Talk:John Mearsheimer

Archives (Index)

2014/June 2014/August 2017/April 2017/November 2018/February 2022/January 2022/February 2022/March 2023/April 2023/October 2023/November 2024/February 2024/June 2024/July 2024/November 2025/January 2025/November 2025/December 2026/January

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Motyl quote

@Hipal: You removed text attributed to historian Alexander J. Motyl with a short reference to WP:BLP, WP:POV, and WP:NOT. I don't see a connection to any of these three guidelines, so could you please explain your removal ? Rsk6400 (talk) 06:50, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I support the removal, or exreme reduction of the presence of what other people have to say about Mearsheimer s views. Its UNACCEPTABLE even for Wikipedias own standards, that in this bio we give the same weight to Mearsheimer and to his critics, which in a large number of cases come from a biased and politically motivated background, and also suffering from (political) recentism. If you ppl want to you can go and have these disussions on scholarly journals not here. I think the what others have to say - in this article - should be reduced to max 10% of the weight of each paragraph or pov, expressed in a concise manner. ‎G. L. Talk 07:10, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:TPG before commenting. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Thats hypocritical coming from you. I was entirely focused on the neutrality of the biography. I want to repeat my stance: I find it unacceptable to have a great part of this article occupied with statements from critics to the point where Mearsheimers own pov on certain topics is reduced to a few sentences while critics occupy entire paragraphs. Criticism of his views should be reduced to a minimal amount. His biography is not a battleground of ideas. The majority of the space should be occupied by his life and work and very few sentences to what the critics say. ‎G. L. Talk 07:25, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for starting a discussion right away.

Thank you identifying the author of the opinion piece. I only saw that it was an opinion, which was a large factor in my decision to remove given BLPPRIMARY.

This article is not a venue to cherry-pick Mearsheimer's statements. Doing so violates NOT and POV. We instead summarize what independent sources have stated. If most independent sources are critical of Mearsheimer, then the proper application of POV would result in an article heavily critical of him. --Hipal (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Hipal: I don‘t see any cherry-picking here. The article from NZZ is quoted because that‘s what an American history professor, expert on Ukraine, answered to. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The content under discussion is:

In an interview with the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Mearsheimer said that Nato's eastward expansion justified Russia's invasion of Ukraine, describing Putin as a "a first-rate strategist, and he behaves in a rational way", and stating that he "would have done the same as Putin," by invading Ukraine "even earlier." Historian Alexander J. Motyl criticized Mearsheimer for these remarks, and accused him of having "justified and legitimized Putin’s war and genocide, thereby making himself complicit in the Russian dictator’s crimes." According to Motyl, Mearsheimer's view that Putin was acting in a rational manner was wrong because of Russia's military losses and Mearsheimer was wrong to think that Ukraine was approaching NATO membership.

References

It seems UNDUE as presented given the rather poor sources. Could it be pared down to a couple of short sentences? --Hipal (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Why do you think the sources are "poor" ? Rsk6400 (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

They consist of an interview and an opinion piece. It's difficult to argue anything is encyclopedic and due mention without better refs. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. --Hipal (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

An opinion piece to accuse someone of complicity in genocide? Are we going to have any semblance of BLP here. Unacceptable. Gotitbro (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Given that the individual is still living, it would be a clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 02:12, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Its not just that. Mearsheimer often speaks and argues from his scholarly perspective. If you take a glancing look you would see that a great majority of scholars in the realist school of thought have similar stances (when they speak publicly). So accusing him of supporting this or that evil thing is stupid. I think that the criticism in this case, if present, should be like this: Ukranian born Historian Alexander J. Motyl has harshly criticized Mearsheimer for these remarks. ‎G. L. Talk 09:00, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I see no problem with including that sentence. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 18:10, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I would still disagree. That is a textbook case of BLPVIO in any case but that this is sourced from an oped there should be no consideration at all. Gotitbro (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Another useful question to ask vis a vis neutrality would be: For the amount of time the article spends covering criticism of Mearsheimer's views/theories/ideas, how much time does it spend covering positive and influential reception of his views/theories/ideas? If it's largely focusing on criticism, that's pretty glaringly NPOV, considering his popularity and influence around the globe. entropyandvodka | talk 21:04, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

@Entropyandvodka: Indeed and I intend to expand that reception. I had added review coverage to the extensive John Mearsheimer bibliography a while back as well.

Take the case of this recent funny little troll here about Mearsheimer and Bambi. Well he is indeed quite well known for his use of everyday (and idiosyncratic) analogies like "Bambi and Godzilla" when comparing superpowers with others. I think our article used to cover this too, will need to salvage the history for that. Gotitbro (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Youtube and Substack in external links section

Hi Hipal. Regarding this revert, where exactly in WP:EL does it say these external links are not okay?

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, which cites WP:NOTLINK. --Hipal (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, my friend. The external links appear to be within the allowed guidelines and even policy. In my view, WP:NOTLINK (policy) does not make a case for removal. As you are the one who removed the external links, the onus is on you to make a better case than only citing WP:NOTLINK. Please cite the relevant text there. I just don't see it. Many thanks, and best wishes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I think ELMINOFFICIAL is clear, "Normally, only one official link is included." I don't believe any of the three exceptions apply in this case. --Hipal (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you're no longer citing WP:NOTLINK (policy), right? And now you're citing WP:ELMINOFFICIAL (a guideline), which basically says that if there is one main link that links to his other sites, just use that one. Well, https://www.mearsheimer.com/ links to his Substack, so that's fine. But nothing links to his youtube channel, so why no add just the Youtube channel and keep the substack link out. Happy compromise? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Let's not waste time nitpicking here. EL is a guideline that's enforced by it's own noticeboard, supported by NOT and a the requirement for consensus for inclusion when links are disputed. The general consensus is that editors should focus on content not links to external websites.

I expect that Mearsheimer's brand-new YouTube channel will be linked from his official website shortly. In the meantime, please explain how it is an important link to add at this moment in time. --Hipal (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Defending your revert is a total waste of time. I've got better things to do. And "...supported by NOT..." is nonsense and obviously superseded by WP:BRD. I'll be the bigger editor and drop it. Happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for dropping it, as EL is clearly supported by NOT, enforced by ELN. --Hipal (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure. But I think my courtesy of not simply reverting you was not returned. You cited guidelines and policies that didn't support your position, when challenged, moved the goal posts, and declined compromise. Not my favourite type of edits. Anyhow, if someone does revert, you'll have to let the edit stand and resist violating WP:3RR, which is policy. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I see no attempt here to make a case for inclusion based upon policies and guidelines. Please WP:FOC. Thanks! --Hipal (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

You have it backwards. You reverted someone's edit. The onus is now on you to make the case for inclusion, not the other way around. You are in violation of WP:3RR. You have been blocked 3 times in the past for this sort of thing. I suggest you do not revert a 4th time. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

This is disruptive. Please FOC and AGF.

WP:ONUS states, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content." I'm not seeking inclusion, you are.

WP:ELBURDEN states, "Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them."

No one has made a case for inclusion based upon the relevant policies and guidelines. --Hipal (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm dropping it. Just not worth the effort for a stupid link. And by the way, WP:ELBURDEN does makes the case for inclusion with "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." The Youtube channel satisfies that guideline. And WP:ONUS pertains to facts and claims. This is about an external link. Oh, and I miscounted. You are not in violation of 3RR. My apologies for that. Have a good day. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for that apology.

I don't see how a brand-new YouTube channel currently meets the criteria. Maybe in the future it will, and I expect it will be linked from his official website before there are enough YouTube videos posted to make a case for inclusion. I see it's already announced on his substack. --Hipal (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. Well, that wraps this up. I suppose we'll both avoid such discussions in future. They're no fun and I think we prefer building the encyclopedia. Happy editing, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope the ip's will do the same. --Hipal (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, considering how the substack connects to youtube, I think that tips the scales in favour of omitting the youtube link. I'll drop him a note explaining that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi all. I think this link swap is okay. It might be a step backward as the substack doesn't seem to link to his official page, but his official page links to substack which links to youtube. But this change should make everyone pretty happy. Can we close this case now? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

His official page isn't up for debate, and no one has presented a reason for giving prominence to a brand new YouTube channel. --Hipal (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)