Talk:John Mearsheimer bibliography

Resume
@Hipal. You wrote in your tagging summary resume - appears to be attempt to run around the lack of consensus at Talk:John_Mearsheimer#Deletion_of_bibliography. It is not. I have explained in detail my rationale at Talk:John_Mearsheimer. Be informed, bibliography articles have different inclusion standards than Selected works sections of biographies. Per WP:MOS-BIBLIO, The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet. If the list has a separate article, a simplified version should also be provided in the main article (in this case John Mearsheimer). Additionally, as a bibliography, the entries are technically self-sourced.

WP:NOTRESUME does not apply when the subject's notability has been established and there is no WP:COI. What is more, as an Annotated bibliography sourced to WP:RS scholarship, including abounding reviews, this article is entirely un-WP:CV-like. For an example, read the annotation for "Why the Soviets Can't Win Quickly in Central Europe" (an annotation that grew so long I will probably reduce it to the most important rebuttals and defenses and move most of its content to John Mearsheimer, as on of his most notable articles). Please remove the tag.



An additional argument for inclusion in its current scope is the fact that multiple independent, reliable and scholarly sources published analyses of Mearsheimer's literary output. I have provided one above, for reference. It is very rare for a living scholar to have anything more than a bibliography devoted to their literary output. See Noam Chomsky for another case (and Noam Chomsky bibliography and filmography for that matter). Specifically the sources for Chomsky is among the most cited authors living or dead. Ivan (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you understand the policies you cite, nor how to ensure they are met, hence the discussions at Talk:John_Mearsheimer. --Hipal (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you understand the policies you cite. In what way? This is not John Mearsheimer. This is John Mearsheimer bibliography, to which a number of different criteria apply (WP:MOS-BIBLIO). I have cited the policies as they relate to article. If you interpret those policies differently, please provide an explanation here, with reference to relevant sections or further policies. Ivan (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:IDHT --Hipal (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I presume you are referring to Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to a viewpoint long after community consensus has decided that moving on would be more productive. Even on John Mearsheimer, our views never differed. I merely had a different editing style. Because of the complexity of the code, I needed to visualise it first. Seconds later, you reverted. So long as I have somewhere to visualise the article now that the Visual Studio Code plugin no longer works for me, I am fine with not making any additions to article until all additions are supported by independent sources, since I have been given permission by a third party to use my sandbox for the process. But there is no community "consensus" for  article, only your view and my view, and we have only exchanged two posts here. Like I stated, the criteria are different for standalone bibliographies. Or rather, standalone bibliographies  well-defined criteria for bibliographies, whereas biographies do not. Ivan (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)