Jump to content

Talk:Robert Spitzer (political scientist)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

SPS

This article seems entirely sourced/ref'd to the subject's own writings. These are SPS. We need secondary refs. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I will add some and hope no-one reverts them as after a previous half-day's work. While I'm at it, I'll restore the copy editing and style edits I'd made before that bulk revert. Also, remember, using the subject as a self-published source is acceptable, and I was only just getting starting on improving this article when this dispute over activist/advocate took center stage. Lightbreather (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Let's not place a speedy-delete tag on it just yet, I am sure there is a substantial body of material out there somewhere that talks ABOUT the man independent of him. Give me 24 hours.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
SPS are difficult. We need something about the subject. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is one that talks about him as an advocate. [1]
A 14-year-old-book by a criminologist. Any preponderence of current, mainstream newspapers? The ones I find call him a political scientist or a professor of political science - and leave it at that. Lightbreather (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm just happy to find RS that talks about him, as opposed to things written by him. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is another secondary source, and guess what...it says he is a "prominent gun control advocate" --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Student newspapers are not held to the same degree of fact-checking or accuracy of writing as professional publications. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how true that is, student newspapers are often the first to break important stories, etc. But it doesn't matter. This article has only TWO (2) such secondary sources, and they both describe him the same way. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 06:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

All three sources that you use for the lead are not reliable sources:

In any case, they only use the adjective gun control advocate to describe Spitzer. To demonstrate that he is an advocate you need sources that analyze Spitzer's work and come to the conclusion that he is an advocate.

You are making basic mistakes in editing a page about living people. You are also making mistakes about adding pictures and about reliability of sources that seem to show a lack of experience in adding sections of new material to articles. You are adding references as bare urls. In your recent unsuccessful request to become an administrator questions were raised about your experience editing articles and your understanding of the reliability of references. Only 33% of your edits are on articles and you were not willing to activate the script to let them see your detailed edit distribution.

Please change the lead back to what it was and remove the section on Gun control advocacy. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with StarryGrandma 100 percent. Sue keeps insisting that her OR and synthesis be not only included, but also given a place of prominence - based on statements pulled out of context, one report in a college newspaper, and a 14-year-old book by a criminologist who, as StarryGrandma has pointed out, had a friend whose work was negatively critiqued by Spitzer. THESE ARE NOT HIGH-QUALITY SOURCES, as per WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPREMOVE.
Those who have said of the subject, "I've never heard of him before," or "He's only 'notable' as an 'advocate,'" I would advise also to review WP:NPF (and WP:LOWPROFILE) and the NPF warning: "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." I think Sue's zeal to label Spitzer a gun-control hurts not only the subject, the Wikipedia project, too. Lightbreather (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Who are you addressing Starry? Perhaps you could take personal discussions about admin campaigns to individual talk pages. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
At least three people have questioned Sue's edits on this page, so it seems like the best place to discuss them for now. Besides, from personal experience, I know Sue does not take criticism on her own talk page, but will re-direct it to the article talk page anyway. Lightbreather (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Re "Shots in the Dark", it is a work published by a major publishing house, one that is seen as RS. It talks about the subject. There is not requirement for RS to be supporters of a BLP subject. We need RS refs not written by the subject in this article, as such we can't remove an appropriate ref because an editor doesn't like the description. Student newspaper's are generally fine, take it to RS/N if you have a problem with this specific paper. Absent these refs there is little to support not deleting the article. We can not have a BLP that only has the writings of the subject as refs. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see comment above at end of "Threaded Discussion."Moak7509 (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

A few hours ago, I inserted footnotes that were "not written by the subject" (i.e. me), in response to the suggestion above--from book reviews authored by reviewers in journals, for the most part. But these have suddenly all disappeared. Why would these changes be repealed, given that they respond directly to the concerns expressed in this space? Can anyone assist/explain?Moak7509 (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

They are back. The reviews are excellent additions! I particularly like the lpbr refs that review your work. [2] We should integrate the material from this ref into the article more fully. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry to say, they were all reverted by Sue Rangell in her "added banner" edit (scroll down), which I have started a discussion about below. (How to make this stop?) I am so sorry that you are being treated this way. I am going to talk with my mentor, who has much more experience than I, and see if we need to escalate this problem. At the very least, if she has "rollback" rights (I think she does), I think she has abused them and should have them taken away. However, I don't know for sure. I hope my mentor can help.
At the top of every talk page there is a tab "View History." It's a good way to review what's been going on with an article. Lightbreather (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I have contacted my mentor and I will restore your edits forthwith. Lightbreather (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
They were back, as Capitalismojo noted at 21:48, but he deleted the links to the SCOTUS opinions, saying in his edit summary, "rem primary source refs to SCOTUS rulings: these do not mention BLP subject." Capitalismojo, it is clear from where the prof. placed them that they were meant to be a link to the opinions (for the readers), not to support his own analysis of the rulings. This man may be learned in other ways, but he is a newbie WP editor. Might you have talked to him first? Or, at the very least, were you going to tell him about the deletion, or let him wonder again where his contributions are going? Lightbreather (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The wiki-links to the articles are the appropriate way to assist readers to understand the cases. The links to the actual primary source material is not helpful to this article. These links appear in the WP articles on the cases. The links did not ref the BLP subject and so were removed per WP:MOS. I placed a welcome note with links at his talk page to help him begin to navigate the jungle that is Wikipedia policy and style. We all learn by trying here. God knows I'm still learning and I have 5000 edits. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did insert links directly to the two Supreme Court cases; their deletion is not a problem for me--I just figured their insertion was consistent with the request for more outside, objective (i.e. non-Spitzer) sourcing. Of greater concern was the deletion of footnotes referencing my work written by outside, objective reviewers from various journals and publications. I've not seen them restored, but am willing to reinsert them--again, this is consistent with the larger concern raised by others. Trust OK.Moak7509 (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I must be seeing things, as the objective cites formerly deleted are in fact there. The only other thing I did was delete the very last graph, as it simply repeated mention of book titles discussed in the prior two graphs.Moak7509 (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

How to make this stop?

I added to the lead a source for the subject being a political scientist, author, and commentator. I also removed the redundant use of the word "political" from the lead (which had said "political scientist, author, and political commentator." The edit was reverted with the edit summary "added banner." Indeed, a banner was added to the section, but my entire edit was reverted without reason. This is happening to my edits more and more, and always by Sue Rangell. Either a significant change will go without comment at all (as I just showed), or sometimes even the comment will be untruthful, as it was when she bulk reverted a mass of work I'd done on this article with the edit summary "Reverted unsourced material per BLP." Advice on how to address? Lightbreather (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I see that Sue is a member of the Recent changes patrol. Does that include having rollback rights? If I'm reading it right, it does, and it would also explain experiences I've had where I worked hard on a bunch of good-faith edits, to see her suddenly revert them all in bulk. (One in particular stands out in my mind, and I am going to go find the diff. I asked about it at the time, with no reply that I remember.) Lightbreather (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your vast array of edits have occasionally been contentious, as I know you are aware. BLP's are difficult enough without adding huge undigested chunks. I have seen good in these edits, and bad. We achieve consensus throough BRD. You have been Bold, you were Reverted, now we Discuss. That's the process, painful as it may be. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Sue invited me to support her at this page, though I previously have no knowledge of her work and do not involve myself in US gun politics. I have edited Gun politics in Australia over ten years. A persistent problem in gun politics is the misuse of academic credentials by obvious activists in partnership with media elements, and ends-directed research by academics which compromises research design integrity. Past authors of overview articles have found the majority of research on gun politics to be of this type.
Sue appears to be attempting to change the framing of the BLP of Robert Spitzer to reflect his use of institutional and personal academic credentials in advocacy, apparently on a long-term basis. Professor Spitzer appears to prefer that his article frame him as a speaker and researcher with academic neutrality.
While Sue may be right, AFAIK Robert has earned his reputation by a career of honest work. His status as an advocate, as an agent for change via his media work is backed by that reputation. If Sue provides adequate WP:RS for adding this to the article in full compliance with WP:BLP, her changes stand. Until those WP:RS are in place, it is my opinion that Robert has the right of this argument and I recommend that Sue step back and work with him with honesty, and presuming good faith on his part. That would include discussing changes and reverts on the talk page.
ChrisPer (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. The few RS refs that are not written by the subject support the "advocate" characterization, although not the "robust and passionate" descriptors. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, ChrisPer. This is the first time I've done significant work on a BLP. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "adequate WP:RS"? Quality? Quantity? Currency? Oh! And is a faculty bio page or a CV okay for any particular facts? Thanks again. Lightbreather (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not claim to special knowledge in this; WP:RS has a plain meaning, and it goes to the source quality. I myself use lower quality sources on non-BLP articles if I feel a fact should be in the article, and try to bring an RS to replace it as soon as I can. If that makes it WP:OR, it should be immediately reverted, and that is Wikipedia. OR is not acceptable on Wikipedia, especially not on BLPs. A faculty bio is usually written by the subject, and is not an RS; but for a person of sound reputation I would cheerfully rely on it until forced to give way by an objector. For an academic crook like that guy that falsified historical sources in a 2000 book claiming American culture came late to firearms, or for out-and-out activists their faculty bios are likely to be compromised by their lack of integrity. ChrisPer (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know if you might have some insight on the quality of a source. I keep pointing to BLP, which says (as of this date/time):
"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:
"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."
The two sources cited for calling the prof. an advocate are verifiable, I'll give you that, but "high-quality" or those other tests that Jimmy says material should pass - or be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."? I don't mean for you to stay and discuss with me. I'm just getting my concerns out there. Thanks again. Lightbreather (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Robust and Passionate

While I have now doubt that Robert Spitzer is indeed a "robust and passionate" man, I think that in the absence of RS refs that formulation should be removed. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Lightbreather (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 Done --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Duplicated Material

THIS biographical material matches almost perfectly word for word, statements made in the article. I am not concerned about copyvio or anything like that, because it's been chopped up sufficiently at this point, but we need to be careful. Even if the info originally came from a bio supplied to them by Mr. Spitzer himself, there could still be copyvio issues. Be careful. Write from scratch please. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 08:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I have made one last attempt

I have made one last attempt to bring this article into unequivocal compliance with WP:BLP. I remove all instances of WIKIPEDIA calling Spitzer a gun control advocate, but I did add a statement to the On gun control section that says, "In his 2000 book Shots in the Dark, William J. Vizzard called Spitzer a gun control advocate." Tomorrow, if these edits are allowed to stay, I will work on fleshing out this bio - as I meant to do when I came here nearly one week ago - and cleaning up the existing citations, and finding more high-quality secondary sources. Otherwise, I will seek counsel from my mentor. Lightbreather (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The consensus at the moment is weighted against this, so it would be a bad idea. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 08:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:CON, consensus is NOT a vote. And the vote here is split. More importantly, it goes against the objections of the LIVING subject, and of StarryGrandma and ChrisPer - your own pick for an outside opinion. WP:NOCONSENSUS is important here, too.
I wash my hands of this article now, though I feel badly for Prof. Spitzer. (Prof: if you don't already know, there is some advice for you at WP:BLPCOMPLAINT. Good luck!) Lightbreather (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

A couple of other factual things. I previously raised the matter of the two quotes from my writings more or less randomly dropped into the middle of the entry. I can see no particular sense in doing so. Having said that, the first quote is innocuous enough, but the second is misleading--as I noted previously, it is from an op-ed I wrote in January 2013 that dealt very specifically with Obama's then-pending legislative initiative of gun measures before Congress. But presented on its own here, it is neither time-keyed, nor content-keyed--i.e., lacking the reference to what was going on a year ago; therefore, it is misleading, and should be dropped. Also, footnote 8 cites the Volokh web site in support of the phrase in the text that Spitzer "has established himself as a strong proponent." The cite takes one to a Volokh page in 2003, and makes no mention of Spitzer (i.e. me). The footnote needs to be either corrected or dropped. Can these things be corrected? Thanks.Moak7509 (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Footnote 12 similarly goes to a random web page relating to the subject of guns, but no mention of Spitzer there, either. This note needs to be either corrected or dropped. And can the two warning boxes at the top of the essay now be removed?Moak7509 (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

My mistake on footnote 12, to this extent: I went to the site again (it's called "Instapundit" and run by a right wing lawyer and commentator, Glenn Reynolds) and it was this quote, posted in 2010: "I’d like to note that a lot of “respectable” commentators were, just a few years ago, calling the individual-rights theory of the Second Amendment absurd, ridiculous, and something that only (probably paid) shills for the NRA would espouse. (I’m talking to you, Garry Wills and Robert Spitzer, among others)." Reynolds, who is a supporter of the individual rights theory, is rather sarcastically criticizing my position on this issue. How does this sentence support anything to which the citation is attached in the text?Moak7509 (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, my mistake again, apparently. I rechecked Volokh, and it does mention Spitzer. In fact, Volokh (who is also a right wing lawyer) refers to me as "a strong proponent of gun control." These are the exact words that appear in the entry, but the cite appears in the middle of the phrase, and no quote marks appear around the phrase, which technically makes it plagiarism (a subject I teach every semester), so I will change this, even as I disagree with Volokh on this and many other things.Moak7509 (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote, and I dispute that "The consensus at the moment is weighted against this." Further, BLP violations are highly problematic and cannot be overruled by consensus. Do not write in Wikipedia's voice that which is merely the opinion of others. Do not use questionable, or blatantly unreliable sources for anything. Lightbreather appears to be entirely in the right. Hipocrite (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Moving disputed "advocate" citations here for possible future use/reference

These are the two disputed "RS" citations for Spitzer as an advocate. I am moving them here from the article main space for possible future use or reference.

  • "Vizzard, William J. (2000). Shots in the Dark: The Policy, Politics, and Symbolism of Gun Control. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 084769559X. Retrieved January 16, 2014." Ed. note: Vizzard is/was a colleague/friend of Gary Kleck, whose work Spitzer critiqued.
  • "Manapsal, Elizabeth (April 23, 2008). "Foreign Countries Divergent in Strictness of Gun Control". Cornell Daily Sun. Retrieved January 16, 2014." Ed. note: Student newspaper.

I want to verify my commentary on Vizzard re: Kleck and Spitzer. Am putting it here for now until I can do that.

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, um no. These are virtually the only refs not written by the subject in this article. If you have issues take them to RS/N. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
That is untrue. Since this is a BLP, and several editors object to use of the term, and the living subject objects to its use, can we please at least move it out of the lead while the article is developed a bit more? Do y'all not recognize that this could be damaging to his career? If you remember, this all started when I came over here to develop the article. Sue followed me here within one hour of my arrival, inserted this label (well, she started with activist). The next day, the prof. appeared as an activist on a Google search. This is all we've discussed since.
Out of the lead. Is that acceptable for now? Lightbreather (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Damaging to a career? Really? That isn't likey given the subject's massive public appearances on this issue. Who is surprised or concerned when a prominent and well-respected academic who has publicly advocated for reasonable gun control for decades is described in a brief bio as an "advocate"? I am reading SUNY Cortland professor advocates a sensible approach to guns, from New York to Arizona from the Syracuse Post-Standard [3] It sure seems like a public proclamation of advocacy. As the newspaper's headline identifies him as advocating national gun policy it doesn't seem to have hurt. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
More to the point, to put into a bio what reliable sources say about the subject of a biography is how Wikipedia works. That's how it works no matter what the subject of the bio might like. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Quotes

Who picked those quotes? Why were they picked? Why do you believe they are indicative of his standard quotes? The subject disputes their propriety as summary. Don't you think we should observe the subjects wishes with respect to pull quotes? Hipocrite (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

They outline the subject's advocacy on gun control. That is why they were picked. ...and please don't add any 3RR notices to my talk page because I replaced them, they have stood for 4 days. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Who determined that they outline his advocacy? Was that an editorial decision by you? Do you feel that's appropriate in light of the subject saying they do not appropriately outline his advocacy, and are taken out of context? Hipocrite (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
By "stood for 4 days" you mean "were removed multiple times by multiple people and reinserted by you over 2 days," right? [4], [5]. I mean, come on. Hipocrite (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue about it. I have a 1RR rule, so if you think I've slipped-up and done three reverts in 24 hours feel free to report it, I'll deserve it. But you'll find that I'm very careful about that. And you can stop trying to bait me. I won't respond to any such nonsense again. Can we go back to talking about the article now? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
You're at 2 reverts. Sure, let's talk about the article - "Who determined that they outline his advocacy? Was that an editorial decision by you? Do you feel that's appropriate in light of the subject saying they do not appropriately outline his advocacy, and are taken out of context?" Hipocrite (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Two words: media law.

First, writers - whether reporters for newspapers or special contributors - rarely write their own headlines. Editors do that, and it's one of the hardest jobs to do well.

Second, professional journalists study media law.

Third, because of #2, no good reporter or editor calls any living (or recently deceased) person something contentious without a preponderence of high-quality sources to back it, because to do so could ruin their own reputation, the reputation of their publisher, and possibly invite a costly lawsuit.

Fourth, Wikipedia is essentially a publisher. I keep pointing y'all to the WP:BLP policy... What exactly are you not getting? Is our relative anonymity here as editors and contributors a license to defame? You should get current copies of a good writer's guide (like The Associated Press Stylebook) and cozy-up with the media law section. There is also a media law article here on Wikipedia, though I can't vouch for its quality.

If Wikipedia's reputation is important to you (regardless of your concern for Prof. Spitzer) you'll back off this OR and synthesis. Lightbreather (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you are getting a bit precious here. Journalists and editors are notoriously and routinely wrong on some of the facts of their stories, and media law is enforced only when someone has enough money and power to make a lawsuit stick against a giant corporation. What matters in this situation is the rules here at Wikipedia: No OR and RS only particularly in BLP.
Professor Spitzer's characterisation as a pro-control advocate in the media is not necessarily wrong; it just has not appeared in a form that makes it easy to support it in Wikipedia, ie an S that is so R it cannot be refused. The good Professor might prefer to be portrayed with a background of thick leatherbound books and a sunbeam slicing through the dancing motes of the cloister to highlight his long grey beard and twinkling expression of profound enlightenment (eyeroll). It is circular reasoning when he lists himself being introduced as a researcher and political scientist as some kind of proof he is not an activist. When he engages in advocacy those credentials allow him to 'argue from authority'. That authority is a cashable asset that gets degraded if a journalist might one day feel obliged to add 'and advocate'. Damage his career - fat chance, it is his marketability as a speaker and level of credibility as a TV expert for his causes that is at issue.
A BLP on wikipedia can only report reliable sources. If insufficient RS acknowledge his advocacy, there are better ways the facts can be conveyed in Wikipedia. For instance, to accurately and neutrally summarise a series of his public positions, with RS references, instantly shows the general tenor of his advocacy as facts, without potentially contentious name-calling. ChrisPer (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that journalists are never wrong, I only meant that journalism schools and newsrooms pound into writers' and editors' heads that when it comes to calling a living person something there could be serious consequences if they screw up. Their publisher could get sued - and they could get fired. I won't comment about what you said about the professor, but I do agree with what you wrote about no OR and RS in BLP. What WP:BLP says is what I've been saying all along: use high-quality sources and write conservatively. Lightbreather (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
No sorry necessary. After all, you are right about the standards we are held to. ChrisPer (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

On American presidency

FYI: I have started collecting some sources for an "On American presidency" section for Spitzer's article in my sandbox. I hope to add that section soon, but right now I'm concentrating on improving the quality of the sources on the existing material. Lightbreather (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

This is good. The entire topic of gun control currently is receiving massively undue weight in the article relative to everything else that Professor Spitzer has worked on and accomplished. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Newyorkbrad. I am working on this topic today. Lightbreather (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I added this section. I trust that you (Newyorkbrad) will let me know if I've done anything wrong. I think it's much improved now, IMHO, but I intend to add a little bit more. Lightbreather (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Notability - see WP:NACADEMICS

Re: a couple editors' claim that the subject is only notable for his comments on gun control: I just found WP:NACADEMICS. I knew there must be something like this somewhere. What I'd found at BLP had some applicable points, like the high- vs. low-profile discussion, but this NACADEMICS thing nails it, so I'm crossing THAT off my list. Lightbreather (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Spitzer_(political_scientist)/Archive_2&oldid=1265017842"