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)

@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)

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. The "weight" depends on quality of sources that need to be evaluated on a case to case basis. Consider this source. Q1: who is the author (Paul Robinson)? Is it someone widely cited and known as an expert on the subject? If not, this strongly reduces its weight. Q2: What kind of publication is that? Looks like a self-published blog, but I am not quite sure. Q3: What it tells? "Russophobia had acquired a firm grip on the minds of Western journalists". I am sorry, but this is a propaganda publication. Hence remove. However, all other sources you included look OK to me. But there is another issue. Your version tells: "the book is too partial towards the Russian position on the crisis". This is certainly polite, but is it a correct summary of these sources? Should not this be explained in more detail, for example? My very best wishes (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)