If can be shown as a fact, with a definitive number, that most academia is a few degrees of separation from Putin (and Erdos number would do just that), it would be a potent counterpoint.
I disagree with this. However, that's not the real problem. What you're essentially doing is looking for information to support your rant. Such questions don't really fit this site.
The problem is that people who disagree with your assertion that the left is closer tied to Putin than the right is will post answers pointing out that disagreement. So we can either spend all our time weeding the question to keep it on-topic, or we can do the simple thing and close the question.
Most of the people who disagree with you will do so for different reasons than I would. I would agree with your basic thesis that the left is closer to Putin than the right. However, I really don't care about academia. And I don't know that Putin's Erdos number says anything about most academics. His co-authors perhaps. But I don't know that I agree that people two or more degrees away from Putin are tied to him in any meaningful way.
For that matter, what if we established that 100% of academics are personal lackeys of Putin? The typical liberal would simply say that it doesn't matter. They aren't working in government positions. That's not a potent counterpoint.
Note that the left isn't complaining about random business people being tied to Putin. They are claiming that Donald Trump is. To make that case, they tie specific figures with ties to Trump to Putin. So the people that I would like to tie to Putin are people like Schumer and Schiff. I.e. people that are criticizing Trump for too close a relationship with Putin. One does that by tying them to people who have ties to Putin. More direct ties than coauthorship of an academic paper.
Liberals still might deny, but it would change the conversation somewhat.
Is it a political advocacy site?
I'm not sure how you get it being a political advocacy site out of closing that question. One of the reasons to close that question would be that you are asking it to work on a political advocacy argument. I.e. it is in part to avoid becoming a political advocacy site that we close questions like that.
Overall, the question has a number of problems:
- Erdos number has nothing to do with politics.
- Putin's Erdos number has little to do with politics, although someone might perhaps use it to make a political argument.
- Calculating Putin's Erdos number is quite broad. As you note, it first requires listing every co-author he's had. That would be Too Broad in and of itself.
- And your whole point with the question is to make a political argument.
Any of those would justify closing the question.
If we thought that you were genuinely trying to learn something, we might try to edit the question into shape. However, the only thing you want is support for your argument.
We simply don't do that. If we left the question open, it would be to explain why the argument doesn't work the way that you think it would.
