Jump to content

Talk:Robert Spitzer (political scientist)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC: Is it important to show that Mr. Spitzer is pro-control?

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Quoting our own BLP policy "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." Furthermore, the subject os notable for other non-gun-related material. Thus the word "activist" or (to a lesser extent) advocate is potentially polarising and misrepresentative. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before I start, for those who do not know me, I want it out in the open that I am pro-control, and a fan of Robert Spitzer. That having been said, I see a highly POV trend to portray Mr. Spitzer as some sort of neutral political commentator when it comes to the subject of Gun Control. I do not think this is a good thing since he is so obviously on the pro-control side of the issue. EXAMPLE #1 EXAMPLE #2 EXAMPLE #3 We have discussed several "words" to describe his political leanings, but nothing seems to satisfy. Wikipedia uses the word "advocate" to describe those who lean to EITHER side of the issue. Should we describe his political leanings?Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sue, I have asked you to back off on this article. You do not have the experience with the academic world nor and you seem unfamiliar with what an article about a professor should be. Whether or not Spitzer is an advocate or an activist is not something to be determined by a poll of editors, most of whom may also be unfamiliar with what it means to be a political scientist, studying political issues. That means not only doing the research but writing about the results and being interviewed as an expert. One of Spitzer's fields of research is gun control, a highly politicized topic in this country. He is vocal about his work, not his politics. This can be confusing to the casual reader when they read about his work. But Wikipedia holds itself to higher standards. This survey is not an appropriate approach. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sue, you moved this comment away from what I was commenting on. I am putting it back here. Never edit or move another editor's comments to change its meaning. You are changing the meaning of what I said by moving it away from what I was commenting on. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments.
She also moved one of the subject's comments a few hours before she moved yours, from the Survey section to the Threaded discussion, without asking permission (that I can see) or notifying him. Perhaps he meant it to serve as his vote? Considering that he's inexperienced at editing in Wikipedia, and considering that he's had to ask repeatedly about the disappearance of his additions to the article, it seems like it would have been nice to ask him where he wanted his comment, and move it with his permission. And she's changing her own posts without markup. That's misrepresents the flow of discussion, and it's poor form for an experienced editor. Lightbreather (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Support as per above. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE per WP:BLP policy and WP:BLPSOURCES. NO preponderance of high-quality, reliable, verifiable sources call him this. (I can't find ONE high-quality, reliable, verifiable source that calls him this.) Further, WP:BURDEN - the first item under WP:VERIFY policy says not to leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people. Calling a scholar an "activist" or an "advocate" could damage her/or his reputation. (StarryGrandma explained that earlier.) WP:BURDEN also says that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.... (That's Wikipedia's emphasis, not mine.) The project is skating on very thin ice pursuing this, against both the subject's complaint and WP policy. Lightbreather (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How does being Pro Gun-Control damage someone's reputation? In one of the examples above he says "Gun control advocates need to keep fighting." I really do not understand this opposition at all. It's very weird. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As StarryGrandma wrote above: "Both labels could be used to argue that he is not an unbiased researcher. He is correct in objecting to this." As Spitzer said prior to that, calling him those things misrepresents his career. As for the "quote" you just attributed to him, that's what the reporter, Mark Barabak, wrote. It was followed by an actual quote from Spitzer: "'If you're Bloomberg and Gabby Giffords and all the rest, you don't push all your chips in and hope for one big win, then say you're done,' Spitzer said." That's his analysis of the gun-control side of the fight to the run-rights side of the fight. Equally important - more so for this discussion - what does the reporter call Spitzer? A professor at the State University of New York in Cortland and author of several books on guns and politics. Lightbreather (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue, read it again. Spitzer said "Gun control advocates need to keep fighting." The only other way to read it would be to say that the reporter was referring to Spitzer as a "Gun Control Advocate" Which way do you want it? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sue, maybe your browser is displaying this differently than mine, or maybe one of us is being redirected to a different version of the article. There are no quotation marks (indicating a direct quote) in the sentence I am reading. Please re-read it again, and re-read what I wrote at 22:33. I don't believe what I wrote is "untrue." Can't we just sit back and let some of the other, uninvolved editors consider the evidence for awhile? Lightbreather (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. His body of work serves the gun control crowd, exclusively. It seems only fair to identify such advocacy, with the appropriate cites, of course. (Or, he could demonstrate where his work has ever served the gun rights crowd, even occasionally.) If a body of work quacks like a duck, ... Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This subject's notability seems to be his advocacy. Without the advocacy he might not meet notability requirements. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I have been asking it since about 10 JAN 2014. I have searched. Sue is searching. After days we still have not found one. (I'm still looking. I just went to breitbart.com. Next, I'll try the NRA and the SAF. But are those high-quality, reliable, verifiable sources for a BLP?) Lightbreather (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Besides examples like THIS, there are several examples above in the subjects own words. If the above quotes do not suffice, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, more. Do we need to cite them all? The entirety of the article is cited from the subjects own works. His pro-control stance is the very reason he is notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When did that third example get thrown in there? Aren't editors supposed to underscore inserted material? At any rate, Spitzer already addressed that quote elsewhere. (See paragraph two of Threaded discussion). The second example I addressed in our discussion under my "opposed" vote. The first, at best, shows that Spitzer is opposed to civilians carrying on campuses (which the Supreme Court is OK with).
Your question is "Is it important to show that Mr. Spitzer is pro-control?" No. It's important to say that he is a political scientist who studies and comments on gun policies - and let his works speak for themselves. It is not for us to label him. (Though I do see Capitalismojo found a book by William Vizzard calling him a gun-control advocate. I suppose, depending on Vizzard's notability, that might call for a statement in the article that says William Vizzard calls him an advocate.) Lightbreather (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than you interpreting the examples given, I suggest that editors read them for themselves, without filters. Or even google their own examples. There are thousands of quotes such as "...much of our gun culture has also been badly distorted by Hollywood and gun zealots." Which very clearly define the man's politics. It would simply be a mistake (and terrible for Wikipedia's accuracy reputation) to portray the gentleman as not having a stance on the issue. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I have pasted below ten random, different media outlet references to me (Spitzer) that include the reference and a link to the actual stories. As you can see, I am referred to as professor/scholar/political scientist 8 times; as author/writer 8 times; as department chair 3 times. No references to me as advocate or such like. (My apologies for the length of this, but if evidence matters, then important to present it.) http://www.mprnews.org/story/2011/01/12/midmorning2 Guests • Frank Newport: Editor in Chief of Gallup. • Bob Spitzer: Professor of political science at State University of New York at Cortland and author of three books on gun control including "The Politics of Gun Control."

http://english.cri.cn/8706/2012/07/31/2861s714502.htm

2012-07-31 Gun Control in the US 

   2012-07-31 13:46:59     CRIENGLISH.com         Web Editor: Wu You

-Robert J. Spitzer, Distinguished Service Professor, Department Chair, Political Science Department, the State University of New York Cortland. -AWR Hawkins, PhD in U.S. Military history, writer for breitbart.com.


http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ctl/ViewItem/mid/4604/ItemId/27105/Default.aspx Guns and Politics

Colby College hosted an address entitled "Guns and Politics". The speaker was Robert J. Spitzer, an author and professor at State University of New York, Cortland who discussed the role of gun ownership and politics in today's political landscape.

Dr. Spitzer is the author of fourteen books, and most recently "The Politics of Gun Control." He is Distinguished Service Professor and Chair of the Political Science Department SUNY Cortland. He explores the issue of gun control and politics in light of recent events. "Gun control has proved to be one of the most enduringly contentious, even acrimonious issues in American politics. I set out to discover why," he said.


http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/07/21/ldt.bullet.shortage.cnn?iref=videosearch Spitzer identified this way: “Political Science Professor and author Robert Spitzer”


http://www.npr.org/2011/01/27/133247508/the-history-and-growing-influence-of-the-nra?&f=13&sc=tw&cc=freshair

Political scientist Robert Spitzer, author of the book The Politics of Gun Control and a member of the National Rifle Association, has written extensively about the history of the NRA, the Second Amendment and gun control laws.


http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-07-24/gun-control-election-year Guests Ladd Everitt, Director of Communications at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Robert Spitzer, Chair of the political science department at the State University of New York in Cortland, and author of "The Politics of Gun Control." John Velleco, director of federal affairs at Gun Owners of America. Juliette Leftwich, legal director, Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence


http://kuer.org/post/42511-politics-gun-control Salt Lake City, Utah – Monday, we're talking to the scholar Robert Spitzer about guns in America.


http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/01/17/president-obamas-call-for-action-on-guns

Chuck Babington, congressional reporter for the Associated Press. Robert Spitzer, professor of political science at the State University of New York at Cortland. Author of “The Politics of Gun Control.” Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Richard Feldman, president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association.


http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/1/11/only-modest-progressmadestemminggunviolence.html

Gun-control advocates have mostly failed in mustering support for tougher federal gun laws over the past two decades, while gun-rights forces have achieved significant successes, according to Robert Spitzer, the author of “The Politics of Gun Control” and a professor of political science at the Cortland campus of the State University of New York.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/23/202984/this-time-little-push-for-gun.html#storylink=cpy

Robert Spitzer, a political scientist at State University of New York-Cortland who has written extensively on gun control.Moak7509 (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In each of those examples you are being quoted, speaking, or are a guest, etc. In such situations the guest is asked how they would like to be introduced, and then they are introduced that way. That is why these are all primary sources. What is needed are secondary sources, such as a biography written by a third party, something like that. As of this writing there have only been 2 such sources found (Sources where you had absolutely no input). We need more like that. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In some instances yes, in other instances no. But all of these sources referenced me, and initially contacted me, because they already knew of my expertise, encapsulated in the descriptors "author," "scholar," "department chair." In all instances, they were exercising their professional journalistic judgment about who I was, and sought my opinion because they knew me to be a scholar, not an advocate; more to the point, none of them used, suggested, or inferred that I was an "advocate" of some sort. In fact, for some of these media moments, they included other individuals who were advocates, representing various gun advocacy groups on both sides of the issue. And if these references are somehow questionable, then the one from the Cornell Daily Sun is as well, since I was interviewed by a student at that publication (that student did not quote me, nor did I identify myself as an advocate; and by the way, student reporters can and do uncover news, but so do non-journalists; the students are students writing for a school newspaper, not professional journalists). No one has written a biography of me, so no such source available. The comment immediately below makes a similar point well. First and foremost, I am defined by my occupation and published writings, which all encapsulate scholar/academic.Moak7509 (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for the "oppose" reasons listed above. I especially want to emphasize that he is a political scientist. He does research on political systems. One of the several he studies is the politics of gun control. His research influences his point of view, but his real focus is understanding and explaining how the politics of gun control work, how they are influenced by what happens, and how they influence society. So, if his research tends to support one side more than another, he would be viewed as taking sides. It's consistent with the sources to say he is an occasional academic political commentator whose research supports some aspects of gun control, but saying more than this would go beyond the sources and would by interpretation and synthesis on our parts. I am One of Many (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm invited to comment in the Rfc through feedback service. I didn't know Prof. Spitzer earlier. Following reading the article and the discussion on this page and the sources, I do not find it appropriate to tag Prof. Spitzer with pro-control till some reliable sources are not made available. Not WP:SYNTH. LIke, If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. AnupMehra ✈ 09:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose labeling him as an "advocate" or with any similar label. He is an academic and qualifies as an academic. His position on gun control should be clearly stated in the body of the article, but he should not be referred to as an advocate (although he is one), because that draws attention away from his academic achievements. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand that reasoning. Biography articles aren't supposed to be used to burnish someone's reputation, academic or otherwise. They are not designed to focus attention on academic achievements over other acclaim or notability. We are supposed to just state what the RS refs guide us to. We have RS saying he is an academic. We have RS saying he is an advocate. Both should be included. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

[edit]

Hello all. As this discussion is about me, I am obliged to weigh in. Since Ms. Rangell is beginning this, she says the following: "I want it out in the open that I am pro-control, and a fan of Robert Spitzer." Clearly her intent is to indicate that she is fair-minded in this matter, yet I fail to find any evidence of that. More to the point, I would point out that her assertion is 1) unverifiable, and 2) irrelevant. Everyone has their own opinions and perspectives, to which they are fully entitled. But in the present matter (and forgive me, I speak as an outsider), what matters, it seems to me, is judging Wikipedia entries by the standards of objectivity and fairness that guide it. Ms. Rangell seems obsessed with hanging the word "advocate" on me, despite prior writings that indicate this to be inappropriate. To turn to the text of my existing entry, it already says this: "Spitzer’s analysis of the gun issue finds most gun regulations to be compatible with America’s political and legal history and traditions, as well as with viable contemporary public policy." and it also says this: "Writing since the two cases were handed down, he said that "the Heller and McDonald rulings have established as a matter of law an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. But although judges can change the law, they cannot change history, and the historical record largely contradicts the bases for these two recent rulings." These assessments flow from my research and various writings, and address the consequences and conclusions of my writing. This, for me, is not an exercise in vanity, but in accuracy, and that is all I request. As for the LA Times article by Barabak from which I was quoted above, it is perfectly plain that I was responding to the reporter's question about what I thought the pro-gun control forces should do in the aftermath of their loss in two special elections in Colorado a few months ago. It is pure political analysis, and nothing more. I'm pasting the link to the original story here for your perusal: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/11/nation/la-na-colorado-vote-analysis-20130912Moak7509 (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that a random (and un-footnoted) quote from me appears in the middle of the entry, saying this: ""For all this, new gun measures will be tough going — as they historically have been — and success is by no means assured. But the time to act is now, and doing nothing is no longer an option." -Robert Spitzer" What is the point of plopping a random quote in the middle of this entry? This quote, it turns out, is the last sentence of an op-ed I wrote for the Daily News a year ago or so about the assignment given me by the News editor, which was this: what should Obama do about his gun policy initiatives then before Congress? The entire article was about that (here it is for your perusal: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/president-speed-article-1.1241395). It was titled, "The President's Need for Speed," which was the main argument of the piece. If Obama didn't move fast, I basically argued, he was dead in the water. And so he was. If this debate in this space consists of plucking random quotes from the ether, then I would suggest that this runs the risk of being neither healthy nor fair-minded.Moak7509 (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now that we are on the subject, these phrases have again popped up in the essay, saying that I have “spoken at public gatherings” and have “established himself as a passionate and robust supporter of gun control.” As to the first, this wording has two problems: it suggests a degree of informality in talks I have given, and it makes such speaking engagements sound informal or without institutional connections, and neither is correct. The prior wording was better, saying simply (and more accurately) that I have "given many lectures and talks." The preference for this simpler and more accurate wording is that when I speak, it is either at universities and colleges, or before civic-type groups on their invitation. As for "passionate and robust," the author of these words knows, and can know nothing, about my passion and robustness. These terms are unsupported (unless you care to interview my wife about such matters. . .), inappropriate, and a distraction from the presentation of simple, neutral, objective writing--which, as I understand it, is the goal of Wikipedia.Moak7509 (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. Spitzer, you should know (I know you're new to editing on Wikipedia) you ARE allowed to vote in the "Survey" section immediately preceding this "Threaded discussion." Lightbreather (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sue, I have asked you to back off on this article. You do not have the experience with the academic world nor and you seem unfamiliar with what an article about a professor should be. Whether or not Spitzer is an advocate or an activist is not something to be determined by a poll of editors, most of whom may also be unfamiliar with what it means to be a political scientist, studying political issues. That means not only doing the research but writing about the results and being interviewed as an expert. One of Spitzer's fields of research is gun control, a highly politicized topic in this country. He is vocal about his work, not his politics. This can be confusing to the casual reader when they read about his work. But Wikipedia holds itself to higher standards. This survey is not an appropriate approach. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Seeking a consensus" is how Wikipedia works. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. A link, please, Sue Rangell to the Wikipedia policy, guideline, or essay that supports Sue's the statement that "Wikipedia uses the word 'advocate' to describe those who lean to EITHER side of the issue." And does this policy, guideline, or essay say anything that would preempt WP:BLP? Lightbreather (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at how the categories are named. He would be placed in the category "American gun control advocates" as just one example, along with a few hundred other happy BLPs. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those are categories, not policies, guidelines, or essays. Also, where is the evidence that supports that they are happy BLPs? From my personal past experience on WP:CIVILITY and what Spitzer is himself right now fighting, there could be UN-happy BLPs out there. Or even BLPs who don't know they have bios on WP. We don't know if they'd be happy or not about being categorized as activists or advocates. I'll bet most if not all of the ones who are scholars would not be happy about it.
Also, at the top of Category:Gun control advocates it says: "Articles about individuals who have actively worked for gun control. (This category is part of Category:Activists, and therefore is not intended for people who have merely espoused an opinion.)" There is a similar statement at the top of Category:Gun rights advocates, too.
Finally, WP:BLPREMOVE says first "See also: Wikipedia:Libel, and then "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." I don't wish to discuss this further with you, but wait to see what other editors/admins say. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not libel or a violation of BLP to honestly point to a persons politics, especially when they are so vocal about them. It is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to attempt to obfuscate them. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside for a moment the "advocacy" question, there is other wording in the entry that has made its way back in which seems utterly inappropriate: 1) "established himself as a passionate and robust supporter of gun control." "Passionate and robust" has no place in this entry. The footnotes do not support it; there is no evidence supporting it; it is a clear case of "conjectural interpretation," and is additionally sophomoric effusion that has no place in a basic, descriptive essay. 2) the headings are illogical. One is titled "Gun control advocacy" (again, leaving aside the question of the appropriateness of the word "advocacy") the intent is to group together my writings on gun control, which is perfectly sensible. But the next heading is "Published works", even though "Gun control advocacy" also has published works included in it. This heading should be what it was before--something like "Other scholarly work" (and agree or disagree with the content, it is factually accurate to say that I have produced scholarly work). In this latter section, there is a second reference to my book "The Politics of Gun Control"--this reference should be confined to the prior section, as it is unnecessarily duplicative to mention it twice without some specific reason. I would beg the editors' indulgence to make these changes at the least. Final point: 3) for some reason, a box has again appeared at the top of the essay, warning about the presence of self-published sources. There are now none in the essay. Can this box be removed? Thanks.Moak7509 (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moak7509 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the point above relating to "passionate and robust", there is no ref that supports that. The headings, meh. I could go either way. As relate to SPS, we need refs not written by the subject. Right now almost all of the refs are written by the subject, that is not proper. What we are looking for in a biography article is material written about the subject. The tag must stay until this hole in the article is resolved. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me invite you to reexamine the footnotes. I have now inserted/substituted numerous other sources not by Spitzer (i.e. me) to address this--although the existence of the cites of my work arose in response to criticisms that the information provided needed sourcing, and because much of the writing is about my writing, it seemed logical to direct the reader to the original sources. What think? Thanks.Moak7509 (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gun control advocate BLP vio

[edit]

Without strong sourcing, including in wikipedia's voice the disputed "fact" that this individual is an advocate and not just a scholar is a BLP violation. The subject disputes the characterization, and the only sources found so far are either unreliable, questionable, or highly biased. Hipocrite (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Syracuse Post-Standard SUNY Cortland Professor Advocates a Sensible Approach to Guns [1] Capitalismojo (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we now have three mainstream RS refs referring to advocate, not counting Volokh or Reynolds (who are only reliable for their opinions). Capitalismojo (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where does that article describe him as a gun control advocate? Use quotes. Hipocrite (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We really have to pay careful attention to the meaning of advocate in the contexts in which it is used. To call someone an advocate as part of their profession is to assert that that is what they do perhaps as part of their living . To say that someone advocates a certain position is completely different. It means that the support and defend a certain position, but it does not imply that they are a political advocate as part of their professional activities. Therefore, I see POV being pushed here that he is a political advocate where there is absolutely no evidence that he does political advocacy for a living. This is a serious BLP violation. I am One of Many (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Described as a scholar with respect to gun control - [2] - described as a political scientist invited to testify before congress on the strength of his scholarly work.
  • Quoted as a scholar not as a side-taker - [3]
  • Quoted as a scholar not as a side-taker - [4]
  • Specifically defined as not an advocate, but a scholarly proponent - [5]
I wonder why these sources were not earlier presented? Hipocrite (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. I am One of Many (talk) 21:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Good refs to work into the article. I would note that this formulation "Quoted as a scholar not a side-taker" is odd. The refs you have introduced don't characterize the subject at all, except the one that describes him as a "scholarly proponent" of gun control. They certainly don't say he's not a "side-taker", and one in fact criticizes him for asserting a public mandate for increased gun-control that doesn't (in that author's opinion) exist. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLP compliance

[edit]

I am reviewing the editing on this article to evaluate compliance with our policy on biographies of living persons. My initial impression, subject to comment here, is that there is an attempt to place undue weight on adjectives and characterizations concerning the subject's work, as opposed to a neutral description of it. I ask that editors please step back from this sort of behavior so that I don't have to consider taking any administrator action here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. May I remove the contentious material while we await evaluation? Lightbreather (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would generally be the proper course, although given that you've been involved in the back-and-forth, it would be still better if another editor did it, if anyone else is watching here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the contentious material and sources, except for Vizzard and Volokh, whose comments I explicitly attributed to them. Lightbreather (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see that there is a warning box at the top of the section "Career" calling for more cites to verify my bio. I'm at a bit of a loss about what to suggest here; however, I have found two independent sources to verify two bits of information: that I was president of the Presidency Research Group of the APSA, and here's the link: http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/Renka/PRG/PRG_leadership_history.asp#PRG_Steering_Committee-2002-2003 and here is a very brief one that I was a member of the NYS Commission on the Bicentennial of the US Constitution: http://books.google.com/books?id=iMSRAAAAMAAJ&dq=inauthor%3A%22New+York+State+Commission+on+the+Bicentennial+of+the+United+States+Constitution%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Spitzer The problem with the latter in terms of finding something on the web is that the Commission only existed in the 1980s--before the internet was really in wide use, so stuff just not there. The one link above is a part of a page of a publication of the Commission that lists the Commission members, which includes me. Hope this helps.Moak7509 (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are good. Thanks for looking. Sources don't have to be online. Any reliable published source will do, a newspaper article, an article in a university magazine. The curriculum vitae of a professor is a fine source for factual information in an article about a professor. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Using the subject as a self-published source and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. Yours is online at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByoyLoSA8QKpZ3E2SW5FbEVxYXM/edit?pli=1. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to my CV absolutely fine--I had done so earlier, but had understood that to be a problem, so I (or maybe someone else--can't now recall) removed it. As for the Bicentennial Commission, it produced numerous books, many of which listed the Commission members. I have copies to consult.Moak7509 (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, prof. StarryGrandma made some good points above. Since an admin is reviewing the page, we need to take it real slow, so I propose working together and documenting every step of the way, not only with detailed edit summaries on the article edits, but with a kind of running log of what we're doing here - at least until the admin has finished his eval.
I woke up sick the day before yesterday, but during my waking hours today, I am going to review all of the existing source citations and where they're weak, I'll try to find replacements or other sources. Remember, self-published sources are acceptable in certain situations:
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
* the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
* it does not involve claims about third parties;
* it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
* there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
* the article is not based primarily on such sources.
That's per WP:BLPSPS and related links. So... I am going to take some time today to look at/for sources. I know we have a link to your CV somewhere in the article history, if it's not still there. I will try to make very clear edit summaries, and comment here, too. Question: Are you listed in a Who's Who? Also, on your Google site, a copyright notice would be a good idea, I think. Lightbreather (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, StarryGrandma. I see you provided the link to Spitzer's CV. Lightbreather (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DONE - I have added Spitzer's CV as an acceptable WP:BLPSPS source. It can probably be used as a citation for most of the basic factual elements (degrees, awards, etc.) Lightbreather (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DONE - gave a couple other existing sources ref names and put into CS1 style formats. Moved one to end of sentence it supported (immediately after sentence it had been appended to.) Lightbreather (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DONE - added Presidency Research Group and related source citations and external link. Lightbreather (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DONE - added brief paragraph to On gun control section quoting Spitzer's opinion as published in a NYT letter in 2009. (Note the NYT described Spitzer: "The writer, a professor of political science at SUNY Cortland, is the author of three books about gun control.") Lightbreather (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DONE - reformatted three existing sources to CS1 cite news style, but removed one (about veto power) of those sources from On gun control section. Will use in On American presidency section. Lightbreather (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first 16 21 of the current 29 sources are now fully sourced. I am going to take some medicine and a nap, and I will resume here later today or tomorrow. Lightbreather (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DONE - reformatting remaining sources, which were in the one paragraph of the last section, Published works. I used WP:CS1 cite web style. Some could probably be improved by the cite journal style, but they're definitely more informative to the reader now then they were. I substituted sources for the last two. Diffs and explanations here. I double-check my work as I go, but I'm now going to go back and check all the references again, just to make sure they all work and go where they're supposed to go. Plus any style issues that I see there (in References). Lightbreather (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If you need a citation for Spitzer's (i.e. my) service on the NYS Bicentennial of the US Constitution, here are two citations to print sources: Stephen L. Schechter and Richard B. Bernstein, eds., Contexts of the Bill of Rights (Albany, NY: New York State Commission on the Bicentennial of the US Constitution, 1990), p. iv. Another source: Stephen L. Schechter and Richard B. Bernstein, eds., Well Begun: Chronicles of the Early National Period (Albany, NY: New York State Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, 1989), p. 115.137.123.124.4 (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with Lightbreather here; and add that the use of the word "advocate" here is obvious Wikipedia:synthesis (with the wrong conclusion drawn) and should be immediately removed per Wikipedia:BLP. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 06:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is this?

[edit]

I did a Wiki search on "gun control advocate" and the first two results were

What the heck is that second thing? I don't know enough about WP yet to understand. Also, I'd like to get rid of this and any other stealth labeling of the professor. (I think there may still be a headshot and a bookcover image file or two or three, and redirects, floating around.) Lightbreather (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like a heading reference. Go to the Contents and click a heading, then read your address bar to see what they look like. As such, you have edited it out and Google will supersede it fairly soon.
All this work done so fast, and you are still Lightbreather! ;-)
ChrisPer (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gun control advocacy

[edit]

I have re-added the advocay information, citing two mainstream sources, The Syracuse Post-Standard and Cornell Daily Sun. A third source where Spitzer himself is commenting on the need for stricter gun control was already in the article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the issue was a lack of sources in the main last time. I note your change has been reverted. Sue, if you want to argue the case for the word "advocate" , then please open another discussion to gain consensus first. I've fully protected it for the time being to prevent edit warring. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was no need for that, I have a self imposed 1-revert rule. Please note that I have already opened a discussion...this one. I would love to hear opinions on the matter. If one will read above, one may note that the idea of ignoring the subject's advocacy was pretty much pushed by a single editor who is now topic banned. I don't see any need to request i-votes at this time, this seems like a "slam-dunk" to me. All agree that there are good sources, so in my opinion the material should be included. be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sue, I am the person who was and is the editor most opposed to your trying to label Robert Spitzer an advocate, although certainly not the only one. I am not topic banned. Since I am sure you have not forgotten me, I wonder that you are not being accurate in your statement above, trying to say only one editor did not agree with you. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The comments above prove otherwise, but that is still ok. What are your reasons for wanting to keep well-sourced material out of the article? If there is some compelling reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT or IMUSTSTOPSUERANGELL, I am very interested to hear it. The information is verifiable, well sourced, and is very important and relevant to the subject of the article. It should stay. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rangell's assertions are not supported. StarryGrandma is correct that multiple individuals opposed the change(s) Rangell attempted to insert back in January; I counted at least 8 different responders in the above back-and forth who opposed her changes, not the "pretty much pushed by a single editor" claim made by Rangell. Rangell is not attempting to insert "well sourced material," but to insert her own value judgment, i.e. "advocate." The sources she refers to are already included in the entry. Two comments offered earlier summarize well what is wrong with what Rangell is again attempting to do. I excerpt them below:
“Quoting our own BLP policy "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." Furthermore, the subject os notable for other non-gun-related material. Thus the word "activist" or (to a lesser extent) advocate is potentially polarising and misrepresentative. Cas Liber (talk • contribs) 00:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)”
“there is an attempt to place undue weight on adjectives and characterizations concerning the subject's work, as opposed to a neutral description of it. I ask that editors please step back from this sort of behavior” Newyorkbrad
And finally, I would note two things about my Syracuse Post-Standard op-ed that is cited, and the Cornell Daily Sun article also cited. If you read my January 2011 op-ed, it examines an empirical question: do stricter state gun laws make a difference? I conclude that they do, at least marginally. That does not make this piece an instance of "advocacy." Second, as to the Cornell Daily Sun article (bearing in mind that it is the product of students who are not professional journalists, and is thus not entitled to the dignity of professional journalism), it references me as a "prominent gun control advocate," and also another person who writes on gun issues, David Kopel. He is identified in the article this way, “According to David Kopel, research director of the Independence Institute, and a strong opponent of gun control. . . .” I then looked to see if Kopel has a Wikipedia entry, and he does. Yet nowhere in that entry is he identified as an "advocate" for gun rights or such like. I am not interested in tampering with the essay about him, but why the double standard? This supports my concern that Rangell is singling me out in this unfortunate, even obsessive way. Bob SpitzerMoak7509 (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of consistency, and to put to bed any notions that I am being "obsessive", I have edited the David Kopel article to include the advocacy info. I welcome any other similar invitations to edit other articles as well. David Kopel and Robert Spitzer are BOTH advocates. I really don't understand the problem with saying so, especially when the information is so well sourced and important to the topic of the article. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with saying so is that the BLP aspect of it and that you apparently sourced them to blogs, which are never acceptable for BLP. WP:BLOGS unambiguously states Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. You need to find better sources to demonstrate this. Tutelary (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, The Syracuse Post-Standard and Cornell Daily Sun are not blogs, they are mainstream newspapers. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2011/01/suny_cortland_professor_advoca.html
  • http://cornellsun.com/blog/2008/04/23/foreign-countries-divergent-in-strictness-of-gun-control/?ModPagespeed=noscript
  • http://www.syracuse.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/01/new_yorks_gun_laws_arent_so_tough_historically_speaking_commentary.html

We should not use blogs for BLP. Tutelary (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, changing the Kopel entry has no bearing on me, and puts nothing "to bed" regarding me, for at least three reasons. First, Kopel's chief and full-time affiliation is an ideologically based think tank (the Independence Institute), which has advocacy of conservative/libertarian perspectives (and this is not a criticism) as at least one of its goals. That is not true of me. (And my mention of it was not an invitation to anything; I had and have no desire to tamper with his entry, or to encourage anyone else to do so.) Second, the sole source for this is a student newspaper article, which hardly constitutes anything "well sourced"; it is a source, and it is on the internet, but that's about it. Third, it is not "important to the topic of the article." It is a value statement instigated and repetitively pushed by you, Ms. Rangell (in a manner that one may fairly call obsessive at this point), that gives "undue weight on adjectives and characterizations concerning the subject's work, as opposed to a neutral description of it." (cited from above) In short, there is literally no defensible reason for your persistence in this matter, especially in the light of the fact that this has all been vetted months ago.Moak7509 (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No not vetted at all. There were five opposes and four supports. It was also closed before the mainstream sources were found. If you wish, feel free to open another RfC so that the new information may be processed by the community. I will certainly be happy to abide by whatever the consensus turns out to be. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised that you have so little regard for Wikipedia procedures. A reading of the voluminous prior correspondence above indicates that this matter was discussed extensively, and that your efforts were blocked last January by the means established by Wikipedia. And I have no desire to "open another RfC."Moak7509 (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am the aforementioned Robert Spitzer, the subject of the Wikipedia entry. Back in January, Ms. Rangell began a series of changes to my entry that seemed to have as their chief purpose to mischaracterize and politicize my work in the area of gun policy. She seemed adamant, even vehement, that I should for some reason be tagged as an "advocate" on or for the subject of gun control. After a lengthy back-and-forth that involved a number of contributors, me included, a decision was made to exclude the moniker "advocate" and instead insert the word "commentator." I am indeed a commentator on the gun issue (and on other things). I am not an "advocate," as I discussed in earlier posts. This term has a specific political meaning that does not summarize or capture who I am or what I do. I am a college professor who has written a great deal on this and other subjects, and while my writings are certainly not devoid of evaluations or opinions, they are chiefly empirical--that is, what is true, and what we know--about this issue and other matters. I do not attend or speak at rallies, demonstrations, or political events on behalf of policies on the gun issue, or any other issue. Those are things that gun "advocates" would do (and indeed some who write on this issue and have academic connections do in fact speak at rallies and other events, but I am not one of those persons). Now, after a lapse of 6 months, Rangell is, strangely, back attempting to again shoehorn this label into the entry. While I understand that you cannot and should not allow the subjects of biographical entries to dictate the content of entries about themselves, Wikipedia policies, as I understand them, do allow the subjects to weigh in on these matters, as I am now doing. I can not account for Rangell's interest, even obsession, with tinkering with my entry, but her proposed change adds no useful or relevant factual information, does nothing to improve its accuracy, and seems chiefly designed to be a way to denigrate and minimize what I write about, so that it might be dismissed as "mere advocacy." I thus respectfully ask that this change not be made. I would be happy to provide other information if of use. Thanks. Bob Spitzer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moak7509 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there multiple RS, not blogs, that call the subject an advocate? I would not use the term based on reading the article as written. Also, the last paragraph under gun control can be removed as non notable commentary. That material could be possible included in the articles of the people making those comments but that would be up to those article(s) to decide. --Malerooster (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The refs above appear to be RS news organizations (see WP:NEWSBLOG) as opposed to personal blogs. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From Publisher's Weekly, re The Politics of Gun control: "Spitzer ends the book by suggesting a new public policy based on an international model, one that includes nonproliferation of new weapons and arms control for those that already exist, but whether this form of regulation would work is a moot point." How is that not being an advocate for gun control?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I understand this right, Mr. Spitzer is now editing out what reliable sources call him, to remove the "gun control advocacy" wording? How is this not a conflict of interest? It certainly a primary source! If he wanted to claim to be something he was not, we would not allow that would we? But, if he wants to claim to be other than what the reliable sources call him, that is somehow allowable? I'm not getting why this is not being corrected to what reliable sources all say... Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • StarryGrandma asked me for an opinion. I have always thought it bad policy to characterize people's views or positions on item with single terms. (for example, I even think our willingness to characterize as "pseudoscience" is wrong, even though arb com has thought otherwise.), I think NPOV requires us to state the facts, and avoid headline writing and sensationalism. For people writing on polarized issues, some will clearly define themselves, in terms their opponents will often accept. Some advocates of gun control call themselves advocates of gun control, and as far as I know the opponents of gun control generally agree with those who so characterizes themselves. The question is how to handle someone who does not so classify themselves, but some of whose opponents do; or, as in this case, someone who insists that he cannot be so classified, but some people think otherwise--whether supporters or opponents. For truly polarized issues such as this, people who hope their work to be taken objectively will normally try to avoid saying they have a strong position on one side or another, If they do have an agenda, it may be displayed in their writings, but we are not entitled to judge that.
We normally deal with this by providing representative quotations, and the problem here is to make sure they are indeed representative, and are quoted in context, without cherry-picking. We would certainly include any published statement by the subjects in which they explicitly try to summarize their position. We can sometimes deal with this by wordings such as " Her summary that "....." has been widely quoted by people advocating ...." where this is cited by responsible published statements by those qualified and where an effort is made finding responsible sources who say otherwise.
We always use extreme caution in characterizing someone by a term they explicitly deny. In the case of public figures, it can sometimes be justified, if there is truly widespread and responsible sourcing, and a real effort is made to find ones that support the statement. For a private figure I think BLP policy is firm that we never include such a characterization. Is an academic writer of a controversial subject, who is not actively engaging in the public sphere a public figure? only to a limited extent, when the person or their writings are sufficiently prominent, and even so with great care. I think this is the case here.
Looking at sources used, I consider a characterization by Volokh is not conceivably acceptable, Vizzard I am less familiar with (tho I think he may be notable enough for an article). An inspection of his online cv and reviews of his work indicates he too takes a definite position on the issue. I haven;t seen the quotation that is used, and I would need to see it in context to judge whether it is being used fairly. The opinion can certainly not be used, as it is in the present draft, without an exact quotation. Student newspapers are not reliable sources, neither are op-eds, unless the actual writer of the item is an authority.
For opinions about the work of an academic, I would normally look to academic sources. Sometimes non0academic sources can be used, but they would take extreme care. Mischaracterizations and over-simplification of published academic work are very frequent in the general press. I would not normally want to use them without a careful evaluation of reliability and non-selectivity, and only for the most prominent figures. I rarely edit in controversial politics. But the last paragraph here as currently given should be removed under BLP policy, so I did it. Because those wanting to add it are clearly in good faith, I do not consider this BLP special enforcement. But I very strongly advise it not be reinserted without clear consensus--it would be very much better, that if any editor wants to include such a phrase, they find better sources for it. Better sources solve a great many problems around here.
I suggest that the really best way forward on this article would be to include more detailed material on the individual books, including references to reliable published reviews. Most academics keep careful track of reviews, so if Dr. Spitzer listed references to them on the talk page here, I think it would be helpful. DGG ( talk ) 10:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To DGG, I want to thank you for your thoughtful and careful response to this situation. Responding to your suggestion, I am pasting below some links and other information of reviews of three of my books on gun policy. There are more reviews than this, but I only have them as paper copies in my files (could not find them on the internet), so the best I could offer for these is to make PDF copies and email them to whoever/wherever, but this may not be a practical or viable alternative. I do hope this helpful; if anything else, I'm more than willing to oblige. Bob Spitzer
Reviews of “The Right to Bear Arms”:

http://www.abc-clio.com/product.aspx?id=66672 "This volume provides historical and objective information on this timely and controversial issue ... This volume is timely and easy to use. It will be most appropriate for high school and undergraduate libraries because of its basic introductory information."—American Reference Books Annual (this excerpt appears on the publisher’s web page—link above—could not find the original review on the internet)

Here is a link to a review from The Law and Politics Book Review: http://www.lawcourts.org/LPBR/reviews/spitzerarms.htm

Reviews of “The Politics of Gun Control”:

The New England Journal of Medicine: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199701023360118

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/aatpguncontrol.htm “A rare, balanced look at gun control. Spitzer discusses the legal implication of the 2nd Amendment, then looks at the impact of guns on America from homicides to suicides. The author also explores the intense battle for control of Congress between the NRA and Handgun Control, Inc.” from Kirkus Reviews

Review in “The Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,” Vol. 15, no. 4, Autumn (Fall) 1996: 677-79. (this review is available on the internet, but only through a pay wall, so I could not obtain it electronically)

Reviews of “Gun Control: A Documentary and Reference Guide”:

The publisher (ABC-CLIO/Greenwood) has several summaries of reviews: http://www.abc-clio.com/product.aspx?isbn=9780313345661 Moak7509 (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Spitzer_(political_scientist)&oldid=1265017852"