rich in natural gas and other minerals and had ports on the Indian Ocean".) If it OK to have articles on that, then why not on authors who at least try to write sensible books?-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I've been mulling this over and am still on the fence as to the existence of this article. I'm inclined towards a deletion review, yet it seems ironic in the face of what I can only understand to be cynical attempts to create the impression of a genuinely acknowledged academic profile for the likes of Tadeusz Piotrowski (sociologist), Grzegorz Motyka, Volodymyr Viatrovych, Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe, Yaroslav Hrytsak: that is, basically anyone whose position favours one perspective on the Ukrainian Insurgent Army or the other. I'm not an inclusionist, deletionist, or mergist, but I'm tired of opportunists creating articles that are essentially flouting "other stuff exists" in order to make a point about the content they want to introduce, in this instance, into contentious Eastern European areas of history.

If I submit this for deletion and it gets knocked on the head and tossed out, then I feel it to be only reasonable that I see the domino effect through with other articles on purportedly 'notable' academics. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Let us look at this from a different point of view. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopædia. Sakwa writes serious books that are sold by mainstream booksellers (e.g. Foyles). Wouldn't serious people want to know who he was?-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Point taken, Toddy1. Per Google scholar and Google searches alone, there is ample evidence that his work is recognised globally for better or worse (which is more than can be said for others I've mentioned).

Returning to the point of this section, does this constitute enough lauding and criticism of his publications to engage in potential WP:BLP violations. I'm not aware of enough WP:RS, other than op-ed reviews of his works, to develop anything more than a couple of passing allusions regarding (journalistic) critiques or parallel accolades to justify developing such a section for this article. He's not actually a big fish, so I'd certainly like to see reliable sources for the IP's conviction that "Sakwa's pro-Putinist views are bound to have generated some controversy in the academic community." Well, no, there isn't any "surely" about it... I don't understand Sakwa to have that form of standing in the academic community. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Valdai

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

False claims in the lead

I have removed some false claims in the lead. It said that he was justifying Russian intervention in the Ukraine and he was most known for his book about it, but the source in question stated no such thing.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

According to the source,

Richard Sakwa’s book is the geopolitical reading favoured by Putin that Russia was reacting to the westwards expansion of NATO.

Essentially the same was claimed in a number of other sources. If you suggest to use more sources, that's fine. And yes, this his book is probably the most highly cited. This is nothing special. My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Your edit stated "He is mostly known for his book Frontline Ukraine: Crisis In The Borderlands, where he justified Russian military intervention in Ukraine as a legitimate reaction by Russia to westwards expansion of NATO.". There is nothing in the source you used about him being "mostly known" for this book or that "he justified" Russian intervention in Ukraine.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

So, let's bring more reviews about this book. Some of them are critical. For example, that one tells about Sakwa and his book:

These problems are coupled with his Russo-centric and Putin-centric biases and apologia as well as his left-wing anti-Americanism. Sakwa has a penchant for pursuing conspiracy theories, such as believing that the sniper killings of the EuroMaidan protesters were undertaken by Ukrainian nationalists as a false flag operation...Sakwa is apologetic and ignores inconvenient facts...

Others praise the book [2], but tell something very similar: "Frontline Ukraine highlights ... the civilian casualties in eastern Ukraine caused by Ukrainian army shelling, ... the failure to complete investigations of last February’s sniper activity in Kiev (much of it thought to have been by anti-Yanukovych fighters)...". Well, this description of Maidan is definitely something most other RS disagree about. My very best wishes (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Kuzio? Really?

He also writes: “Shekhovtsov came as close as I have ever heard anyone say that the murder in Odessa was undertaken by an “anti-fascist” defending himself against a “fascist” Maksym Chayka (in other words, that it was justified).” Naturally, I never justified the murder of Chayka, which would have been unethical. Yet Kuzio’s putting the word “fascist” in quotation marks is also revealing. It takes five seconds to “google” Chayka and find several photos of him giving a Nazi salute. Kuzio probably ignored this when he called Chayka a “member of the patriotic youth movement,” in the same manner as he ignored the fact that Chayka had been killed by an anti-fascist in self-defense, when Chayka and his 14 neo-Nazi cronies attacked 5 anti-fascists. However, for Kuzio, “the murderer was a member of the national Bolshevik Rodina Party,” which had “ties to local organized crime and was funded by Russian intelligence services.” The fact is that it has never been proven that the person who killed Chayka was a member of the Rodina party. Moreover, Kuzio’s source of information is the statement disseminated by the Odessa “Prosvita” organization, whose head, Oleksandr Stepanchenko, is also a member of Svoboda. It seems Kuzio prefers to trust extremist, rather than more balanced independent sources.

Kuzio’s own workshop paper is replete with misinformation and factual mistakes. To treat neo-Nazi groups like the Patriot of Ukraine or the Ukrainian National-Labour Party as manifestations of “Russian and Soviet Nationalism,” as he does, is to betray one’s incompetence and to defy common sense. His comment that the newspaper Zvon Sevastopolya is published by “neo-Soviet national Bolsheviks” demonstrates an apparent lack of research: the newspaper is actually published by the Ukrainian cultural and educational association “Prosvita.” But space precludes comments on all Kuzio’s errors. I will conclude by saying that Kuzio’s review of the “Russian and Ukrainian Nationalism” workshop is slanderous, while his research on the Ukrainian far right appears to be based on gossip, nationalist propaganda, and dubious sources.

Anton Shekhovtsov is Visiting Fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences, Austria

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• But this is something all reviews on the book tell. Consider yet another review that praises Sakwa [3]. It tells:

The author thus considers the current crisis in Ukraine as the repercussion of a long-standing rejection of Russia’s legitimate geopolitical concerns [by the West].

My very best wishes (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

In another words "Poles to Gulag".Xx236 (talk) 11:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Here Kuzio openly defends Ukrainian nationalism and Nazi collaborators like Bandera and UPA [4]. I would trust a less biased source more.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• I do not see any problems with using Taras Kuzio as a source. I think you are wrong here. He is just another scholar like Sakwa. My very best wishes (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Western reviewers mostly support Sakwa.

An example - Russian Alina Yablokova [5]:

The UPA is responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Poles, Russians and Jews. - the Russians were probably occupants terrorizing Western Uktraine. The number of slaughtered Poles was about 100 000, I don't know how many Jews were murderd. I don't think hundreds of thousands.

Simultaneously, Moscow was disillusioned by NATO’s continuing expansion eastward. - 25 years after the end of the SU the West refuses to construct one military base in Eastern Europe, even if Russia has broken several treaties. Vladimir Zhirinovsky threatens to use nuclear arms to terrorize the EU [6].

Xx236 (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Which "Western reviewers" support Sakwa? A review in The Guardian + reviews at newcoldwar.org, russia-direct.org, and opendemocracy.net?! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The Irish Times [7] At the forefront of this development have been Russophobes in Poland - the most active Rusophobes were the former Communists, they knew Moscow the best.

[8]

[9]

Xx236 (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

[10] quotes Main on Sunday and Neal Ascherson.Xx236 (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

[11] 50% 5 stars.Xx236 (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• The bottom line: all reviews, critical and positive tell that in the book Frontline Ukraine author explains/justifies Russian military intervention in Ukraine as a legitimate/logical/expected reaction by Russia to westwards expansion of NATO, exactly as was written. There are no "false claims". But OK, if there are objections, let's quote these sources directly, and especially Kuzio because he is a scholar we have a WP page about him. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, in reading the reviews provided by Xx236, the reviews by non-academics explain Sakwa's position/the position adopted in the book, there actually is no consistent line of accolades for his POV. As for using Amazon's selected responses: that's advertising space. They're certainly not going to compile a list of "don't bother buying or reading this crock" responses to WP:PLUG something they're trying to sell. What is of significance is the analysis and critique by another academic in the same field as opposed to journalists who specialise in knocking out three reviews a week and saying, "Wow, this is amazing and worth reading because it says the opposite of what the media says." Saying that 'it's interesting' and 'different' is not a reflection on the accuracy of the position, nor of the scholar's knowledge of a specialised area. It's also not mainstream if reviewers have to keep pointing out that, whether or not it is accurate, it makes for an interesting read as a primer from an alternative (or opposite) position to that of the mainstream. Note, also, Alina Yablokova's section: "Despite shortcomings, a valuable alternative interpretation" which points out some serious contradictions in Sakwa's work. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Removal of sourced academic material

I think the recent reversal of properly cited academic material that I added, is not in the direction of strengthening the neutrality of the article. User Irina Harpy reverted my addition on the grounds that they form a false balance and cited WP:GEVAL as justification for reversing the edit. I disagree with this view.

• My additions, to begin with, do not add credence to any views that are described under "false balance". The cited policy claims that "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity". For some reason the only academic already cited in the review (Kuzio) is assumed to be representing the "accepted mainstream scholarship" and the counter-examples I cited, as being "extraordinary claims". I accessed as many reviews as I could in peer review journals in order to provide an as accurate as possible summary of the reception of the book. I think it is highly problematic to pretend that views expressed by academics in scientific publications in an ongoing debate are somehow similar to "conspiracy theories, climate change denial, or pseudoscience".
• As per the justification for the reversal "Kuzio is a high profile expert in the area whose assessment of Sakwa's work should not be obfuscated by burying it amidst a plethora of lower level opinions." I am again sorry but I am a bit at a loss about why Kuzio is more reliable than all the other academics I cited or that his view should be therefore more valued.
• I must also note that the removal of my additions is actually compromising the "impartial tone" of the article. Kuzio is quoted at length and in fact his discussion is more extensive than the description of the book itself. Furthermore, he is directly quoted, which is in opposition to the suggestion in the relevant section not to quote "directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute". As such, I do not think that the article presents a balanced view as it stand,s something that is particularly problematic given that we refer to a living person.
• I noticed that articles about scholars involved in debates that are politically sensitive and/or controversial tend to attract additions of one-sided black-or-white commentary, which does not really do justice to the complexity of the debates those scholars are contributing to. This is the reason why I believe that if the view of one academic about another should find its place here, then this should not be done in a way that is misleading in that it suggests that said academic actually represents the only available view.Kkostagiannis (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

An additional point:

# As regards Reliable Sources. The only source I cited which is not a peer-reviewed publication, is the E-IR website. That said, several prominent academics publish there. Kuzio's review by the way, was also published in a magazine which was not peer-reviewed. In this case we should take into account the fact that both authors are academics that specialize on the field.Kkostagiannis (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

That only his 2015 book Frontline Ukraine gets discussed is not good - see Wikipedia:Recentism. At least one of his earlier books has also been panned because of his uncritical regurgitation of Putin's line. His books are recognised as being thorough and well-researched.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with all points you raised. Several reviews of the latest book reflect that there are questions of objectivity but the review by Kuzio is the least temperate I encountered, and he is the only one to accuse Sakwa of pursuing "conspiracy theories". In general as you also noted, Sakwa's work is generally regarded as well-researched and his books are often assigned as textbooks (at least the older ones). The existing article is generally rather superficial and basic: to mention only one review for one of his works, and probably one of the most negative ones around does not do the article a great service I am afraid. This is one of the reasons that I brought in also some positive reviews (as well as some other negative ones). My additions probably made the issue of recentism you mentioned even worse, but given that Sakwa's views are in no way as marginal as implied in the WP:GEVAL cited above I thought it would be better to highlight that his work was not generally considered as some sort of conspiracy theory.Kkostagiannis (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Kkostagiannis: Firstly, I will reiterate that we are writing to reflect mainstream, high profile academic criticism (or accolades), not selectively choosing non-critical responses: that is known as WP:GEVAL and WP:CHERRY. Not all 'peer reviewed' publications are created equal. There are as many academic journals on any given subject as there are departments across thousands of tertiary institutions around the world dealing with the subject. That does not make the opinions of academics of an unknown calibre 'peers' for all intents and purposes. For example, I don't see the credentials of this 'reviewer', or this review by someone who only has an MA as meeting with Kuzio's global renown in the field. As for any WP:BLPVIO issues, the quotes you have eliminated are not personal attacks, but are the considered opinion of a genuine peer. I have no objections to amending the text to a degree but, in fact, removing the quotation marks regarding Sakwa's expertise reads as Wikipedia's voice, countering what you are aiming to achieve.

I do agree with Toddy1 that the responses section should be expanded (perhaps to 'Criticism'?) in line with other articles of this nature. The use of Frontline Ukraine is inappropriate as a header as it disregards other publications which have also been criticised, as if the copious list of "Published works" have met with no reception. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@@Iryna Harpy:.

1. Had you searched more carefully you would have noticed that the 'reviewer' (sic) of E-IR is actually a Professor in Ottawa who has published six books with various academic presses. I am not entirely certain that I follow your point, but are we supposed to only present here the views of celebrity scholars? In this case I do not understand why you reverted an older edit by another editor who previously added Chomsky's support for Sakwa's claim (you invoked WP:GEVAL again as I can see for which more below).
2. I have read WP:GEVAL very carefully since you cited it so many times and I cannot really see how an author with a very strong position on this debate as evident from his website is in any way representative of the mainstream. There are several notable academics like J. Mearsheimer, S. Walt, S. Cohen etc. who have expressed similar views to those of Sakwa and certainly the geopolitical argument he made (regardless of whether we like it or not) finds resonance with some scholars in the field. The policy you cite is applicable to conspiracy theories and various pseudoscientific approaches and by invoking it so liberally to revert any additions that happen to disagree with Kuzio's rather extreme view (several other negative reviews like the ones I cited note the one-sidedness of Sakwa without reaching the colourful excesses of Kuzio) stretches its meaning beyond recognition.
3. Finally when it comes to sources you claim that "not all peer reviewed publications are created equal". International Affairs (journal) which was in one of the citations you removed is a top journal in its field with an impact factor of 1.95 and Europe-Asia Studies has also an impact factor close to 1. E-IR as I mentioned is not peer reviewed but has strong recommendations from various scholars in the field and Kuzio himself has also published there. The place where Kuzio's piece appeared, in contrast, compares quite unfavourably to the aforementioned ones.Kkostagiannis (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but you're comparing the academic in question to Kuzio in terms of recognition in this area of studies? Please take a look at Google scholar here, as opposed to Kuzio here. No, this is not about celebrity scholars, but it is about scholars who are recognised in their field and heavily cited. I can't even find the one you want to reference whose notability appears to be for blogging. Of course there's a qualitative difference between academics. As regards the others you've mentioned, I suggest you read Wikipedia's articles on them. Sorry, but their opinions are most definitely marginal on the matter at hand... and, as much as I admire Chomsky as a linguist, plus a political commentator, pulling out a quote from a generalised article is WP:CHERRY. Editing Wikipedia articles has nothing to do with where one's personal political 'simpatico' lies. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• You do realize that the Robinson you linked is a biomedical engineer, right? The fact than a scholar has no google scholar profile only means that they did not make one and does not signal anything about the quality of the research. Not to mention that the most-cited article in Kuzio's profile is not actually his. My point is of course not that said scholar is more famous or even as famous as Kuzio but whether this matters in academic works (Sakwa is more cited than Kuzio but that does not prevent us using the latter). I totally agree with your last point and this is the reason why I edited the article in the first place. As I already explained, by overstretching the meaning of WP:GEVAL the article ended up presenting only one position amongst others and not even the most balanced one available at that. As such, it actually silences one side in what is an academic debate, and I am sorry to state the obvious but an academic debate is exactly this: a debate between opposing views based on evidence and interpretations. I am somewhat unclear on what evidence you decided that Kuzio's view represents the mainstream here as no other source is cited, and you only referred to other scholar's Wikipedia pages. It is not up to a Wikipedia editor to decide which side of the debate should be represented here. At this point I think it would we useful to open the discussion to some less involved authors too. Kkostagiannis (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

No, the opinion piece by Robinson is ridiculous ("Russophobia had acquired a firm grip on the minds of Western journalists"). But all other reviews are arguably OK as RS. My very best wishes (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

This might as well be the case, but ultimately this is irrelevant. His points that relate to the book do not actually differ much from the rest. We are not here to critically assess the sources but to represent them in a descriptive fashion. As you correctly responded to the editor who objected that Kuzio might be biased in favour of Ukraine, "this is just another scholar" and whatever text he decides to put above his signature is his problem, not ours. Kkostagiannis (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: You have misunderstood. The person you described as "someone who only has an MA" is described on your link as Ass.-Prof. Mag. Dr.iur. Benedikt Harzl, MA.

• Ass.-Prof. He is an assistant professor
• Mag. He has a Magister degree. In some countries, this is a doctorate, and in other countries it is an MA or MSc.
• Dr.iur. He is a doctor of laws (equivalent to a PhD)
• MA. He also has a masters degree.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Benedikt Harzl' German-language biography shows a more recent photograph and has more information.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

1. Thank you @Toddy1: for taking the time to double-check the profile of said academic. I am not familiar with the Austrian system and could not really decipher the titles. I think, however, that the main point of @Iryna Harpy: was that PhDs or not those academics that I cited are not notable enough. Robisnon has a PhD, I think from Oxford, and is a professor, but he is still considered not notable enough. Of course book reviews are written by mostly junior scholars. Senior scholars usually will not write reviews unless they feel very keen on writing one (as Kuzio and Robinson in this case).

2. I must restate here that the use of WP:GEVAL to remove any views that see Sakwa's work positively or even less negatively than Kuzio's is premised on the assumption that the views he represents are marginal, something similar to pseudoscience and flat earth theories. I mentioned academics for whom the geopolitical factors also stressed by Sakwa were also important but Irina opined based on their mostly start-rated Wikipedia pages that their "opinions are most definitely marginal on the matter at hand". This assumption is erroneous as I mentioned already. Several notable academics who have either a similar publication profile to Kuzio or actually are much more notable (like George F. Kennan and Henry Kissinger) than Kuzio have argued against the eastwards expansion of NATO on geopolitical grounds here, here, and here. I do not claim here that those people would endorse Sakwa's views, but that the argument he presents when it comes to the geopolitical concerns is by no means a marginal one that would excuse the use of WP:GEVAL to remove any other reviews of his work than those presented by Kuzio. Kkostagiannis (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

People who criticise Sakwa's naive acceptance of what Putin, etc. say, also say that Sakwa's books are thorough and well-researched. Where there is disagreement over the books, the position is not that there is a supermajority saying one thing and a miniscule number of cranks saying the opposite. It is not like the Simon Wiesenthal vs David Irving false equivalence mentioned in WP:YESPOV.

My view is that the article should summarise different views about the books; striving to provide both sides, but not promoting one particular point of view over another.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, the analogy with David Irving is interesting. According to the current propaganda version, the intervention by Russia in Ukraine was needed to "protect Russians" and respond to "Western aggression". The analogy with propaganda version by Nazi (when they started annexing parts of Europe) was noted by many political commentators. My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

As I explained with several sources already, the view Sakwa expresses is most certainly not fringe. I therefore agree with Toddy1 here that the analogy to Irving is a misleading one (not to mention the Reductio ad Hitlerum). I also agree that we should strive to present all views on his work. Maybe this can be done in a somewhat more neutral section under the title "Critical reception" or something similar. Kkostagiannis (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Can we please make an effort not to reduce this to bad faith back and forth. Discussing other 'higher profile' persons as having "...argued against the eastwards expansion of NATO on geopolitical grounds..." is equally WP:OFFTOPIC and inappropriate (i.e., please read WP:NOR). This article is a bio on Sakwa, not an article dedicated to the book in question, nor a general article on Russia-US/Russia-EU/Russia-XX relations... so let's stick to discussing how it should and shouldn't be developed. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Toddy1: This is the return on Harzl on Google Scholar. I do, however, agree with your suggestion for renaming the section to 'Critical reception' as being a more neutral proposal. The big content question to hash out how to develop it. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I deemed the discussion of several views similar to Sakwa's necessary not because they need to be represented in the article itself, but because I first needed to establish that WP:GEVAL is misused in this case. Given that the first time that I mentioned other scholars that have similar views you opined that those are marginal based on their Wikipedia pages, I thought it was essential to clarify that this is just another academic debate like so many others and not some sort of pseudoscience vs a supermajority. Kkostagiannis (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Now, as regards improving the article. As I mentioned in the section below, we currently have one sentence in the opening, two sentences in the main body, and a separate section of criticism. This is hardly balanced. The more I look at it the more it seems to me that unless we can add something of substance about his work we cannot jump to criticisms of this work. Maybe we can add a sentence in the main body saying that his recent work has created controversy for partiality towards the Russian side of the events and leave it at that?Kkostagiannis (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

And, to come with a specific proposal, I trimmed a lot of the text but it still seems to me too much as we do not really summarise the work somewhere. I start with what is common to almost all reviews, and move to negative reviews since they are more than the positive ones (in previous version I had followed old habit of starting with strengths and then moving to weaknesses). Expression of quantity is of necessity vague as I really have no clue about how many people actually reviewed this and how big a sample is the one I managed to find:

His most recent book Frontline Ukraine, interprets Russian military intervention in Ukraine as a reaction by Russia to eastwards expansion of NATO. Several (?) reviewers of the work noted that Sakwa was partial (?) to the Russian viewpoint of the crisis. This resulted for some (?) scholars in a perspective that displayed pro-Russian bias. Taras Kuzio, in addition, criticised Sakwa for lack of expertise on Ukraine. There were also reviewers that welcomed the work as a corrective to what they saw as a one-sided debate.Kkostagiannis (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment on sources

To what extent WP:GEVAL applies to academic sources on the Ukraine-Russia conflict? Kkostagiannis (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

• Comment. Speaking about the sources, I think all sources in this version, excluding only Paul Robinson, are valid. The only question is how to summarize what they tell. Actually, all of them (6 refs, including even review by Benedikt Harzl) tell essentially the same: author promotes the idea that it is the "West" and Ukrainians who are guilty of the Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present). This is a kind of a "common denominator" for these sources. This idea is "fringe", to say it politely. All reviews, except only Benedikt Harzl, tell that Sakwa was wrong. This can be summarized in a couple of phrases, with a reference to these sources.

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)

• (edit conflict) Comment. As I've stated in the section above this RfC, I agree that the evaluation of Sakwa's works should be expanded, but it needs to be done with care (sans the WP:CHERRY-ish style of content expansion that was being used). Firstly, grab-bag evaluations are inappropriate for an encyclopaedic resource. I know that, "I've never heard of that guy." is a puerile argument, however WP:WEIGHT is being misconstrued here because other stuff exists; i.e., there are a few published sources with some positive things to say, but simply inserting these opinions and feeling that they're covered because they're attributed doesn't cut the mustard where the authors are truly so obscure as not to be found on Google Scholar or, if they're there, they've barely or never been cited (they exist, but having a doctorate does not mean that their opinions are considered significant, and the fact of their opinions existing is not the same thing as WP:BALANCE, just an assumption that opinions are equally divided because 'stuff' can be found lauding the work, or a positive feature has been mentioned, yet within the context of the piece in its entirety it is WP:SYNTH to present it as being the author's entire evaluation). Yes, Kuzio, and quite a few others (some of whose works appeal to me, others that don't) form the backbone of many of Wikipedia's articles on Eastern European socio-political, geostrategic, economic, et al subjects. That is because they are the go-to scholars on the relevant subject matter = mainstream opinion (which is what Wikipedia presents). Again, WP:FRINGE and WP:GEVAL are being misconstrued as being obvious crank opinions: 'fringe' is not intended to be interpreted as being easily identifiable black and white. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Reception

I have removed two short sections and accompanying citations from this section. The section is well-balanced in respect of references to the views of scholars who praise and criticise. It was reduced in quality by the inclusion of two sources with a strong Ukrainian interest and which included material from highly editorialised and non-scholarly websites. I do not criticise the scholars whose comments I have removed, but simply note that they clearly have an axe to grind in the context of the present war and this is evident in the non-scholarly comments in non-scholarly publications. I would equally remove strong statements of support for Sakwa's work by people very closely associated with Russia's political leadership. Happy to discuss. Emmentalist (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Further to my comment above, I have read in full the extensive comments over the years at the Talkpage on a number of issues. I am not a scholar in this field and nor do I have a strong view either way about the subject of the article, nor of the personalities cited at the Talkpage. I can see that discussion at the talk page includes people, quite likely scholars in the field, who take a strong view of the author one way or the other. I do want to be clear that I have no personal view of authors associated with either side of what is clearly at present an emotionally-laden discourse (I do not say that as an intended pejorative in any sense; it is a difficult time for everyone interested in an area currently beset by war). My perspective is simply as a scholar in another field trying to make a modest improvement to the article. Happy to discuss my edits here. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Following my last, I've removed a citation in respect Sarah Lain, who seems to be/was at the time of commenting, a consultant to the Ukraine government. I do not question her integrity but it seems best not to have people cited here who are paid to represent one side or the other in a conflict and without full disclosure of the relationship.Emmentalist (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Properly-attributed and sourced criticism is appropriate content. I have restored it, as well as made several improvements. Be careful to avoid the appearance of whitewashing. This is not the Russian Wikipedia, where that is allowed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Valjean. Your reversion of my edit requires a little more than simply begging to differ. I don't think my edit was at all bold and I included an extensive explanation, but if we call it that let's apply WP:BRD and discuss. I removed two citations from an otherwise balanced section because one of the authors is or was a paid official of the Ukraine government and the other is by a contentious scholar with a strong commitment to the Ukraine government position (see earlier in Talk discussion) in a polemical, non-scholarly article on the website of an organisation with a well-known political position on the Ukraine conflict. I agree that your addition of the Ukraine Studies paper improves the article, provided that the two articles I removed are not in it. The effect of reinserting the two articles in question is to lower the grade of the section and to imbalance it. I do not think it would be helpful to insert other references supportive of the book because that would make the section unnecessarily long. It is clear that the book appears to divide some people into camps depending on their position on the war in Ukraine: I think we should not include lower grade, polemical articles where that tendency is clearly manifest. Can I ask you, too, to assume good faith? All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see an author's employment or taking sides as an issue. We document opinions here, not just facts, hence why we usually attribute opinions. Maybe the content and descriptions of the authors could be framed better? How about trying to go that route.

I do AGF, so sorry about that. Deleting sources from only one side of an issue doesn't look good, so I was just warning about the appearances. We don't "balance" content by having the same number of opposing arguments on each side of an issue. Few controversial issues are balanced. We must avoid a false balance, because not all points of view are equal. (See my essay: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content .)

Russian apologists love Sakwa, while the Western world generally doesn't. The natural bias created by language and political differences affects the number of RS available in English, and that bias would tend to result in more English RS that are critical of Sakwa, so a natural "unbalance" should be the result. When one looks at Russian and Russia-favorable sources, the balance would tip the other way, so we would expect the Russian Wikipedia to have that predominance of sources. It would be wrong to expect the English and Russian Wikipedias to provide the same type of coverage. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this, @Valjean. I came to Sakwa via Mearsheimer, having read Galeotti et al out of interest. I found him (and M) a refreshing balancer, and surprisingly readable (given how awful some academics are at writing human) so I take your point entirely. I do feel that this is one area of writing (in journalism a bit like fashion and sport) where experts in the UK and US are necessarily so close professionally to the establishment position that their arguments sometimes lack objectivity. Thanks also for the benefit of your editing experience; I take all your related points on that too. This is a very useful exchange for me; maybe not so much for you! All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

You are absolutely right about lack of "objectivity", but that cuts both ways, so we ignore that factor. An opinion is just that, and we attribute it without adding our own evaluation of its legitimacy or objectivity.

OTOH, we do care about its accuracy. If an opinion is provably counterfactual, we only include it with the context of other RS explaining why it is inaccurate. We try not to include content that deceives readers. So we often document a deceptive or inaccurate opinion, but also provide the RS that debunks it. Opinions can be factual or deceptive. Other RS tell us which they are, so secondary sources that provide such context are important to include. Fringe opinions get short shrift around here. They have little due weight, while accurate opinions have lots of due weight. The latter should dominate. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again, @Valjean Very useful and points takes fully onboard. Emmentalist (talk) 06:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)