Talk:Svante Cornell

Criticisms of Svante Cornell
Svante Cornell has been criticised by Peter LaVelle of Russia today:

http://www.russiatoday.com/About_Us/Blogs/Untimely_Thoughts/2009-06-18.html where Peter Lavelle called Svante Cornell "Saakashvili's Lip Stick Artist".

In addition Svante Cornell has been criticized by the independent anti-Putin journalist, Mark Ames, who was assigned by the magazine The Nation to cover the 2008 South Ossetia War.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081103/ames

"As the South Ossetia war raged in early- and mid-August, the Times published an editorial labeling Georgia's invasion as "Russia's War of Ambition"; it also published a series of hysterical op-eds, including William Kristol's comparing Russia to Nazi Germany (Hitler's charred skull must be spinning in its museum case from being turned into the cheapest cliché in the hack's analogy box), and another from Svante E. Cornell of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at Johns Hopkins--the same corruption-plagued institute that ABC News discovered was taking money from Kazakhstan's tyrant for issuing positive reports about that authoritarian oil-rich country.

Cornell 's piece argued that Russia attacked Georgia not in response to Georgia's invasion of the breakaway South Ossetian province but rather because Russia was just plain evil--and, in the style of evil villains everywhere, Russia had no motive other than to show "the consequences post-Soviet countries will suffer for standing up to Moscow, conducting democratic reforms and seeking military and economic ties with the West."

The hysteria of two months ago already seems so dated and even bizarre, from our mid-meltdown vantage--as if reading the hysteria from a black-and-white era."

In addition Svante Cornell also published this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/5552971/Russia-shuts-out-the-international-community.html titled "Russia shuts out the international community" but failed to point out any countries that Russia shut out, with the exception of Georgia. However a single country does not constitute an international community.

Shouldn't these criticisms be mentioned in the article? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Not notable. This is a BLP article. Mark Ames is a bizarre person, who publishes a tabloid in Moscow, and who is claiming that The Economist is "the world’s sleaziest magazine", etc. Grand  master  04:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. And in the case of the last article, that would be WP:OR or WP:POV since you're proposing to make your own counter-analysis of Corell's article. Tomas e (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've also qouted Peter LaVelle, whom you have conviniently forgotten about. And Ames was covering this war for The Nation. It is irrelevant what other papers Ames has published, because the criticism of Svante Cornell came from Ames' article published by The Nation. So are you calling The Nation a magazine that publishes BLP Articles? In addition, Ames was in Ossetia during the fighting, as a journalist. As per my last comment, it's not my own coutner analysis, I've merely stated the obvious. It is interesting Tomas e, that while you agree with The Grandmaster's original research regarding Mark Ames' article in The Nation, you disagree with a mere and obvious statement. Also Grandmaster, Ames has been kicked out of Moscow, you might want to get with the times, and stop the original research. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, saying that 2 + 2 = 4 is not original research. Saying that Nazi Germany lost WWII is not original research. Saying that Kosovo isn't a UN member is not original research. Saying that no countries, with the exception of Georgia, broke off diplomatic relations with Russia over this war, is not original research. It's a well known and established fact. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that any reasonable and informed reader would recognise at a glance that much of Cornell's work appears to be heavily propagandistic and often hysterical in tone, it would seen to me be completely reasonable to include some published criticism of Cornell that has highlighted that particular alleged characteristic of his work. As it is now, the article reads like it were written by Cornell himself, as an online resume to get more work. Meowy 16:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps something like this: "Since Svante Cornell's recent article on the War in South Ossetia, he has come under heavy criticism. Peter LaVelle, who currently works for Russia Today but has worked for Radio Free Europe in the past called Svante Cornell "Saakashvili's Lipstick Artist". (LINK)


 * Mark Ames, an independent journalist covering the War in South Ossetia for the The Nation, stated that Svante Cornell's writing was hysterical and accused Svante Cornell of wanting to restart the Cold War with Russia for Cornell's financial gain. (LINK) In addition Ames criticized the Silk Road Studies for previously taking bribe money from Kazakstan's government. (LINK) Mark Ames is a fierce Putin critic who paper was kicked out of Moscow for vulgarity (LINK).


 * Svante Cornell stated that "Russia shuts out the international community". (LINK) However, with the exception of Georgia, no country has suspended Diplomatic Relations with Russia over this war, and one country does not count as an international community." Comments, suggestions? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Links: http://www.russiatoday.com/About_Us/Blogs/Untimely_Thoughts/Saakashvili_s_lipstick_artist.html (LaVelle's) http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081103/ames (Ames on Svante Cornell) http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=5908348&page=2 (ABC expose) http://exiledonline.com/banned-in-russia/ (Ames getting the boot for vulgarity, I don't believe it's justified, but, meh) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/5552971/Russia-shuts-out-the-international-community.html (Cornell's article)


 * I'll keep looking for more, go Internet! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This criticism is not notable. It comes from Russia based American journalists, who have a very shady reputation. Note that this is a BLP article. I posted info on Ames, and Peter Lavelle works for the Russian government. Of course Russian government is not happy with Cornell's position on Georgia. Criticism must come from truly independent and authoritative sources. Grand master  06:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to, you can post The Nation's Article written by Ames and ask Wikipedia editors if it's a BLP article. Ames is a truly independent and authoritative source. You write differently for different sources. For instance you would in different style for Playboy, or your own magazine, then you would write for The Nation. Ames has done exactly that. His articles written for The Nation cannot be judged according to the same standards that his articles written for The eXile. When I write a research paper, I use higher standards then when I write for Helium, and yet I've made it to the top in both cases. You judging Ames' The Nation articles by the same standards as Ames' The eXile articles is original research by a Wikipedian, and cannot count towards the article. Thus your criticism of Ames is null and void.


 * How do you know that LaVelle works for the Russian Government? Isn't that also Original Research on your part? I've heard no claims that LaVelle works for Putin.

Just reading Lavelle's article: Abkhazia and South Ossetia are finally free of the ethnic cleansing maniacs located in Tbilisi. How could Lavelle be considered a serious source? Come on. It is a partisan source, which does not even try to hide it, a gun for hire. Grand master  06:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just reading Cornell's article: under continuous attacks against civilian homes by Russian Troops and South Ossetian militia (although no continuous attacks against civilian homes by Russian troops were reported, but I had another Wiki User argue that by Russian troops Svante Cornell really meant the Russian Air Force. Let's try another one: According to multiple and consistent Georgian sources (including witnesses to the discussions), at approximately 11 PM Georgian Presiden Mikheil Saakashvili receives information that a convoy of over 100 Russian military vehicles is passing through the Roki tunnel. Just one problem: The experts found no evidence to support claims by the Georgian president, which he also mentioned in an interview with SPIEGEL, that a Russian column of 150 tanks had advanced into South Ossetia on the evening of Aug. 7. According to the commission's findings, the Russian army didn't enter South Ossetia until August 8.


 * Reading Cornell's table of contents for another article, that alone shows his bias:


 * Russia: the Dishonest Broker?
 * Turkey: Azerbaijan's only ally?
 * Iran: In the pitfalls of history
 * The United States: from neglect to commitment


 * Clearly, Russia and Iran are evil, and Turkey and the US are good. This bad guy - good guy narrative is unworthy of any historian, and Svante Cornell claims to be one. And of course the prediction turned out to be completely wrong: Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said Wednesday before his departure for Russia that Turkey was not disturbed by the rapprochement between Azerbaijan and Russia, Haber news agency reported. said http://www.today.az/news/politics/53471.html Also, it seems that at the time Cornell was writing his article, Russia and Turkey were cooperating.


 * And then there's Cornell's title: Russia shuts out the international community and I'm not seeing it. Obama just signed START with Medvedev, Europe, with the exception of naturally anti-Russian countries like U.K, Poland and the Baltic States is cooperating with Russia, (that's 42 out of 49 countries) and the five have not shut out or been shut out either. And of course China, Latin America, Africa, India, South East Asia, the Stans, those aren't mentioned in Svante Cornell's "article" at all.


 * Here's another gem: Nothing underscores the illegitimacy of Moscow’s actions more than its efforts to push international organizations out of the conflict zones, and this is the context of the recent UN vote. Russia already used its veto to have the OSCE mission in Georgia, which worked in South Ossetia, closed down. Now I'm not sure if Svante Cornell knows how the veto process works, but vetoes cannot close things down. Vetoes can only stop new things from happening. Russia vetoed the extension. But it doesn't make Russia sound too much like a bad guy, so Svante Cornell has to use artistic license.


 * Another one: Moscow may have recognized them as independent states, but effectively treats them as it its own provinces, appointing and removing government ministers at will. Actually the president of Abkhazia isn't pro-Russian, and ran against a pro-Russian candidate and won.


 * As for LaVelle's comments, on ethnic cleansing, if you take a look at the Georgian-Ossetian war after the fall of the Russian Empire, you will find it painstakingly true. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the criticism should not come from hired guns like Lavelle, who represents the official position of the Russian government. The critics must be independent persons, known for their objectivity. Grand  master  04:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, do you have proof that LaVelle is a hired gun, or is this Original Research on your part? I'm glad to see that we finally agree on placing Ames into the article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This whole page and the criticism in the article are the product of a user who was banned for his editing practices (i.e., HistoricWarrior007). It's clear he had an agenda to trash Cornell. The criticism he cites is not important enough to be included in the article, especially since the main article present nothing of which the reader can develop his/her own opinion of an criticize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.202.91 (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional Links
Just want to point out that it was all discussed before, and I don't know why Meowy didn't place it into the article, I thought he had done so already:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_39#Is_Russia_Today_a_valid_source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_39#Is_The_Nation_a_reliable_source.3F HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh, Meowy was/is blocked, for some reason, ergo he couldn't make those edits. Well that explains it. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant Criticism
This entire talk page and the criticism in the article were written by a user who was banned for his editing practices (i.e., HistoricWarrior007). It's clear he had an agenda to trash Cornell. The criticism he cites is not relevant to the author, especially since the main article does not present any specific views of the author. If the author's views and work were presented in detail, giving the reader a chance to develop their own opinions about the work of the author, only then would a section on criticism would be warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.202.91 (talk • contribs)
 * Well-sourced criticisms presented in a neutral manner should not be removed. We do not exist to write pages about how great people are, we write encyclopedia articles which include coverage of all verifiable facts in proportion to the amount of coverage they have gotten.  Continued removing of well sourced information could be considered vandalism and might lead to blocking. Gigs (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (Transplanted from my talk page Gigs (talk)) Thank you for the response, as well as the time and input you have given to this issue.


 * My point is that the article does not, to draw upon your own words, "include coverage of all verifiable facts in proportion to the amount of coverage they have gotten." The criticism added by HistoricWarrior007 is not representative of the proportion of criticism Cornell has received. If it were, then a Google search for "Svante Cornell criticism" would not turn up this wiki article as the first hit. The fact that this edit came from a user who received numerous complaints for biased entries and was eventually banned from the Wikipedia community also supports the argument that it should never have been included in the article in the first place. I assume Wikipedia as a whole be improved if all of the other malicious edits of banned users were to be removed.


 * I have not written anything in the article "about how great people are," nor have I tried to imply that Cornell is great. But I believe this article would only adhere to the standards of Wikipedia if it presented a fair summary of the strengths and weaknesses of his academic work. This criticism, however, is unrepresentative of the author, and was inserted into this article merely to blemish his name, rather than contribute to a neutral picture. A neutral picture would include a summary of the author's ideas, as well as both favorable and unfavorable reviews of his work. This article, on the contrary, contains only the last item, which inevitably presents a biased account.


 * I hope we can reach an agreement on this issue. I appreciate and agree with everything you've said, I just apologize for not having articulated my point better earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.202.91 (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the interaction is a relevant event in the public life of Cornell. I have located another source which has discussion of the interaction .  I appreciate that the original editor that added the material may have had an agenda, but I think that some short, neutral, coverage of the interaction is something that would be in a complete article on Cornell, so I don't think we should remove it entirely.   I have gotten rid of the criticism header, since I don't think it justifies an entire section, but I would still object to the wholesale removal of every mention of it.  The article can, of course, be expanded around it in order to present a more complete picture of Cornell.  Thank you for discussing this instead of persisting in removal. Gigs (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This may not be the place to open the discussion, but criticism from Zaman (a religious-conservative newspaper with ties to the AKP and the Gulen Movement) may not be neutral either. I definitely agree with you though, this article needs more substance to afford a complete picture. At least having the titles of his articles in the reference sections gives the reader a better sense of his arguments.--99.137.202.91 (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The reliability of any source depends on what we are drawing from it. Since we are only drawing a very basic fact that the interaction happened from Zaman, I think it's fine.  Your recent editing looks good. Gigs (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

BLP Issues.

 * 1) Cornell and the ISDP both receive funding from Azerbaijani lobbyist organizations. - this is WP:OR, I could not find and source stating that Cornell receive funding from Azerbaijan and information about ISDP is WP:UNDUE. It should be in the related article, not in the lead of this article.
 * 2) Cornell has often been criticized for promoting "a stridently pro-Azerbaijani position" and for his personal ties with the Aliyev family in Azerbaijan. - WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. This statement is original research of some editor and Wikipedia is not a place for someones original research. No source for inline citation of that statement.
 * 3) American journalist Joshua Kucera, in his article about Cornell's 2010 book Azerbaijan Since Independence, thinks that "Cornell is generally pretty pro-Azerbaijan, and his framing of the situation as something inevitable seems to absolve Azerbaijan of any responsibility for its actions, which I think one could quibble with. But he knows Azerbaijan well, and this is an analysis worth considering." - It is not a criticism and cherry-picking from the article does not make it criticism either. Moreover, his analysis were correct, weren't they?

Above I BLP issues I noted at first look, but seemingly article has more hidden BLP issues. I will check it more deeply sooner. Abrvagl (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)