Talk:Robert Spitzer (political scientist)

message: I have two problems with images used in this article. They are "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Robert_Spitzer_Political_Activist.jpg" and "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Politics_of_gun_control_book_cover_-_written_by_activist_Robert_Spitzer.jpg". Both image files have "activist" in their names - which is absolutely unnecessary. They should simply be Robert_Spitzer_Political_Scientist.jpg and Politics_of_gun_control_book_cover.jpg. Lightbreather (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think enough is enough. The word was removed from the article. You are free to upload your own images if you like, but if you plan to upload identical images just with the intention of whitewashing a single word, that seems a little crazy. The man is an activist. If you don't like the dictionary definition, or see some negative connotation to it, there are plenty of synonyms to use. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If Robert J. Spitzer, political scientist, is an activist, there should be plenty of high-quality, reliable, verifiable sources who call him an activist. You (and by extension, the Wikipedia project) are calling him that based on your own research and a dictionary definition. That's WP:OR and against WP:BLP, IMO. I hope more, better editors (than you or I) come along to fix this. I'm tired of having my edits reverted. Lightbreather (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not calling him anything. I removed the word per consensus. I even removed it from other pages. But that's all I'm doing, as I am not the one taking issue with the word. I am not on a crusade. Use whatever word you like, so long as it accurately describes the man's politics. (ie. "advocate", "proponent", "promoter", etc.,  all are fine) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with images used in this article 

message: I will point out that if you look at the Wikipedia Category Structure, you will find that the word "advocate" is the word Wikipedia uses for people on BOTH sides of the issue, for example "Category:Gun Rights Advocates" or "Category:American Gun Control Advocates". There is already a wide consensus to use that neutral word, so it should be the word we use. Those categories literally have hundreds of happy BLPs in them. Hopefully, this information will allow us to move on to more important things now. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The word "advocate"

message: Lightbreather, if you do not know how to upload images, please have someone help you. I replaced the broken image with a new one. It does not use the word "activist". Also please use the discussion page and get a consensus before making these edits. You do not own the page. Wikipedia is a community effort. Thank you. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't upload anything. Are you maybe referring to the renames that User:ANGELUS made by request? There is a history of those changes on the talk pages for the image files. I made the request per advice at the Teahouse. Lightbreather (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies for making that assumption, you did the right thing attempting to get someone to help you. I will take the issue up with him. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Lightbreather, you broke the page

message: This article unacceptably labels a researcher as an activist or advocate.
Sue, I am very sorry to see that your zeal to keep checking the details of Lightbreather's editing has carried over into an article about a living person and has lead to concerns by that person. You need to back off here and leave the editing of this article to other editors. Others can watch what Lightbreather does. You have stepped outside your area of expertise here. Articles about living people carry certain responsibilities. And you are not familiar with the academic world.
About sources: Biographies of living persons may never use self-published sources as sources about the subject unless they are written or published by the subject. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid self-published sources. As long as the article is not based primarily on sources written by the subject they may be used as sources of information about themselves. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. What is that self-published source tag doing on the first reference? We expect to see professors' websites as sources on their pages.
About pictures: Using a copyrighted image of a living person in an article is not "fair use". It is a copyright violation. See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable use.
About the academic world: Spitzer is a political scientist. His work is studying gun control, not advocating for gun control. He is not a gun control activist. He is often interviewed as an expert on gun control. An appearance on the Diane Rehm show is not advocacy. He is there as an expert who studies the area and can answer questions about and analyze what is going on. Nothing in that  interview nor the one in the Huffington post shows him doing the advocating. Neither Activist Views nor Gun Control Advocacy is an appropriate name for a section in this article. Both labels could be used to argue that he is not an unbiased researcher. He is correct in objecting to this.
Sue, you have written the sentence "Since the 1980s, Spitzer has written books, spoken at public gatherings, written articles for newspapers, and appeared on countless radio and television shows in support of gun control, and has established himself as a passionate and robust supporter of gun control." The references that you put at the end of the sentence don't say this. They are just the record of two interviews (the npr link only goes to the main page). The conclusion appears to be your own. An encyclopedia article just reports. It does not do analysis nor draw conclusions, though it may report on analysis done by others. A paragraph on who has interviewed Spitzer belongs in a "puff piece", not here. In this state this article reflects poorly on Wikipedia.
StarryGrandma (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to make the point again that  you don't need permission from anyone to edit this or any article.  You have stated your conflict of interest, which is all that is asked.  Keep in mind that anything that you add that anything you added that is not neutral or is promotional will likely be removed, but as long as it is reliably sourced, there should be no problem.  Cheers. I am One of Many (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Prof. Spitzer. I have removed that tag. BTW, please don't think that self-published sources are never acceptable. They are under certain circumstances described at the WP:BLP page under Using the subject as a self-published source. Thanks for working with us on this. Lightbreather (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spitzer is not an activist or an advocate. 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agree. Lightbreather (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Robust and Passionate

message: 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)
thread_title: Duplicated Material

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  By "stood for 4 days" you mean "were removed multiple times by multiple people and reinserted by you over 2 days," right? , . I mean, come on. Hipocrite (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you, Newyorkbrad. I am working on this topic today. Lightbreather (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  On American presidency 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re: Notability - see WP:NACADEMICS 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Robert Spitzer (political scientist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131230101059/http://www.gvpt.umd.edu/lpbr/subpages/reviews/spitzerarms.htm to http://www.gvpt.umd.edu/lpbr/subpages/reviews/spitzerarms.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131230143959/http://www.gvpt.umd.edu/lpbr/reviews/2008/09/saving-constitution-from-lawyers-how.html to http://www.gvpt.umd.edu/lpbr/reviews/2008/09/saving-constitution-from-lawyers-how.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140118040250/http://harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/recent_pubs0209.pdf to http://harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/recent_pubs0209.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified