Talk:John Mearsheimer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chicago Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Is it really necessary to state that he is opposed to the Iraq war in the initial paragraph of the article? Trojan traveler 01:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] China prediction

Is his prediction, made in 1991, that China will surpass the United States economically by 2020 still viable?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnam

Question: The first paragraph says he was faced with the choice of West Point or Vietnam as an infantryman, and chose West Point. Is there a source for this? It has the sound of an accusation, that the sole reason he went to West Point was to get out of military service. Did he say this himself, or is it somebody else's characterization? Unless it's his own statement, it probably shouldn't be there. Really, unless it's sourced it shouldn't be there. --Mackan 6 September 2006

[edit] Anti-semitism

What is this anti-semitism you are discussing here? I did not see that term in the article but here you discuss it. However, no-one bothers to define what they mean by anti-semitism. YOu can not go arround asking people 'this sounds a bit ant-semitic, don't you think?' without explaining what you mean by that. Ho else can I answer you? Or are you yourself at loss with the term, trying to find a meaning for it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 0.0.0.0 (talk • contribs)

Don't you think a comment or two on Mearsheimer's anti-semitism is appropriate? How David Duke applauds his latest screed in the London Review of Books? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.148.10.43 (talk • contribs)

Mearsheimers lastest work is not anti-semetic, not even critical of Israel, only critical of U.S. lobbyists (jews and non-jews) having too much power of U.S. mid-east policy. Just because an anti-semetic like David Duke agrees with it does not make it anti-semetic. Everything book Hitler liked was not Nazist either. A human 01:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Concur. I've actually known Mearsheimer for several years and (although he's clearly not pro-Israel) he's never said anything anti-semitic. I also know several Jewish students who've taken his courses, one of whom has dual citizenship in Israel, and they never said they felt even slightly uncomfortable around him. However, it is appropriate in the article to mention the controversy over his article. Palm_Dogg 01:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

David Duke approves of Mearsheimer's thesis because it supports his belief that Jews control foreign policy along with the banking system, Hollywood, and the media (did I leave anything out?). Is this factually true? Prove it then. Otherwise its only purpose is to be malicious, to stir up hate and resentment. But I guess thats not anti-semitic, is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.148.92.42 (talk • contribs)

It does not support those ideas. You cannot withhold information because some radicals might use it in their propaganda. A human 00:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Calling Mearsheimer an anti-Semite is just as valid as calling Darwin an anti-Semite; both of their works might have been used as justification by bigots and supremacists, but that doesn't make them bigots. ApathyInternational

Strong agree. The paper is not anti-Semite and not anti-Israel. It states for example that the lobby is not some conspirational group (unlike the portrayal of (all) Jews in the Protocols) and that the different groups work quite open and observable. In fact Mearsheimer and Walt mention that it is the full right of any organization to lobby to influence policy and that the Israel lobby is just more effective than other groups (well organized, no pro-Arab lobby groups, no American public interest). Furthermore they just state that the Israel lobby consists of jewish "and" evangelist groups. Sijo Ripa 21:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The following may help clarify this debate. In describing the last of three "surprising weaknesses" of the paper, Eric Alterman writes in The Nation, "Third, while it's fair to call AIPAC obnoxious and even anti-democratic, the same can often be said about, say, the NRA, Big Pharma and other powerful lobbies. The authors note this but often seem to forget it. This has the effect of making the Jews who read the paper feel unfairly singled out, and inspires much emotionally driven mishigas in reaction. Do these problems justify the inference that the authors are anti-Semitic? Of course not. " [1]204.210.35.48 13:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WSJ

The WSJ did not refute the arguments in Mearsheimer's working paper. It merely responded - rather poorly I might add - to some of them. I've moved the external link to "external links" and changed refutes" to "response." If you have a problem with this edit please respond to this message before reverting to an earlier version. -V-

Calling Mearsheimer an anti-Semite is just as valid as calling Darwin an anti-Semite; both of their works might have been used as justification by bigots and supremacists, but that doesn't make them bigots. ApathyInternational

[edit] Removed partial summary of "Lobby" paper

"The authors describe the activities that the pro-Israel Lobby undertakes to influence US foreign policy, and argue that this Lobby has shaped and controlled American foreign policy to suit the interests of Israel, even when it harmed US interests. The Kennedy School of Government removed its logo from this highly controversial paper, with the support of Walt[2]; according to the school "the only purpose of that removal was to end public confusion; it was not intended, contrary to some interpretations, to send any signal that the school was also 'distancing' itself from one of its senior professors."[3] Several Harvard colleagues of Walt have written critical responses to the paper.[4] [5] [6] Elements of the paper have been described as anti-Semitic.[7] Mearsheimer has responded to charges of anti-Semitism by saying "We said in our paper that anyone who criticizes Israel or America's relationship with Israel is almost sure to be called an anti-Semite and have his or her scholarship impugned, and, of course, that is what we see happening to us."[8]"

I removed the above from the main article page and replaced it with a very brief NPOV summary and a pointer to the article covering the "lobby" paper. The above summary is very incomplete and doesn't mention David Duke's involvement nor does it mention the response to the criticism -- its' just incomplete and there is no need to duplicate the main article here anyways. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 02:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Lucky did exactly the right thing. 204.210.35.48 13:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] messed up references

The reference given for China seems to be instead about Iraq, and this reference occurs also in the External Links section. Reference formats are inconsistent, with several different styles and different levels of completeness.204.210.35.48 21:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

On top of that, the Alex Safian link under Reference doesn't seem to be working properly but the main point is, it seems out of place there. It certainly isn't a source of Reference on the subject but rather a criticism of the subject. If it is of any interest to readers, perhaps it should be moved to External Links. --219.95.25.245 10:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Mearsheimer" a Jewish surname?

"Mearsheimer" sounds Jewish - if he is Jewish, has the media commented on this in light of the allegations of John being anti-Semetic?

There are allegations in the media that the Mearsheimer-Walt paper has anti-Semitic overtones, but not that the authors themselves are anti-Semitic. Don't you think there is a difference? Or does saying something that can be construed as anti-Semitic automatically entail that the speaker must be anti-Semitic? 204.210.35.48 00:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I've been googling without success to find out whether Mearsheimer is himself Jewish; while it is possible to be both Jewish and anti-Semitic, if Mearsheimer were Jewish it would make some criticisms of Walt and Mearsheimer's work more far-fetched, particularly the idea that they equate being Jewish with being part of the Israel lobby. Nareek (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The surname is German, he was raised a Catholic. --Hydeparkblvd (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Israel Lobby Paper

I think there is too much emphasis on that paper being given in this subject entry. Professor Mearsheimer is one of the leading scholar of International Relations of our time. Would it not be proper to give his other works equal attention? --219.95.25.168 10:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Mearsheimer's work was well known and respected for over 2 decades prior to this paper being published.--csloat 08:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Double Agreed. There is more text devoted to hysterical detractrors that to his biography.

Triple Agreed :). Perhaps sections of this bio article should be siphoned off to an article on the "controversial" paper itself. --Kitrus 03:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Quadruple agreed!!! Mearsheimer is the father of offensive neorealism and nearly all of the academic fame he has garnered has come from The Tragedy of Great Power Politics and its forerunner articles. Mearsheimer is the heir to the neorealist throne once held by Kenneth Waltz. By mentioning the Jewish Lobby article and not his book, Mearsheimer looks more like a pundit than the superstar theorist that he is. --User: Justin Eckl 16:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can address this? A lot of the nonsense back and forth about the Jewish lobby article should be simply deleted, and someone should include at least a paragraph or two about his earlier work. csloat 20:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:JJM07.jpg

Image:JJM07.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)