Misplaced Pages

Talk:John Lott: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:57, 17 February 2006 editPierremenard (talk | contribs)1,093 edits huh?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:53, 25 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,114 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:John Lott/Archive 5) (bot 
(754 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Controversial}} {{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|listas=Lott, John|1=
]
{{WikiProject Biography}}
]
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Firearms|class=C|importance=low}}
| blp=yes
}}
{{Old moves|title1=John Lott|title2=John Lott (econometricist)|title3=John Lott (political activist)|title4=John R. Lott
| list = ], ]}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|algo = old(365d)
|archive = Talk:John Lott/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 5
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|minthreadsleft = 6
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
}}


== NPOV == == Page Name ==


{{u|The Gnome}}, would you be opposed to changing the name to John Lott (firearms researcher), (firearms activist) or similar. Lott is really known for for his firearms research and activism, not political activism in general. ] (]) 10:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I will allow the NPOV tag to remain up for exactly 48 hours unless the inserter of said tag takes a specific and concrete NPOV dispute and writes it up in the ready made format, below
*Greetings, ]. I agree that Lott is mostly known for this particular aspect of his activism, i.e. defending and promoting the institutional freedom of gun ownership and use, but perhaps we should hesitate before changing the title from the general to the specific. Lott, per sources, is a prominent person in American right-wing politics, and, consequently, ready to be active in other issues that are important to the right. We cannot ignore he's already involved, as pointed out in the article, in issues such as ], ], ], ], and ]. Should we perhaps wait some time before we narrow this down? -] (]) 11:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
**I see your point. I'm not sure I'm convinced but I see nothing wrong with taking a wait and see approach. ] (])
***I agree, IMO it needs to be changed to what he is actually noted for (IMO, an author). Also, if some feel that an author's work is activism, that does not change that they are an author. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 14:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
***:"Author" and not economist, researcher, activist or gun rights advocate? ]] 14:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
***::I think "researcher" would be a close second, but not economist and the others.<b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 20:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
***:::But not a researcher either, according to what's now in the article. Advocate works better, or his detractors would call him a polemicist, I suppose.]] 20:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
***::::He also self-identifies as an economist, and current mainstream references mostly introduce him as an author or president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. But I think "author" is best for a one word disambig.<b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 20:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
***:::::What about firearms author or firearms advocate? I think he is most known for his work related to firearms. I don't like activist because that can come off as just someone who makes noise about a subject but ignores Lott's scholarship in this and other subject areas. I'm OK with things like author though I think someone who see's "author" might think this is a different Lott. Again, since I associate him with firearms topics I would find anything that isn't "firearms..." to make me do a double take. ] (]) 01:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
***::::::I think that you're mostly right. But we need to keep in mind that this is basically a 1 or 2 word disambig, not a summary of the person. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 01:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
*I don't see political activist being to far off the mark, but what we should be focusing on is what the CONSENSUS OF RELIABLE SOURCES SAY, not what any one of us thinks it should say. ] (]) 17:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
:*Lott makes the news as an activist whose fields of interest are gun rights (mostly) and assorted other ones of interest to the American right-wing side of the aisle. That's what ]. He's not much known as an economist, while his work in research is almost exclusively in support for his political advocacy. Again, per ]. -] (]) 19:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
::*A literal list of what the best RS call Lott is kinda what I'm hoping for, for transparency's sake. Looking at the article though, and seeing as how he has branched off from his original pro-gun advocacy "research" and currently receives his recent notoriety from a variety of political hot topics, I have a hard time disagreeing with ] at this point. He could be perceived as political advocate from the start, given his research was questionable at times, as it leaned in certain very PREDICTABLE directions. Then there's the Mary Rosh debacle, which hits about as close to home as it gets for Misplaced Pages editors. ] (]) 19:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
*He's known for his firearm related books. If the books are characterized by some or many as advocacy, they are still an author. If not, then we have thousands of author articles to rename. Which is a whimsical way of saying that such is not the norm. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
::The question should be, "which citations say that?", and "How do we weigh older VS current citations in that regard?" Currently, he is more well known for claiming the 2020 election was fraudulent, see . ] (]) 20:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
::: That's RECENT and honestly, also your opinion. ] (]) 21:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
::::This old chestnut again? See your talk page. We are not doing this here. ] (]) 21:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
::Agree, his work in the area of firearms, which includes peer reviewed publications, is what he is primarily known for. Activist discounts his scholarship and, in my mind the bigger issue, is fails to say anything about his association with firearms which, I think most would agree, is what he is most known for. I also would be reluctant to base this off just recent sources as well as being careful about using popular media vs more rigorous sources. Honestly, I think it was fine the way it was without a disambiguation. ] (]) 19:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
:::His "research" has been questionable, at best. ] (]) 20:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
::::Says who? ] (]) 21:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::Try actually reading the article. If you are still confused and need me to start listing all the citations I will oblige after you have put in some effort. Cheers! ] (]) 21:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::How many of those are from people who are motivated to discredit his conclusions because they don't like the conclusion? ] (]) 13:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::::This is absolutely the wrong question for you to even ask. Let's avoid ] by pretending there's some nefarious force at work to discredit JL. Use the cited reliable sources and stop using ]. ] (]) 18:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


*Based on a page view analysis this is clearly the wp:PRIMARYTOPIC. It was also the original topic. I think the name change should be reversed. ] (]) 13:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
: You will allow? There are long discussions on the errors that Lambert and friends want to insert in this biography, though you all want to move those discussions to the archives or worse cut them out when they don't go your way. Why not accept the warning label?
:*I agree. For the reasons above, plus long standing, plus the undicussed new one is very POV ish. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 14:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
:*There's far too much going on that isn't about guns here -- the article itself makes this abundantly clear. ] (]) 14:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
:*Things have changed for John Lott over time, however he has a very long and well documented history of political partisanship, so I strongly disagree at this point. ] (]) 17:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
:::If someone is known for being an author, opinions on his works do not change that. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 18:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
::::Again, cite your sources that say he is "just an author". ] (]) 18:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::I never said "just an author" nor is what I wrote dependent on that. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 18:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::Then please be more clear with what you are saying. Is there a consensus of reliable sources that suggests he is NOT politically oriented, contrary to the current list of reliable sources that suggest he is a political actor? ] (]) 18:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::::That's a new question, and my response is that it not the relevant one to or the standard for the topic at hand. The question at hand is a short disambig (if any) for the title of the article. People are advocating that disparagement of an author's work by his political opponents means that he should be not be called an author. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::::How exactly is it a disparagement? Do you and JL speak on the daily, and did he tell you he felt disparaged? I wouldn't consider it a disparagement, just a well documented and reliably sourced fact. ] (]) 22:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Oh, I thought we were talking about the disambig. Well if he didnt want peers to disparage his work, maybe he should have done his job without all the shortcuts....] (]) 22:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC) In any case, reliable sources or no? He is a political actor, and likely has been through most of his career. Reliable sources show that explicitly. ] (]) 23:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
:*If there's one attribute whose use to distinguish this Lott (no pun intended) I'd strongly oppose it would be "author." Although authors can be activists and vice versa, and from then on it all depends on each person, our Lott (ditto) is certainly not "mostly known" as an author. That is how he's often denoted when introducing him in texts, interviews, etc, and perhaps how some people see him, but most ] out there clearly show that Lott's a quite energetic, popular, and busy ''political advocate''. Whether we should specify the particular issue of activism he's known for is another discussion, the main one. -] (]) 15:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
*Our objective should be to use the term that best helps readers determine this is the ] they are looking for. {{u|Springee}}'s term "firearms advocate" seems closest. I would suggest however "gun advocate" as better. I don't think readers will think, "I'm looking for the John Lott who said the election was stolen, not the gun advocate" and give up on finding him. ] (]) 23:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
::Our objective is to say what the consensus of reliable sources say. Read the article. Without cited sources, all of this is pure opinion and conjecture. Anything else at this point kind of feels like a waste of time. Ping me when you find those citations and I'll be happy to continue the conversation here. ] (]) 23:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
:::I did a Google news search for and . The ratio of stories was 1:3. When limited the range to news before 1 Nov 2020 I found that almost all of those articles that mentioned elections were about gun laws related to elections. He is clearly best known as a gun researcher/advocate. I would be OK with TFD's "gun advocate". ] (]) 01:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
::::As in gun laws, AKA politics? ] (]) 02:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::A very specific subset of politics. ] (]) 02:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::His {{xt|"John R. Lott Jr. is an American economist with an extensive background and history in politics, economics and gun rights advocacy.}} Google shows the following numbers in search: (Google Trends showed a low count with most going to his complete name)
::::::*640k John Lott economist;
::::::*943k John Lott political activist;
::::::*1.130 mil John Lott gun control;
::::::*1.290 mil John Lott gun rights;
::::::*2.080 mil John Lott author - <sup>added 16:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)</sup>
::::::*3.240 mil John Lott politician.
::::::I think (politician) would be misleading since he's an economist not a congressman or the like, and if we're going to use activist (which does not reflect a dispassionate tone, and it's rather dubious) I would support (economist), or (economist, gun rights), or (gun rights activist) which actually is his avocational position. ] ] ] 13:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::::I agree with this. I tried "John Lott advocate" and the first search result is , on which he self-describes as an "advocate". So I would think '''John Lott (gun rights advocate)''' is a strong alternative.]] 14:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::::That would be more useful than the current recently added "political activist" which is both pretty worthless from a disambig standpoint and also not a good choice. Although I still think that "author" is best. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 15:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::North8000, I added the Google search #s. I also noticed that ] (a lawyer and politician) was recently added to the dab which may cause readers a bit of political confusion. Either way, gun rights advocate or author or maybe "author, gun rights advocate" will cover all the bases. ] ] ] 16:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::Given the entirety of his work and not just his authorship and pro-gun advocacy, we should try to encompass the clearest picture possible. As I understand it, "An activist is a person who makes an intentional action to bring about social or political change while an advocate is one who speaks on behalf of another person or group." His stint at the DOJ, research on the 2000 election, abortion, illegal immigration, women's suffrage, affirmative action, environmental regulations and most recent voter fraud claims all seem to bare at least some weight, if not much at least current trends. While activist and advocate are sometimes interchangeable, I think I would be fine with either at this point with politics being at the root, and in line with current RS. Even perhaps both depending on consensus and or MOS? ] (]) 20:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


*I think that there are two issues with the recent (current) title. One is that it does a weak job on the disambig job that it is supposed to do. The other is that characterizing somebody with such a range of work (authorship etc.) as just "political activist" is somewhat negative POVish. I think that "advocate" solves the latter and helps a little on the former. We should just list the top 3-4 ideas and then everybody who has been involved here here weigh in on ''every one'' of them (to avoid math problems) and see if a decision comes out of that. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 20:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
:: If there is no NPOV dispute, or there is no discussion on talk, the tag is not accurate. There is a lot of discussion on talk about how you hate Tim Lambert. There is no discussion on talk about the article. Below is a ready made section for you to discuss NPOV problems. Use it. ] - ] 19:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
:*Not to change the subject, but I'm trying to understand why ''"political activist" is somewhat negative POVish''? How is the label a ] issue? Or is it something else? Honest question, I swear. ] (]) 20:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
:::Because having the top level description of somebody who engages in a profession simply say "political activist" in lieu of what that noteworthy profession is is IMO somewhat negative POVish. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 21:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
:::*I obviously disagree with prioritizing a personal opinion over the consensus of RS. His work as a researcher has often been largely skewed or flawed, and as a result, commonly disputed by peers. At least that's what RS seems to say. ] (]) 17:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
:::*For example, if a John Smith, climate change researcher and author actively advocates for government to mandate carbon reduction, would you title their article ] because of their activism, or would it be climate change researcher or climate change author or researcher or author? <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 21:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::It would entirely depend on RS. ] (]) 17:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
:*Oh, come on, ]! "Negative POVish"?! That's truly too much. You actually think that denoting your example's John Smith a political activisty instead of climate-change researcher would somehow denigrates his ideology/work? It may not be accurate or disambiguation-friendly but "negative"? -] (]) 05:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
*Of the suggestions thus far I think '''John Lott (gun rights advocate)''' is the best. While I think "author", "economist" etc are all valid, the goal is to help a reader quickly know they are going to the right article. Based on web searches it appears that Lott is most associated with his work in firearms (research/writing/advocacy/etc). I would also note that we are starting from a point of no consensus since the "prior consensus" was just his name. ] (]) 13:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
::It appears to me that you have consensus for that. Does anyone disagree that there's consensus for '''gun rights advocate'''?]] 19:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
:::Not my first choice, but fine with me. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
:::Not my first choice either. However, gun rights are a form of politics, so it's slightly closer to the mark, but it seems to ignore everything he's been involved in over the last 10+ years. I think I'm undecided at this point. I realize we take search criteria/results into account, google trends etc (atsme's results are interesting - "*3.240 mil John Lott politician" seems to be the highest but is that the same John R Lott we are discussing?), but how do we prioritize that versus the RS we already have in the article? ] (]) 19:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::To whimsically make a point on the distinction between coverage of him and a disambig title, I think that "John Lott (human being)" would be most widely supported by sources, but not a good choice for a Misplaced Pages disambig purposes, which is a different question. The question and task is disambig in view of the other John Lott articles on Misplaced Pages, or in view of what the reader is searching for. Nobody is going to he search for "human being" or "political activist" or distinguish him from others based on those terms. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 21:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
::::If we don't agree on something pretty soon, somebody will come along and propose '''John Lott (conspiracy theorist)''' and then we'll have a real mess on our hands.]] 20:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::I didn't know there was a time limit? The lead currently says "is an American economist, political commentator, and gun rights advocate. 2 out of those three suggest political leanings. What am I missing? ] (]) 23:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::I would also note from ] "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public." If other editors want to say he is a conspiracy theorist, I doubt they could back it up with RS. ] (]) 23:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
* ''']''' avoids the problems with trying to ID him with a parenthetical description. In his economics papers such as , which has nothing to do with political activism or firearms, that's the name he uses. – ] (]) 23:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
::I'm fine with that if it solves the problem. ] (]) 23:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
::I think our readers will not know his middle initial and that we need a disambiguation that relates to the most likely searches for him. Yes he has worked on other issues and published on other subjects, but he stands out as one of the foremost and best-credentialed gun rights advocates. Few accredited academics are to be found among gun rights advocates, and he rose to the forefront by virtue of this approach to the issues.]] 00:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
:::Again, what am I missing? Are we supposed to prioritize/concern ourselves with search terms over RS or not? Does everyone else agree that readers will see his middle initial and get confused? Pinging ] and {{u|The Gnome}} since they haven't weighed in yet. The whimsical point made by North did make some sense, but I was hopeful at the thought of a quick solution by a simple initial. I would also like to whimsically suggest the name Mary Rosh as an alternative (I'm kidding of course). ] (]) 01:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
:::I don't think his middle initial is particularly confusing, and his name does appear as "John R. Lott" or "John R. Lott Jr." in quite a lot of places. Regarding searches, if you google "John Lott" you will still easily get to this page, as it will appear on google (or the disambiguation page) as "is an American economist, political commentator, and gun rights advocate"; I don't think the middle initial will lead to anyone at all hoping to land on this page becoming unable to out of confusion. ] (]) 02:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
::I '''support ]'''. He has done a lot of things, so any one occupation will not describe him fully and will leave some editors unhappy. He often quotes his own name as "John R. Lott" or "John R. Lott Jr.", see e.g. , , and the economics paper linked above. He's not the only one, see e.g. his short biography at , which is titled "John R. Lott". ] (]) 02:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': On the basis of all the above, I believe that '''John Lott (gun rights advocate)''' is the consensus choice, and I'd add my ] to it were it on paper. I suppose we can proceed with that. -] (]) 05:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


*I think that long standing title John Lott is best. Due to the huge difference in degree of prominence (2 of the others even have zero suitable sources and probably wouldn't even survive an AFD), keep the long standing name John Lott and then a disambig line and link to a disambig page for the others. Basically, revert from the undiscussed change to the long standing name and plan. 2nd best would be John Lott (Author) because that provides disambig and also the specific role that he is best known for. Further down the list but also OK would be John Lott (gun rights advocate). The current new title is a very bad idea. It's also fine with me to add his middle initial to any of the above. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 13:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
::: There are so many disputes that haven't been responded to. It is amazing to read how much time and effort Al Lowe has spent on this. Others haven't spent as much time as Lowe, but there are other substantial discussions. I think that Al Lowe got it right when he wrote: "The article on John Lott clearly fails the NPOV test. And of course, if anyone tries to put in anything that responds to the opposing viewpoint, it is removed, and the poster labeled a sock puppet or accused of Misplaced Pages:Vandalism. This happens regardless the accuracy of the edits, which do NOT take away from the opposing views, but instead attempt to respond to them, in a balancing act.Al Lowe 15:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)" See also: "You people are making a mockery of wikipedia.---Cbaus - December 21, 2005 4:01 p.m. EDST USA"
:::For some links to past discussions see:
:::1)
:::2)
:::3)
:::4)
:::5)
:::6)
:::7)
:::8)
:::9)


::I don't think his middle initial would be necessary if it isn't just being used to disambiguate this page with other people named John Lott. For the record though, out of all the ] proposals I've seen, I think '''(gun rights advocate)''' is the best. ] (]) 13:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
::::Hogwash. Take one of the so called problems, and write below. ] - ] 23:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
*Since ] is the one that originally added political activist and has now agreed to gun rights advocate, I will also '''support''' this decision. ] (]) 16:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
*I see we have a ] here on '''gun rights advocate'''. I check to the raiser {{smiley}} and suggest that ] closes down this discussion and changes the title. -] (]) 07:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
::Hmmm.... I sense a trap ( :D /hummor). Given the previous archive issues I don't want to risk messing things up now that I know it has to be done in a special way. {{u|wbm1058}} can you help with this move? ] (]) 11:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
::: wp {{smiley}} -] (]) 13:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
::::Recapping a portion of my post, the current title is really bad, and that change would be an improvement which I support doing, even if not my 1st choice.<b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 14:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


*I just moved to ''']'''. While there is a consensus that he is not primary for the name ], which I confirmed when I found the need to correctly disambiguate the mathematician on ] and ], I'm not seeing enough consensus to settle on a specific parenthetical yet. The <code>{<nowiki/>{short description|American economist, political commentator, and gun rights advocate}}</code> and lead sentence lists "gun rights advocate" third behind economist and political commentator so it is not clear from the article that he's primarily known for gun rights. ] doesn't even mention gun rights. I suppose if the bulk of his political commentary is about matters of either economics or gun rights then "political commentator" may be considered redundant but I think ] should be considered. I suggest a followup ] discussion be started to ensure wide notification and broad participation, if the middle initial isn't sufficient enough for clear identificaiton. – ] (]) 01:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
::::: "Hogwash" seems to pass for all the response that you are willing to give to all these posts. I may not know as much as these guys do, but it is clear that you are not interested in a discussion. However, just for the sake of discussion, take Timewarp's first point about "Why call Lott's research as being just on deregulation?" Timewarp proposed a concrete change, and he got nothing in return. His second point is a request to you: " I can not find one place where you provide even one example of a peer-reviewed research producing a result that is the opposite of Lott." That is just his first two points.
:*You were asked for technical assistance, not a close or supervote. Please undo the move, and if you are not comfortable with the consensus request, we will ask elsewhere for help. Thanks.]] 01:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
::*The process discussion could get pretty complex. But IMO Wbm1058's idea is even better. A middle initial to make it unique, without tackling the problematic task of trying to characterize him in the disambig title. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 01:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
::*Rather than view my page move as a "close" or "supervote" I'd prefer it be viewed as a (potentially) intermediary move to (partially) revert the earlier bold move, and a <small>—&nbsp;'''''Relisting.'''''&nbsp;] (]) 01:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)</small>
::::You have no standing to put your opinion ahead of the informed talk page consensus. Please undo your action before we have a big problem here.]] 02:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::The reason I noted "The process discussion could get pretty complex" is that the the initial bold change was so complex and entangled that it was practically impossible to revert and go back to the longstanding name. It did not have even discussion much less consensus, and in subsequent discussion it certainly had no consensus. IMO the only clear cut thing that needed doing is a revert of the initial bold move and IMO the move to his name with a middle initial is the practical way to do just that. I know that the strongest support that I expressed was against the bold change and for the long standing title. I clearly said that my OK for the parenthetical title was merely a plan "B" to that, and regarding myself John R. Lott is a practical implementation of what I expressed the strongest support for. In any event, Wbm1058's take on their recent work as basically a revert of the bold move, with discussion of any proposed changes being the next step is I think a good approach. if there are still process questions, then IMO a full revert of ''everything'' to the long standing stable version would be the thing to do. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 02:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::This does seem like a reasonable solution. The only reason to have the (descriptor) is because we have two subjects with the same name. If we can avoid the name overlap without using the descriptor so much the better. We use that method for ] vs ]. It also seems like a reasonable way to avoid debates. After all, we only had this debate because it was felt this article couldn't be the primary topic for the name. ] (]) 16:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC){{od}}
::::::Ignoring an ongoing discussion and attempt at consensus does not "seem reasonable". When {{u|The Gnome}} made the change it at least had the appearance of acting in good faith. We have all been around long enough to know better. This does not look good. ] (]) 20:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
:*Wow, ]. Just wow! You were, peshaps half-jokingly, asked to offer strictly some technical assistance to the change. Yet, you ] by selecting the excuse about "intermediary" moves is lame, baseless, and counter-productive, since it only leads to more arguments. Kindly please revert the shambles. -] (]) 08:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
===Page move against consensus===
There were two moves that might have been permissible for an outside editor. Either undo the previous move, which had little support, or implement the consensus after long collaborative discussion on this page. The principle that an editor can parachute in when asked for ''techincal software assistance'' and supervote their own opinion in the guise of a "good compromise solution" is categorically against WP process and unacceptable disruptive and destructive. This page needs to go either to the new consensus compromise or back to its longstanding original title. I am prepared to go for enforcement if this abuse of process is not corrected.]] 16:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
*IMO there wasn't a consensus, just a sort of "I won't oppose/ lesser of two evils from many". Going back to the long standing version would be fine, but complex. IMO we 99% have the long standing stable version right now, with the only difference being the addition of his middle initial. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
::Then there should/could have been a call for an uninvolved close. Not a drive-by under false pretexts. And it would have been fine to revert to the longstanding at any time. You said OK, now you see a chance for a second bite at the apple so you change your mind. Well, you can change your mind but you can't change the fact that the recent move was against the then-agreed consensus.]] 19:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
:::I was pretty clear that the long standing stable version was most preferred and IMO we essentially have that. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
::::Agree with SPECIFICO, while john R lott would be preferable in my view, consensus takes priority in this case. ] (]) 20:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::John R Lott works for me. Can we accept this as a new consensus? ] (]) 20:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::If this is a joke, I don't get it. ] (]) 20:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::: Not a joke (not even sure why that was a thought). If enough people are ok the this vs a name with a descriptor can we just accept this as a new consensus? It came about in a bit of a backwards way but if we like it why not accept it? ] (]) 20:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Absolutely not. That's like saying a vigilante mob lynched a guy who turned out indeed to be a murderer, therefore kudos to the lynching. Stop the steal anyone? No. I am going to seek enforcement if this is not reverted either to John Lott or to the consensus as of the time of the supervote move to the current title.]] 20:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
*I agree in full with ]'s position as above. Irrespective of personal preferences, what transpired is truly inexcusable for an ]: There is an ongoing, and quite civil, discussion about the page title, with numerous editors pariticipating and many iews expressed. I deduced, perhaps correctly, perhaps incorrectly, that we had a consensus on some choice 'A'. Those who opposed my view could, of course, have registered their disagreement. Yet, ], whom an editor had only asked to techinically implement 'A', came in and implemented choice 'K' which did not carry ''anything'' near a consensus, claiming this would be an "intermediary" step; yet, this had been thus far neither a too long nor an unproductive discussion. ] could not have acted in a more incendiary way if they tried. -] (]) 09:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
::P.S. : If I had supported 'K' and witnessed my choice been implemented the way did, I'd protest. And I ''have'' done this in the past under similar circumstances. I don't care for grand words but I must state I always place '''the integrity of the project''' above all personal preferences. So, I do not appreciate at all the applause accorded by supporters of 'K' to ]'s legerdemain. -] (]) 09:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
:::I too value process. There are a few ways to look at it which might assuage your concerns. One is that there was never a real consensus for any changes. And the closest thing that there was to a consensus was against "activist" title. The "advocate" one at best was much much weaker one, and possibly not one at all. So the "middle initial" version could be seen as the "temporary" state as stated, or a revert to pragmatic "close enough" to the long standing stable version. I'm just saying that this is one way to look at it which you might find helpful, not arguing for it. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 17:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::There was enough consensus for the call to go out to what we thought was a good faith software helper to implement that consensus. There are already enough process failures among editors, but the discussion here was good and collaborative and a constructive compromise was reached. BTW I am fine with just leaving the status quo and given the light traffic on this article, I don't think it's worth any further worry.]] 19:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::SPECIFICO, I think your out of process concern is legitimate. Looking back at the discussion I can see enough editors supporting John R Lott and could see a good faith editor with experience in disambiguation based moves thinking this was the "least" change. However, you are correct that a consensus had formed around John Lott (gun rights advocate). As such the correct action would have either been to implement the consensus or pause and make a case why the alternative was, in the view of an editor experienced in these matters, better. Can we/should we come up with a "way forward" proposal? ] (]) 19:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Do we really have a problem with ] at worst that would mean that the very small number of users looking for a different Lott would click the disambiguation link prominently displayed at the top. That would be my suggestion. I'm more concerned about trimming the UNDUE gotcha thing about the graduation speech sucker punch hoax, and maybe seeing whether he has any recent noteworthy publications we could add.]] 20:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm fine with John Lott and I age with your thinking (at least I assume I do). It's really my first choice but my feeling was consensus was change was going to happen and it was just a question of what. Status quo is find by me. ] (]) 20:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::I think that it's good and best as-is. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 20:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


===Revert to long standing stable version===
:::::: Are those your two NPOV problems? No problem. Propose a concrete change for the first issue, and I'll accept it. I provided a number of links to research - additionally, it's listed all over the references section. Additionally, linking to research is not an NPOV problem. If you believe there is a WP:NOR violation somewhere, point it out (as was done before) and I'll go cite you the cite for it. ] - ] 00:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


IMO John R. Lott is close enough to the long standing stable version (John Lott) that but if Sprcifico insists, I'll try to revert to the long standing stable version or we should get that done. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 21:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::: Those were just the first two points in only that single section. Both were discussions you were involved in and both were discussions where you failed to respond to concrete suggestions for change. The date on that discussion is October and you still do not offer a response!
:I'll wait a bit / maybe we should wait a bit to see how the dust settles.<b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 21:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
::{{Done}} The disambiguation page and the American economist article are now back where they used to be (] and ] respectively). ] (]) 22:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


== Grad speech deception ==
:::::::: I just offered you a response. 1 - propose a change to the scope of his work that is neutral, verifiable and factual and I will make it myself and 2 - NOR is not an NPOV problem. ] - ] 00:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


{{u|SPECIFICO}}, I think the content is UNDUE for inclusion. You disagree but based on your revert comment do you think the content should have an entire subtopic? In the article we had only two sources. Additionally, given this was something done under false pretense I'm not sure we should give the source much comment. This is especially true since the group both lied about their nature and then deceptively cut the speeches to imply something that was false to the original comments. If we think this is due, fine, a 1-2 sentence blurb would cover it. I think this is kind of a reciprocity of weight question. Just because this might have weight in an article about the group who did the deception doesn't mean it's significant in an article about Lott. This really tells the readers nothing about Lott or his ideas/etc. Conversely, it says a lot about how this group uses the same deceptive tactics as a group like Project Veritas to try to discredit an ideological opponent. ] (]) 16:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::::: Since you were involved in this ealier debate, you know that a concrete proposal was already provided for both of these points by Timewarp, and you have decided to just pretend that it wasn't made in detail to you multiple times. Here was Timewarp's suggestion for the first point:
:Not sure at the moment, but it was remarkable he was taken in by the fraud. Lets find some RS commentary on how it plated out beyond the MSNBC universe.]] 16:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::: "Although Lott has published in academic journals regarding education, voting behavior of politicians, industrial organization, labor markets, judicial confirmations, and crime, his research is hard to consistently tag as liberal or conservative.
::I think RECENT should be considered but I also think your suggestion is reasonably prudent. ] (]) 16:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::: "For example, some research argues for environmental penalties on firms. While other research on guns is viewed as quite conservative. He has also published in the popular press on topics such as the validity of the ] results in ], or how low the murder rate in ] is after the US deposed ], he is primarily known outside of academic econometrics for his involvement in arguments regarding the beneficial results of allowing Americans to freely own and carry guns."


Does anyone have a ]? ] (]) 17:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::: *This is not accurate. The paper cite does not argue for environmental penalties on firms, it argues for the law and economics position, as was robustly discussed before (that's when John "Timewarp" Lott left the discussion, realizing that people were actually reading the papers he was citing). He is unknown inside and outside of academic econometrics except for the fact that he made up data. It is easy to tag Lott as "consistantly conseravtive and in line with the law and economics movement."] - ] 00:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
:I don't think any of us do but we can use judgement to decide if something has a lasting impact (ie the 10 year test) or is something that the news cycle talks about then forgets. This is particularly important when so much on line media is based around rapidly generating articles for clicks. I did a web search for "john lott graduation" dated Aug 2021 and later. The articles that came up were either dated to the time of the event (not sure why they showed up in my search) or they were not relevant. Basically this is an event that appears to have no lasting significance to Lott himself. ] (]) 18:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
::I think a lot of Lott's story is flash in the pan. He certainly has no mainstream stature today, whereas 15 years ago he was taken to be a serious researcher on several subjects. I wouldn't be too concerned about recentism, but other issues of weight remain to be tested.]] 18:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
::I would agree that this section is a bit much in comparison to the rest of the article. I would support trimming it down and making it a subsection like the others. ] (]) 18:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
:::Yes it could be trimmed rather than removed. We should concentrate on the RS reports, issues they raise, and relationship to his life's work and published research.]] 19:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


I have condensed it down, but it should be condensed even further. An article in Buzzfeed and a local TV news station about a stunt involving multiple people does not warrant multiple paragraphs of material in an article about one of the subjects of the stunt. It should at most be a sentence or two, and even then I'm not convinced it should be mentioned at all. ] (]) 04:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::: *Hipocrite might be "the expert" on law and economics, but my reading is that government penalties are needed to stop firms from polluting. Correct me if I am wrong, but Lott says that some crimes can be stopped by people paying less for products of criminal firms, but that apparently doesn't work to stop pollution. I thought that conservatives were arguing against government regulations. How many conservatives do you know that publish papers saying that we need the government and can not rely on firms themselves to stop pollution?


: I would also kill the paragraph about using a sock puppet 20 years ago. Does anyone care about anything so trivial? ] (]) 20:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::::: Finally, as pointed out before "Your tactic of bullying people until they leave is well established:
::No, that was not trivial. It was at the height of his academic credibility and was a violation of core norms at a time when these deceptions were much less widely understood and recognized. He got more mainstream coverage from that than for all his academic publications.]] 21:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
::: Not trivial? I am posting here under my real name, but most of those here on Misplaced Pages are using pseudonyms. It is very strange for a WP article to complain about someone using a pseudonym. There is no agreement about those "core norms". ] (]) 00:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
::::What RS that share your view? I have seen Many many RS view this as a serious breach.Half the talk page archives feature Mary Rosh issues. Including ]] 01:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
::While I can understand debating how much weight to give the sock puppet section, I don't think removal is in order. The false graduation speech was an example of a group lying to someone and then deliberately misrepresenting what a person with honest intent said in order to make their political point. Even if they are right and Lott is wrong, they are wrong/dishonest for what they did. Still, that shouldn't reflect on Lott other than suggesting he is perhaps too trusting. He didn't set out to deceive anyone. The sock puppet stuff is about Lott's own chosen actions. Lott might not have thought much of it at the time and we can argue if critics are blowing it up to be bigger (or not as big) than it should be. Regardless, it is something Lott himself did (or is accused of choosing to do). That active choice element is the difference in my book. Well that and the fake graduation thing really didn't get much coverage (a local station and the click bait harvesters at the BuzzFeedNews). Source that are sympathetic to Lott's general views like Reason talked about the sock puppetry. ] (]) 04:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
::: Yes, Lott used a pseudonym and his enemies mocked him for it. He is responsible for his choices. But who cares? For all we know, his enemies are actively editing his WP article under pseudonyms to say bad things about him. ] (]) 06:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
::::"But who cares" is not an argument. Basic rules of wiki are clear, to say what RS says. Please read the article before critisizing it any further, and maybe check some basic guidelines, too. That being said, you need to ] and remain ], which means no more poisoning the well. This article is also under discretionary sanctions. Maybe try "zooming out".....] (]) 07:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::I don't see anything outside of good faith on Roger's part. ] (]) 09:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
::::: The editors here may honestly believe that using a sock puppet is some great moral failing. Maybe even there are some reliable sources that say so, I don't know. To me, it seems trivial and not worthy of an encyclopedia article. ] (]) 00:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::Who is using a sock puppet? ] (]) 00:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::: The article says John Lott used a sock puppet 20 years ago. ] (]) 04:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::::I see, I wasn't sure what you meant but thank you for clarifying. In any case it is somewhat improper to make such statements as ''"For all we know, his enemies are actively editing his WP article under pseudonyms to say bad things about him."'' per ]. To claim he had enemies is also not clear and seems like POV without RS. According to sources, and his peers, his research is consistently lacking, to put it politely. Let's stick to RS and try not to keep bringing it back to what we think happened or is happening via ] or ]. ] (]) 17:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::::: I was not accusing anyone. I do not have any knowledge of his enemies. It is clear from the article that he has critics, either from controversial positions or those who say, as you put it, his research is lacking. It is useful to have links to scholarly criticism. But there is also the silly criticism, such as using a pseudonym and getting tricked into giving speech. ] (]) 02:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::I think I see your point on the speech incident, and I feel that a consensus to trim that down to a more appropriate size is currently in the works. The pseudonym bit, I will take a second look at, but I'm more confident that it is closer to an appropriate length and is properly cited. Whether or not it is "silly" is hard to use as a metric. ] (]) 05:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


== Graduation address ==
::::::::::::: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Purtilo&action=history
::::::::::::: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Stotts&action=history
::::::::::::: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Cbaus&action=history
::::::::::::: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Sniper1
::::::::::::: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Gordinier&action=history
::::::::::::: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Henry1776&action=history
::::::::::::: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Serinity&action=history
::::::::::::: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Alt37
::::::::::::: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Timewarp&action=history
::::::::::::: Lambert conceded sometime ago that I wasn't Lott, but only after having the gall of accusing me also of being Lott, just like he accused cbaus and everyone else. I long ago came to the conclusion that cbaus is right and that these constant attacks are the real reason people stop participating. The lack of reasonable response by you, Lambert, and others has convinced me that this discussion is a waste of my time.] 11:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


<blockquote>On June 4, 2021, two parents of a child killed in the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School misled Lott and David Keene into believing they were to give a dress rehearsal for a 2021 graduation address for a fictitious school called, "the James Madison Academy". The space for the audience was made up of 3,044 empty folding chairs which were meant to represent victims of school shootings. According to BuzzFeed News, Lott claims he was instructed "...they insisted that I had to have half the talk...be on background checks in particular", while Lott says this was his first commencement address, he went on to assert, "So I said well okay if that's really what you want I can do that but it seemed a little bit weird for a commencement address."
:::::::::::::: I decline to respond to this personal attack. The fact that Lott adheres to the Law and Economics dogma was discussed before. That you don't know what the Law and Economics movement believes shows that you lack the background to edit this article, not that we haven't done a good enough job explaining things to you. Also, stop working off the abstract of the paper. If you want to cite it, you'll need to go to the library and get the whole thing. ] - ] 23:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Lott discovered that the event was a staged attempt to call attention to school shootings, and not a genuine commencement address dress rehearsal when the parents orchestrating the faux event posted segments of video that was filmed of the "dress rehearsal" to the internet. Lott says, "I gave a 15-min address, what they put online is about one minute of that 15-minute address, and it kind of chops up and takes out of context numerous points I was making," he said. "So it's quite disturbing, in that sense." Lott then went on to say in an interview local Las Vegas news that he is not opposed to all forms of background checks, but simply that he believes that background checks made broadly discriminate against persons of color, primarily black and hispanic potential gun buyers.
Will Pregman, an activist associated with a progressive group based in Nevada called Battle Born Progress said of the event, "They agreed to speak to a school without doing, ironically, a background check to find out if this was a valid school or a real event."</blockquote>


So I would like to spit-ball some ideas for trimming this down to the real WEIGHTED portions and trim the less notable parts. Consequently, I also feel this should be a subsection like the others. Here's my take, just a rough draft, feel free to chime in.
::::::::::::::: 1) After your comment, I looked at the paper. Download it . 2) You are the one who vandalizes the webpages for Purtilo and Cbaus. Lambert, however, seems to make vandalizing people's sites and attacking them a full time job. 3) You all are still not responding to points raised. 4) Good bye for now. ] 23:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::: Whatever your problems with Lambert (who did in fact discover John Lott sock puppetting here and has never himself been reasonably suspected of sock puppetting anywhere), it has nothing to do with the content of the article. try and remember that. ] 06:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
::::::::: It is a waste of space and is completely unnecessary since you have already had this provided before, but here is one of the responses offered earlier on the second issue.
::::::::::''Peer-reviewd studies that discuss, replicate, duplicate or disagree with Dr. Lott's research'':
::::::::::*
::::::::::*
::::::::::*
::::::::::*
::::::::::*
::::::::::*
::::::::::*
::::::::::*
::::::::::*
::::::::::*
::::::::::*


<blockquote>On June 4, 2021, two parents of a child killed in the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School misled Lott and David Keene into believing they were to give a dress rehearsal for a 2021 graduation address for a fictitious school called, "the James Madison Academy". The space for the audience was made up of 3,044 empty folding chairs which were meant to represent victims of school shootings.
::::::::::''Other discussions regarding Lott's research, including non peer-reviewed research'':
Lott discovered that the event was a staged attempt to call attention to school shootings, and not a genuine commencement address dress rehearsal when the parents orchestrating the faux event posted segments of video that was filmed of the "dress rehearsal" to the internet. Lott went on to say that he is not opposed to all forms of background checks, but simply that he believes that background checks made broadly discriminate against persons of color, primarily black and hispanic potential gun buyers. Will Pregman, an activist associated with a progressive group based in Nevada called Battle Born Progress said of the event, "They agreed to speak to a school without doing, ironically, a background check to find out if this was a valid school or a real event."</blockquote>
...] (]) 18:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


: An improvement. I would drop the last sentence. It is just some nonsensical opinion from a nobody. How is it ironic? Does Lott getting conned somehow reflect on his research or his gun opinions? I don't see this as anything but some pranksters wasting someone's time. ] (]) 22:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::*
::I think that sentence can be removed from the article now. Non-notable person's opinion. Let's find a better reaction if any exists.]] 23:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::*
::If SPECIFICO finds something better I might be open to that. Personally, I think it adds some notable insight and NPOV balance regarding WEIGHT. To one side of the background check debate, this incident makes no sense and is seen as pointless, to the other side it's point is very clear in that it brings attention to the position of the importance of doing background checks. You may not see the irony, but I think many of those with a different perspective might. Considering in the previous sentence, Lott adds that he is not against all background checks, it seems to balance it out nicely. I wouldn't be opposed to switching them around so that Lott's statement is the last word, if that helps. Like so...
::::::::::*
::<blockquote>On June 4, 2021, two parents of a child killed in the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School misled Lott and David Keene into believing they were to give a dress rehearsal for a 2021 graduation address for a fictitious school called, "the James Madison Academy". The space for the audience was made up of 3,044 empty folding chairs which were meant to represent victims of school shootings. Lott discovered that the event was a staged attempt to call attention to school shootings, and not a genuine commencement address dress rehearsal when the parents orchestrating the faux event posted segments of video that was filmed of the "dress rehearsal" to the internet. Will Pregman, an activist associated with a progressive group based in Nevada called Battle Born Progress said of the event, "They agreed to speak to a school without doing, ironically, a background check to find out if this was a valid school or a real event. Lott went on to say that he is not opposed to all forms of background checks, but simply that he believes that background checks made broadly discriminate against persons of color, primarily black and Hispanic potential gun buyers."</blockquote>
::::::::::*
::...] (]) 23:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
:::I don't understand the point (if any) he's trying to make about racial demographics. Gun rights is about gun rights. Gun control is about gun control. Racial justice and equal opportunity is something else entirely.]] 23:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
::::He's talking about it in context to background checks. Seems fairly clear IMO. ] (]) 23:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
::::The two are not mutually exclusive, in other words. ] (]) 00:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
:I think DN's original suggestion is a clear improvement. I agree with Roger, the last sentence should go. If it will seem more balanced we could get rid of Lott's comments as well. As for the last sentence, it contradicts Lott's comments in his WSJ article. It also adds length to a section of questionable weight. Per Loot's comments he only mentioned the gun topics because he was asked to. ] (]) 00:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
::Yes but what else would he be asked to speak about if not gun rights?]] 00:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
::I'm not saying this is the hill I'm willing to die on, in a manner of speaking, but perhaps SPECIFICO is right that there may be something better out there that will help keep Lott's view, and the opposition's view on this, in a balanced perspective. If we want to trim it down further there are other options as well, such as ''"Lott discovered that the event was a staged attempt to call attention to school shootings,<s> and not a genuine commencement address dress rehearsal when the parents orchestrating the faux event posted segments of video that was filmed of the "dress rehearsal" to the internet.</s>... or even the whole sentence. ] (]) 00:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
:::My sense is that Lott was already marginalized several years before this event and that they just used him to mock the arguments of those who oppose certain forms of gun regulation. The fact that this formerly mainstream formerly academic former expert was so hard up that he came to address an empty bunch of chairs just was used to ridicule him as a pathetic has-been. That has nothing to do with his ideas and was just used to dramatize the POV of the organizers who were angry that gun rights advocates of the prior 20-30 years had, in the POV of the organizers, enabled the deaths of thousands of innocent victims.]] 00:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
::::Seems a bit off topic. We are talking about current and relevant RS to John Lott. Just because it isn't kissing his ass or another article about one of his controversial research papers doesn't mean it isn't ]. We aren't violating ] here. ] (]) 00:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


The current cite for the statement in question is from an NBC affiliate, so its not a bad source. The WEIGHT of this event, and the subsequent view that it is "ironic", also comes from the people that set up the event . Seeing as how this view is interwoven in this context, makes it very hard to remove and or ignore. There are some other sources such as NYT and Wapo, but there are paywalls for that. I agree that shouldn't be a concern, but it can cause logistical issues for readers that need to see it with their own eyes, and might otherwise throw a fit on the TP about it.
::::::::::*
::::::::::*
::::::::::*


I would also mention that current polls suggest public approval for improved background checks seems to be at least around 50%, so if we want NPOV I would suggest we pay attention to that fact. ...] (]) 20:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::''his research is hard to consistently tag as liberal or conservative.'' You do know that Lott is employed by ], don't you?] 07:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
:But this isn't about Lott's views on background checks (it doesn't seem he is overly against them). In the WSJ article Lott notes that they went as far as setting up a website and other material to deceive people who did try to do a background check. Their claimed ironic quip isn't something that is due. If it stays then per ABOUTSELF Lott's comments refuting the claim should be included. While an OpEd, it was published in the WSJ, not a local news site. The easier option is just remove it as it was a throw away line at the end of the article. ] (]) 21:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
::I would appreciate if you addressed my concerns instead of going off topic. Thanks. Cheers. ] (]) 21:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
::That said I'm not opposed to adding Lott's views, but not from an OpEd. ] (]) 21:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
:::The opinion of the public at large on background checks isn't relevant to a the weight we give a group that deceived someone to create a false political statement (ie lied about Lott's statements). Yes, the WSJ article is an OpEd by Lott but ABOUTSELF can apply and, unlike the other sources, the WSJ is very prominent. ] (]) 22:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
::::I'm hesitant to go there on the OpEd because it adds yet another layer of hoops instead of removing complexity and keeping it simple...
::::# the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an ];
::::# 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; and
::::# the article is not based primarily on such sources.
::::''"The opinion of the public at large on background checks isn't relevant..."'' This seems to ignore NPOV. I don't know what ''"a false political statement"'' means, and <s>it sounds like you are inserting ]</s>, or basically just your personal opinion. I suggest using citations to back that up. I suggest working towards consensus <s>instead of just expounding your position repeatedly, it keeps getting closer to ] since you have not</s> and providing new cites or examples of what you are actually suggesting. I have tried to do my part and do my research on what's actually there. Let's all put in some work <s>and avoid stonewalling</s>. I'm done with this for now, I've had a very long day and I don't want to come off as cranky. Cheers. ] (]) 22:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


:::::Lott's response to the incident may be DUE (absent a concern over the overall length of the section) as his view of the situation certainly is significant. I don't see that it violates any of the 5 items and allowing Lott to tell his side of the story certainly is reasonable.
:::::::::::: Is a conservative? He was a Member, Democratic National Platform Drafting Committee, 1972 and 1976; Campaign adviser, Senator Hubert Humphrey, 1970; Henry M. Jackson, 1972 and 1976; and advised Carter on Ambassadorial Appointments. Is a conservative? They are both at .
:::::I'm not sure why you are talking about OR. By "false political statement" I mean they deliberately distorted via editing and juxtaposition, Lott's actual message with a strawman message they wished to create. Now, my statement can't be inserted as is because it would be OR. However, my view that we don't need to give the offending party any additional weight to their opinions/unsubstantiated claims (for instance, Lott did no research on the school before accepting) is a question of WEIGHT vs OR. Additionally, any statements regarding general support of background checks vs Lott's specific views on the subjection, may be OR if the idea is to insert them in the article. If we want to include Lott's views on background checks we should do that from better sourcing. As for working towards consensus, I favor your first suggestion minus the last sentence. That is the one {{u|Schlafly}} also prefers. Please avoid BLUD and stonewalling comments. I think they could be applied to your comments just as readily. We are discussing yet disagreeing. I don't take your raising of "...current polls suggest public approval for improved background..." to be anything other than a good faith effort to justify inclusion. Please reciprocate by understanding that my replies are also good faith. ] (]) 23:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::''"I mean they deliberately distorted via editing and juxtaposition, Lott's actual message with a strawman message they wished to create."'' That may be true, that may be what John Lott and people that agree with him see. Roughly 50% of the people in the US that might look up this article, might disagree with him, and may agree that it was "ironic". Let's continue tomorrow working towards consensus. Cheers. ] (]) 01:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


::::::So, to review, my only other disagreement is that the "irony view" is coming from the people that are responsible for event involving JL , so it's not UNDUE, although quite likely an immoral thing, but that's a back and forth we should skip. If I am the one that wants to address these two issues I mentioned above, and no one else speaks up in the next couple days I will concede the issue so we can move on. Sound good? '''Also, if there are no objections I will change it from a section to a subsection, like the others.'''...] (]) 18:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
:: This response involved some reading of the archives to write up. <b>Several points are necessary to what is reprinted below from the archives by Gzuckier.</b> The first part of Gzuckier reprinting of past archived material relies solely on allegations by Lambert. There are not other sources for these private email exchanges, and the archived material also states Lambert's history of doctoring documents thus leaving at least some question here. Isn’t there also some rule that the facts in these articles has to be able to be independently confirmable by others? Let us be direct on this. Has anyone, including Lambert, interviewed anyone who worked on this survey to see when everything was set in motion? Rather than trying to get into someone's mind and worry about the alternative interpretations for Lambert’s evidence, wouldn't this solve the question and you wouldn't have to rely on Lott. Just ask was the survey being worked on prior to the very end of Sept. As has been pointed out in the archived sections, the time claimed to get everything together seems like an awfully short time to hire people and get everything set up. Finally, who cares? As Al Lowe pointed out multiple times, the survey was redone and the numbers used made it difficult to claim that the media was biased against guns, Lott used numbers that made his claim more difficult. There doesn't seem to be a question that this was redone and all the numbers are similar. Heck do you expect two surveys done in different years to get exactly the same results? Even if we concede all the mindreading is on target, why do we care? However, if you think that it is important, get some direct evidence.
:: On the survey results being unlike those of others, why isn't it relevant that all but two of the conflicting surveys are separated by over twenty years? The earlier archived sections of the Talk here also mention how the sets of surveys did not ask the exact same questions. Lott's asked about the last year. All the others apparently inquired about the last five years. Why doesn't this supply the reason for the differences? ] 00:57, 30 December 2005 PDT) (Sorry, minor fix on user ID)


Done ...] (]) 22:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, anonymous user who pretends to be registered, I have read the studies in question. There is no mind reading required. They are, in fact, surveys. They were conducted. There are more than two of them. They contraindicate Lott's made-up number. We are not discussing a bias survey, we are discussing Lott making up a 2% number out of thin air, much like your statement that "all but two of the conflicting surveys are separated by over twenty years." Thin air, "Howard." ] - ] 14:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks for that edit. I think it was a big improvement. ] (]) 22:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


=== Additional edits ===
:: Sorry, my post must have violated some rules. Just couldn't figure out how things worked here. This is not my fight and I will leave this to others, however you have not responded to either point (both just taken from the archives). Let me boil things down for your long post below. What independently checkable evidence independent of Lambert and mindreading do you have for the timing claiming? If we should care about this timing and not simply that the survey was redone (is not that what counts?), get some checkable direct evidence (interview those involved). Point two, explain why the differences in survey questions can't explain the different results. Again, sorry for violating any rules. (] 15:56, 30 December 2005 PDST)


I thought we were fine with the suggested version...Now SPECIFICO seems to be tweaking on this small subsection after the fact with no mention on the talk page...What gives? ] (]) 04:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
::: What timing claims? You link to some random asscovery by xlrq. ] - ] 01:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


== Julian Sanchez ==
::::That's all very nice, but in the meantime, before we get into the totality of the unsupported misinformation "you guys" keep trying to revert to, before we even get into the totality of the questions regarding the unsupported misinformation regarding the survey fraud included in the version you guys keep trying to revert to, maybe you can answer my oft repeated requests to start one step at a time with some support for the first two of what appears to be counterfactual misinformation which is part of the misinformation regarding the survey fraud which is part of the mass of unsupported misinformation constituting the version you guys keep referring to. To wit:
::::''OK, let's go one at a time. You claim the second book was written before the controversy over the existence of the first survey. The controversy had already started in 1998. The book was written in 2002. Kindly give us some evidence the book was written before 1998, or that 1998 is after 2002. Gzuckier 02:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::''You aren't trying to be serious, and you obviously didn't read the discussion above, or at least didn't care. Out of all the points raised above you raise one and do so incorrectly. My understanding is that this discussion got serious in the beginning of 2003 and that to set up a survey and get all the people to participate in doing it probably took some time before the survey was even done. That probably puts us in the middle of 2002.Timewarp 19:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
::::''Your various attempts to cast aspersions on my motives, competency, or level of effort in no way alleviate you from the need to justify your counterfactual mass of edits, which you appear to believe represent one single large and lumpy fact. What part of "OK, let's go one at a time." confuses you? Who are we to believe, your understanding or the record of Usenet debate as freely searchable? Would you prefer it to read "the second book was written after the debate on the survey, but before the date which Timewarp says he understands to be when the debate got serious"? Gzuckier 16:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::''As for when the discussion got serious, does this email from John Lott on Sep 21,2002, ring a bell?
::::::''I am extremely busy so please save up what you want to send me for a week or so, but this sounds like an excellent test. If they do any type of search, Nexis/Lexis or google or check the transcripts of my testimony, I am willing to bet that I don't start mentioning this figure until the spring of 1997. If I use it before I said that I did the survey, I will say that they nailed me. But if I only started using it about the time that I said that I did the survey, I think that it would be strong evidence the other way. Let's see what they find. ''(John Lott)
:::::''--TimLambert 17:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
::::''Since Timewarp seem eager to move on on multiple fronts, let's go to point two, in my limited list. This in no way is to be construed that the debate over the assertions regarding his personal hunch as to when the debate over survey #1 got serious are convincing regarding when the debate over the survey actually began.
:::::''In fact, Lott's 98%/2% figure contradicts the other '''two surveys''' over the last twenty years that estimated this rate. ''(changed from ''all the other surveys'')
::::''Actual list of surveys, (more than two)
::::''Survey Percent firing Source
::::''Kleck 24 Kleck 1995
::::''NSPOF 27 Duncan 2000
::::''NCVS 1987-1990 28 Duncan 2000
::::''NCVS 1987-1992 38 Rand 1994
::::''NCVS 1992-2001 21 NCVS online analysis system
::::''Field 34 Kleck 1995
::::''Cambridge Reports 67 Kleck 1995
::::''DMIa 40 Kleck 1995
::::''Ohio 40 Kleck 1995
:::::''AS you know and even if you did not it was pointed out in the previous discussion, these data here are when these surveys were cited, not when they took place. It is just an example of the misediting that people such as XRLQ have pointed to Timewarp 22:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
::::''Firstly, the date of these surveys is irrelevant to the fact that Lott's estimate is wildly divergent from any and all of them, in terms of the question of whether his survey was done at all. Or are you suggesting that he can only be expected to tailor the reported results of his survey to match the data known at the time, and cannot be faulted for not matching results which only came in later? Secondly, in any event, the fact remains that his 98%/2% statement "if national surveys are correct" is false, based even on only whichever two surveys of the 9 which you deign to accept. Thirdly, the statement that the dates in the table reflect the publication date of the surveys, not when they were done, is not any sort of support for your assertion that there were only two surveys over the previous twenty years, given that six of the surveys have publication dates in 1994 and 1995. Or are you assuming that they were published before they were done? Turn the tables, if people accuse Lott of making up a survey result, maybe you can accuse everybody else of making up their surveys?
::::''If you don't mind, I'll hold up on points 3, 4, 5, 6, ..... N until the community has reached some sort of consensus with these two, as the constant vague references to this all having been discussed previously keep things from making any progress.Gzuckier 17:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
::::''If you don't have good answers to these objections, perhaps you should not be reposting the objectionable material as a part of a wholesale overhaul, under the guise of "being nonpartisan". Gzuckier 01:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
:::I reiterate yet again: if you cannot even come up with some reason why my objections to these two of your (plural) mass edits are invalid, I don't see how we can honestly include them in the article. That being the case, I don't see how we can honestly use your (plural) communally accepted mass rewrite/frequent revert en masse. If you wish to deal honestly with these objections, then we can go on to the long list of other, similar objections I have to the other, similar, illogical, unsupported, counterfactual, and otherwise unacceptable edits, several of which I have taken the time and effort to list (now resident in the archives) without response (thus my starting off with only these two). And all the personal insults and self-righteous self-pity you guys continue to post here has '''no relevance''' as to whether these objections should be ignored. Even if everything you have stated about "our" treatment of your poor suffering truth seekers is true, you still have to answer to the general satisfaction of the community the valid questions about why your (plural) apparently irreducible set of edits do not appear to make any sense before you can expect said edits to remain as "counterbalance to a biased point of view". And I've seen enough of the unsubstantive weaselly "responses" here (see the section on "if the 2% question is so minor, then why...") to know that I need to restate again: '''these two objections are not the totality of my objections to your (plural) mass rewrite; see the archive for my list of just the objections to your (plural) rewrite of the bogus survey section; if that's too much trouble for you, I'll be glad to repost them here. And those are not the only objections to the entire rewrite you (plural) propose; that's just the one section. So, even if you blow off these two edits you propose, I can't honestly accept the rest of the misinformation you attempt to post until we resolve all those questions.''' ] 04:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


{{quote|After investigative work by ] blogger ]}}
Well, I'll just tack this on the bottom since I can't intersperse all the relevant sections where they belong. i assume people can remember what they said.
Anyway, it's bizarre that the group of who knows what size which continues to demand one specific major rewrite and reverts to it again and again should claim that the rest of us, who change things and disagree on things from time to time are some sort of cabal. Al Lowe, for instance, has probably forgotten that around the time of his first appearance on this article, I was the one posting that Lott's research was notable and groundbreaking, or some such. And the rest of you who I would never ever accuse of sockpuppetry and hurt your feelings but all arrived here on the same bus with the same songsheet apparently failed to notice my edit last week summarizing the general opinion re Lott's likely veracity problems as being that it in all probability did not disprove his weaker statement, that more guns did not result in more crime. You were too busy trying to insert your prefab slate of changes. Oh well.
Next up, my statements re the time at which the controversy began have nothing to do with Lambert's email, that's his addition. My statements come from a simple google search of usenet. I did not receive any email from Dr. Lott, but since I was in on the discussion on usenet at the time, I am also in a position to verify the dates involved, and google gives a public record of those dates. similarly, the 9 surveys which mysteriously equal two in your (plural) suggested mass revision have nothing to do with any private archive of Lambert, but are freely countable in the scientific literature.
''There doesn't seem to be a question that this was redone and all the numbers are similar.'' in fact, the results of his own second survey indicate a less than .05 chance of getting the results claimed for the first survey, which fits the generally accepted scientific definition of "proved flase".
Regarding the question of Cbaus' first edit, you were taking the position that whether or not he did the survey he claimed to have done is irrelevant '''because he clearly believes he did it'''??? In the first place, that's a pretty bad example of getting into somebody else's mind, and in the second place, that's about the most biased point of view thing I have seen in quite a while. I stand by my original position, that since the vast preponderance of the evidence proves that he did not do the survey except for one person who believes (but can't be certain) he might have been part of the surveyed population, the statement that Lott believes he did it is indeed tantamount to stating that he is insane. Which I would not feel comfortable placing in this article, even if you believe it would remove the "point of view" regarding his lapse of professional ethics.
As for allegations of Lambert sockpuppets, the site involved gives no evidence whatsoever of same and is simple, baseless character assassination. If you are so upset about being baselessly accused yourself, where there was circumstantial evidence including actual sockpuppets whose position you were repeating, I'd think you'd be a bit more sensitive about repeating groundless slander. Similarly, the evidence for Lambert falsifying evidence is lacking, other than the sayso of somebody trying to defend their own actions. But those are mainly for Lambert to speak to, I merely bring it up since it seems to be part of the alleged support for the set of mass rewrites you wish to introduce.
Finally, let me apologize from the bottom of my heart for the false accusation of socketry puppetry, even if I had nothing to do with it, which has scarred you so deeply. However, as I mentioned previously, this does not constitute support for falsehoods masquerading as NPOV. Now happy frigging new year and don't fire your guns up into the air to celebrate] 02:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
:Actually, I don't believe you and I crossed keyboards as much as some of the others on this board. I didn't mention names because I try not to remember those who oppose me, so much as I prefer to remember those who don't oppose me, or should I say, those who were more fair in the way they treated my entries. I do not recall you as my main antagonist.] 22:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


Is there any reliable source for Julian Sanchez being libertarian? ] (]) 06:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
== Statistical One-Upmanship Quote ==


== Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2024 ==
When this page gets unprotected, I'd prefer to expand that quote to prevent misunderstandings (my changes got lost in the
revert war).


{{edit semi-protected|John Lott|answered=yes}}
Basically, one gets the impression from the current version of the article that people don't like Lott's findings because he performs really, really complex computations. However, this is not at all the point of the Goertzel piece being quoted; Goertzel
Change website JohnRLott.com to JohnLott.com. The former address does not exist and the latter one resolves to the expected website. ] (]) 12:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
is pointing out that econometric regressions of the sort Lott performs have to be robust, that you should not be able to make a few very small changes along the way that radically change the final conclusion. Lott, however, makes computation that cannot be performed on ordinary computers, resulting in the inability of other researchers to check whether his findings are robust. Nevertheless, DESPITE these obstacles, other researchers did eventually find that Lotts work is not robust, and hence his conclusion are not valid. A fuller quote would communicate this criticism better. --] 16:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 13:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


== Protection == == CPRC ==
I don't see any agreements but I do have a request to unprotect the page. Any objections? --]<sup>]</sup> 14:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


:I object. The other side of the dispute refuses to do anything to settle it. ] - ] 15:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC) A December 2024 article makes a strong claim: https://theconservativeview.com/illegal-migrants-cost-us-166-billion-in-crime-report-finds/ ] (]) 03:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
: I object. Unprotection will lead to another endless game of whackamole with the "I'm not a sock puppet, but I play one on Misplaced Pages" faction who have been attempting to revert to the same, identical, biased, mass rewrite of the whole article (previously hammered out with difficulty as a compromise and slowly evolving due to rational criticisms) with no attempt to justify the lists of objections to their edits posted on the discussion page, other than a vague "that's been discussed already I see no need to discuss it further", a lot of personal invective, a self-righteous seminar on the immorality of laws regulating gun ownership, and an ongoing snit about being mistakenly identified as yet another of a formerly identified set of sock puppets. I believe none of that will lead to the progress of Misplaced Pages. ] 17:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

What a surprise? These are the two main people who are engaging in the shameful practices I've mentioned in my requests for help - accusing seven or more people of not being real people so that they do not have to address the NPOV problems with the article they keep forcing, and which they've now succeeded in getting locked in place. --] 05:19, 27 December 2005 (EDST-USA)
:I don't recall accusing anybody of being a sock puppet, but I guess that's just my point of view, and yours should be represented too. Weren't you accusing Tim Lambert a while ago? He doesn't get to be one of the two main people? Too bad.
:PS The article has been edited quite a bit interspersed with your (plural) attempts to return it to the boiler plate rewrite you guys keep trying to purport here; if you weren't so busy trying to revert that one single point of view over everything else, maybe you could find something to contribute. ] 03:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the shameful practices to which I am including you go beyond accusations of sockpuppetry. Maybe had these discussions not been intentionally censored, and then hidden in the archive, your memory would be better on this.

Willmcw - the guy who "protected" the biased article, has accused at least one person of being a sockpuppet. Hipocrite has done so of me and others. You have only indirectly done so (about me at least, I haven't read the entire history), I'll give you that. But all told, at least seven people here have had their proposals for editing the article cast aside without discussion simply because they are immediately accused of being sockpuppets.

Don't forget I was accused of being a puppet within my first two hours here. I didn't even know what one was at the time. And you forget my point in raising Lambert's own ] with sockpuppetry was to challenge the idea that those who are endorsing a (slightly) more balanced view of Lott's article (vs. the biased anti-Lott POV article you support) deserve to be suspected of being Lott's puppet, but that you deserve no lack of respect or suspicion of being Lambert's.

I HAVE tried to contribute - and my first ] was insulted by you as something requiring a medical examination of Lott, before you eventually you took it upon yourself to go change it to a way that kept all your content in but which you thought would protect you from the basis of my arguments in suggesting the change (without discussion here first, I might add). My second ] was more simple - to get the article that is in every other way YOUR way to have a "neutrality is disputed" warning at the top. You even refused to allow this. You have been every bit as guilty about not considering these people's proposals as the others who simply make puppet allegations.

The bottom line here is a history of is a deliberate effort to drag down anyone who tries to devote some time to balancing this article with research vs. controvery into a debate proving their identity until they get tired of fighting the trolls and move on. Why would anyone contribute large amounts of time trying to argue for a more balanced approach to the article when this history is so clearly established? The problem of the tactics outlined here need to be addressed first, or else it is painfully clear more neutral edit suggestions will get no where. --] 03:53, 29 December 2005 (EDST-USA)

:: (MULTIPLE FIXES, SORRY) I am a newbee here, but anyone who spends some time looking through the archives will see that Hipocrite, Gzuckier, Willmcw, and Lambert are trying some type of rope-a-dope strategy and trying to wear out anyone else who wants to fix things. Just reading what they haven't yet archived shows that they have no desire to get things right. Can Woohookitty tell why this page is frozen on what Hipocrite, Gzuckier, Willmcw, and Lambert want? Why these guys won't even allow a warning put at the beginning of the article? Just try to explain the sense in the NPOV section at the beginning of this talk (] 01:20, 30 December 2005 PDST)

::: And now we have an anoymous poster faking a signature so they appear at first glance to be a named editor... -- ] 12:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

::: The warning is misplaced because you are unwilling to tell us what to do to fix the article except for make it innacurate ("lott's reasearch is hard to tag as conservative or liberal", "three studies"). Propose a concrete change to the article (provide a before, after and reason) and we'll discuss that. ] - ] 14:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

:::: Sorry guys. My post must have violated some rules. Just couldn't figure out how things worked here. Couldn't even get the post set up right. This is not my fight, however I still feel that the postings were correct and this whole thing has a "twilight zone" feel to it. (] 14:19, 30 December 2005 PDST)

::::: The way[REDACTED] works is that editors propose/make concrete changes, which are then edited by other editors, and so on. This is how the current version of the article came into being. If you are unwilling to propose conrete changes, then pointing out that you dont like the article or that you dont like the people who edited it is pointless. The talk page is here not to provide a forum for pepole to express theirs opinions about John Lott or about other editors; its here for a discussion on how to improve the article. --] 06:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it is this. Articles on Misplaced Pages are SUPPOSED to be from the NEUTRAL point of view. This article, even in it's current protected state is far from fitting the profile of NPOV. I tried for a time to balance the negative with some positive. I was continously fought on every article change I posted. NEVER MIND that I did not remove anyone else's work. The work I posted was repeatedly altered or removed, based on someone else's opinions or viewpoints. When I first started I was called "sockpuppet." Then I was told I was "ruining Misplaced Pages," or that I was vandalizing it. I was not the one changing things. I was ADDING information that some refuse to believe exists. CHoward, the one rule you've apparently violated here is, you've appeared to come out in support of John Lott. That is apparently one rule that will get you textually beat up in this particular place. All I can say for now is, good luck.] 20:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

--------------------------
It seems like there is a lot of whining on this talk page of the form "My edits got change, my edits got changed!" Welcome to wikipedia, where articles are collectively edited.

There is also a lot of whining over sockpuppet inquires. When you have an article is being edited by a large number of accounts, none of which has a single edit to[REDACTED] outside the John Lott page, it is quite natural to suspect some of them of being sockpuppets. Especially given that John Lott has been known to use sockpuppets on multiple occasions in the past.

I hope others will join me in continuing to ignore these repeated instances of whining. The only concern I have is that the article be written from a neutral point of view. It must contain information about Lott's research, about the conclusion scientists have come to about Lotts work (I mean the NAS report and the like), and about the ethical controversies Lott has found himself in. If someone along the way gets his feelings hurt because of a reverted edit, then thats how it must be. --] 00:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

: If you can find some unbiased scientists who can give a fair review of Dr. Lott's work, then we might have something. But I seriously doubt the NAS is unbiased. As for my contributions, I've done quite a bit more than just post to the article on John Lott. And if you prefer to call my expression of my opinion on this article, that is certainly your right. You'll pardon me if I prefer to continue as before.] 08:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

:: You should not presume that I meant you. To back up my claim, I'll note that as of writing this, Cbaus, Alt37, Henry1776 have not edited a single page unrelated to the John Lott issue. Timewarp has made exactly 1 edit unrelated to John Lott, out of roughly 40-50 edits.

:: Your personal opinions about whether the NAS is biased are not arent of much use. Evidence, please. As far as I can tell, the only person who is making the claim that the NAS was biased against Lott is Lott himself, and it --] 09:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

::: Like all the others who have tried to balance the POV, I was accused of being a sockpuppet, and for many, they felt the title fit me. It did not. If I jumped the gun, by assuming you lumped me in with the others, then I apologize. Its just that typically, I usually am lumped in with everyone else, whether I realize it or not.] 23:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

::: As for my personal opinions on the NAS they come from , This first posted on the Los Angeles Times, of course now it will be considered "tainted" because the only readable copy I know of, is on John Lott's site. Tough. And then there's a forum discussion at .com. Oops, sorry, that's pro-gun site.] 23:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


:::: To summarize, your opinions on the NAS come from John Lott, John Lott and John Lott? ] - ] 00:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


:::: Ooops, indeed. You have cited a bunch of sources that do not qualify as reputable sources under ].

:::: I won't waste space explaining why a posting on an online forum does not qualify as a reputable source - I'm sure you know why and I'm surprised you even brought it up. You should also realize that a claim by John Lott is not an authoritative source - at most it can be used as a source for a statement of the sort "John Lott has claimed that the panel was biased against him..." As for ], you only need to look at its[REDACTED] page to see that it cannot qualify as a reputable source.

:::: Generally speaking, any time a neutral, unbiased body makes some sort of finding of fact, lots of people who do not like that finding of fact will claim that there was bias involved. If you want the NAS evidence to be discounted as biased, you have to find examples of people whose agenda was not affected by the NAS report saying so. --] 00:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You know what, I don't give a rat's behind. You have your sources that you trust, for whatever reason. But I just have a hard time with the National Academy of "Junk" Science.
The above are just a couple examples. It has been shown that of those on the panel that John Lott addressed, all but the one who desented in his opinion have known ANTI-gun leanings. That panel was NOT neutral. ]


:: Its not a question of who I or anyone else <em>trusts</em>. Its question of basing this article on reputable sources, as explained in ]. Advocacy groups, John Lott's op-eds, and bulletin boards are not reputable sources.

:: <em>"It has been shown that of those on the panel that John Lott addressed, all but the one who desented in his opinion have known ANTI-gun leanings.."</em> Shown by who? Either you have evidence from a reputable source, which I have yet to see, or these are just your personal convictions which, for obvious reasons, have no place in the article. --] 07:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

::: You have your "reputable sources, I have mine, and I trust mine. And FYI, we're in the discussion page, not the article.]

:::: And[REDACTED] has its own standard for reputable sources. Whether <strong>you</strong> or <strong>I</strong> trust is a source is irrelevant. ] sets some firm standards for reputable sources, which are not met by WorldNetDaily or a gun forum discussion posting. --]

:: The hits just don't stop! Flouride is giving us cancer! Get out the tinfoil hats, folks! ] - ] 08:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

::: Well, I'm glad you finally see the light! I've got a tinfoil hat ready and waiting for you. ;) ]

Well I've gone ahead and unprotected it anyway - protection is supposed to be temporary. Please do not resort to revert wars. ] 16:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

: Well, it was nice while it lasted. Welcome to Revert Wars II. (I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.) ] 20:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

== NPOV tag ==

Im afraid that after lookng over this article I am going to have to add an NPOV tag anmd am disputing the neutrality of this article This artcile is very loppsided and unblanaced in favor of criticism gainst the subject more than I have ever seen.

I think the only real alternative is to cut out alot of the info that is in the Criticism section in order to even things out, but do not know where to begin as I am not an expert on this topic. I'm afraid that if I did it now without mor input from the community that I would jsut get reverted and I would be like a bull in a china shop.

As the article stands now, it's just a hit piece. I think we need to take out approximately half of the criticism section or, in some other way, narrow the criticism down to clearer more discrete points instead of just going on and on about how everybody seems to hate this guy.

Sorry. I hate these tags, but this is not a good article in the least.] ] 16:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
:The fact that the folks who are "unbalanced in favor of criticism" are the ones who have the most knowledge about the subject while the ones who want to "even things out" seem to not be able to provide facts to support their edits or admit not knowing much about the subject is relevant, seems to me. ] 17:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

PLease don;t disregard my opinion on NPOV just ebcause I freely admit I'm nto an expert o this subject. No one has to be to bea ble to judge NPOV. I don;t ahve to be an expert to know that this artcile is lopsided and needs to be evened out. I'm sorry you don't agree, but that's OK. The fact is I am disputing neutrality in good faith and am oputting forth my reasons adn ways to fix it. I'm '''sure''' I'm not alone here. Sorry. How about we talk abotu ways to fix this article insterad of ways to undermine my opinions and trying to jsut ignore them. We '''can''' work together. Ia m '''more''' than willing.] ] 17:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:Please suggest a concrete isolated change or concrete isolated problem in the article that you believe makes it POV. "It says attributed bad things about the subject, lots of them" is not a pov problem. ] - ] 19:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:Yeah, one change at a time, preferably with a reason for it spelled out, if it doesn't fit in the summary box, then on the talk page; big changes with support of the quality of "well it's clear Lott '''believes''' he did the survey, so why is it such a fuss?" would just be more of the same old poopoo. Baby steps. ] 19:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

::I went ahead and removed the intelocutors that always bothered me in the lead in to the Lott-rosh-dueling-usenet quotes. It always seemed a bit over the top to me. ] - ] 20:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

== mary rosh "not notable" ==

Google:
"Results 1 - 100 of about 17,500 for "mary rosh"."
Nuff said? ] 17:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. I'm willing to compromise. The section doesn';t need to be sooo long. And you removed my npov tag...please tell me that was accidental, because I am disputing neutrality here adn have put forth my reasons...so there's no reason to do that. I'm willing to work with people here. Wholesale reversions aren't the way to go, I think.] ] 17:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

: I think you cut out too much, so I put it back. There is a lot there that speaks to Lotts honesty: refusing to debate, claiming not to have debated, whilst debating via MR. Perhaps it could be summarised though. ] 17:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

:Well, you've stepped into a mine field in a war zone, I'm afraid. Much as the Middle East, the situation badly needs a reasonable outsider to broker peace, but he/she will have to run the risk of being blown up now and again. I speak only for myself, but I'd be happy to accept editing that trims down some of the redundancy without losing major content points. I've done that occasionally myself.

:If I may be allowed to "brief" you on my POV on the situation and the history, what appears to be a simple conflict of vews is less symmetric than that. Re what appears to be wholesale reversion from version A to version B and back again which led to protection, if you look back through the history (an odious task, but if you don't trust my word you'll have to) you'll see that the current impasse began a month or two back when overnight a '''huge''' mass of edits claiming to be removal of bias but in fact constituing a major rewrite emasculating all criticism and instituting a strong pro-Lott POV was posted without any support, explanation, or discussion on the talk page by a figure of mystery; and this same mass revision has become some sort of shibboleth among a group of newly arrived editors (including what does appear by IP address to be sock puppets, causing the apparently highly traumatic misidentification of another individual in that group as a sock puppet) and keeps being reverted back essentially word for word, despite requests to '''please''' deal with suggested changes one at a time with room for discussion and support for contested matters of fact. Just for example (now on the archives of this talk page), early on I myself posted on the talk page a large paragraph of disagreements of fact with just the rewrite of the "2%" section alone, which was ignored and the entire section, along with the rest of the article, reverted to the mass rewrite. I then tried to discuss my disagreements with just that section one at a time starting with the first two, and got a couple of half-assed unsatisfactory brush-offs, my disagreements with which were then ignored and meanwhile, again, the mass rewrite reposted again and again.

:The situation is '''not''' symmetrical; the version which the <sarcasm> "Enemies of Lott" </sarcasm> such as myself revert back to is the version hammered out painstakingly with input from various sides over a long period of time, point by point, with arguments about whether Lott's research should be described with the word "groundbreaking" or not. In the lulls between the mass rewrite attacks, the evolution of the article proceeds, with edits which might loosely be termed pro and anti Lott being made back and forth. The impasse leading to the protection was the direct response to this recent invasion by this group who largely have no other Misplaced Pages-related contributions other than repeatedly reverting this one article to this one, single, highly disputable, rewrite without addressing the frequently posted concerns on the talk page; I consider it relevant that their "support" tends to include a lot of personal invective, ranting about a small group who are conspiring to push their anti-gun agenda, lectures on the right to bear arms, and reminiscences about their painful experiences being mistakenly labeled as a sock puppet a month ago, while simultaneously repeatedly accusing one of the Lott debunkers of being a sock puppet on the basis of no evidence other than a baseless accusation in somebody's blog, no less, rather than any factual evidence for their edits on a point by point basis. For my money, that behavior tends to look more like a biased cabal pushing a fringe POV, but as you can imagine, this has only hardened positions more than desirable and fossilized the evolution of the article so that now the long-time editors of this article are very touchy, and tired of spending so much time playing whack a mole when we do have other interests.

:So, we do need a break in the ice, new blood being welcome, but I ask/suggest beginning with smaller edits such as removal of redundancies, rather than removal of whole topics like Mary Rosh which will re-irritate the POV wounds again, until you have gained the trust of at least some of the traumatized vets here. ] 17:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I am actually aware of the history and have been watching this article for some time. I really think it's time for a fresh start here and don't care to hash old issues with editors and really just want to proceed. Wholesale reversions and lack of compromise seem to be the order of the day here. Instead of just reverting everything and leaving nothing, try and compromise adn revert some or change things. Wholesale reversons help no one and just breed contempt.

William stated it nicely, thsi article needs to be summarized. If the crticism section can be summarized as to bring more balance to the article then I would be happy re: neutrality and would drop my challenge/tag. It's just hat, right now, this artcile is 20% fact about the guy an then it's just a hit list from then on...not good. He's nt Hitler, I mean there doesn;t sem to be a good reason to go on andon and on about how unethical and inaccurate and baised thgis guy is. I'm willing to work here though, please just don't revert every compromise attempt I make. Not helpful and is just the same old thing that's been going on here. Time to move forward.] ] 18:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:Of all people, why would *YOU* try to repair an article of which *I* was a major contributor? ] - ] 19:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

::Uhoh... ] 19:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No no I'm not going to respond to that kind of stuff, it's not worth it and I encourage everyone to AGF here (and not to call me a "hack"...wow) Well I'm not sure what you define as "concrete" enough but I have stated that I dispute the neutrality of this artcile largely because the critcism section is WAY to long and broad and makes an unbalanced article that is not POV. I now you think it's NPVO but that's why the tag says it's "disputed" becuase there is disagreement. Please don;t unilaterally remove the tag and let's talk this through. There is agenuine good faith dispute over the neutrality and I '''know''' I'm not alone in the regard.

Ok, as a measure in good faith I will make small changes one at a time (in addition to putting back the tag, please PLEASE don't remove it, it's not worth an edit war over somethign SO small) and I am willing to copmpromkise adn see if we can't move forward and cut this artcile down to a NPOV size that everyone can be comfortable with. Thanks! :)] ] 20:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:No, really. Why would come parachuting in like the bastion of ] and try to "fix" this article with a hacksaw? ] - ] 21:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

AGF.] ] 21:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I spent too much time correcting your bad acts in the past. You'll have to prove it to me. ] - ] 21:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

== POV tag ==

I see there has been some dispute over whether a POV tag is required. I would like to ask you, if someone adds one, to keep it there. When that tag is there, it adds the page to a ] of pages to be checked for their neutrality, in effect, acting as a form of dispute resolution (an RfC). If someone would like the article to be checked and adds the tag, I think common courtesy requires everyone else to not remove it. Because of ], we are required to assume that whoever adds one adds it in good faith and only if there is evidence to the contrary can it be removed. ] 21:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:Assume Good Faith does not mean Ignore Bad Acts. NPOV dispute has 1510 articles in it. 1510. If there was something that could be RFCed in the article, the neverending stream of sockpuppet accounts with no edits but this article would have RFCed something. That Gator1, defender of all conservative on[REDACTED] ] thinks there's an NPOV dispute (but can't be bothered to explain what it is, except that THERE'S LOTS OF BAD STUFF ABOUT HIM HERE), can't be bothered to use the talk page of an article with a big fat contravercial tag up top that just came off protection, and took a hacksaw to all the unflattering stuff as soon as he showed up got met with his precious tag (still no discussion in talk about any real NPOV dispute, by the way) reverted is expected. That he got a friend of his to try to tell a core of people who have been defending this article from POV warriors for the better part of a year (and we would have improved it, if we didn't have to constantly get rid of garbage edits) that THEY need to leave his tag up (which has been left up as soon as he got reasonable and stopped hacksawing "stuff he didn't like = POV") is just ignorable. ] - ] 21:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hip, we're working well togetehr on the artcile space, let's just focus on that instead of jsut bringing up old stuff (where BOTH of us acted wrongly by the way, don;t try and act like th innocent victim, no one's buying) I'm not going to try and prove something to you that needs to be assumed. Sorry. If you think it's wise and good Wiki etiquette to remove the tag, then feel free, but I will put it back unless I am the only one who feels that this article has a serious NPOV problem (and I know this is not the first time someone has said that about this artcile).

Tell you what, if no one else comes forward in the next 48 hours and agrees that the tag shoudl remain then I won;t fight its removal. I'm willing to do that. If I'm the only one that's fine. Let this be the ned of it for the next 48 hours. Please, now let's get back to work, enough of all of this ugliness. I';m ready to get to work on another paragraph if you are.] ] 21:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your last edit by the way. Well done. We've made a good start, let's keep going.] ] 21:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the tag SHOULD remain. Of course, that's just my opinion. With regard to the survey, is there absolute proof that John Lott did NOT conduct the survey? I didn't think so.] 08:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

:The article does not say that John Lott did not conduct a survey. Since you were solicited to come forward , I don't think this meets the incredibly low bar Gator1 set for himself. A number of other people would also meet the incredibly low bar -> any of the various reverters to the Serenety "version," anyone with no substantial edit history outside of this article, anyone who is solicited to come here. ] - ] 14:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

At this point in the game, I think it's best just to focus on editing andf workign togetehr there. We seem to do much better as colleagues when we're editing then when we're talking about these side issues. Things jsut tne dt get ugly hre, while, so far, things tend to get '''done''' on the article page. Just my thoughts. P.S. I only asked for his comments as he was a major contributor who had not yet weighed in, I had no clue what he might actually say on this discrete issue. Anyway, let's just move on.] ] 14:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Besides, if you felt that I set the bar too low you should ahve said somethign then instead of waiting until the tag gets support and then looking for ways to disregard others' opinions. At this point, it looks like more than one editor suppoprts the tag and disputes neutrality so it should remain until this is resolved (see admins (Izehar) opinion). We are making good progress and working well together, so I am confident that this can be worked through and then I will support removing the tag. Until then it's good that it's there as it will draw otehr people to this page and help out.] ] 18:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

: I didn't know you were going to go out and solicit people to support you after you pretend that the 48 hour thing was some kind of test. If you'd like, I can go get a whole heaping load of people who think the article is just fine thanks to show up and start removing it, but that would be acting in bad faith - and I consider that your territory, not mine. ] - ] 19:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to that, Hip. We're working well together on the article, let's just focus on that, OK?] ] 20:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Please please please please please don;t remove the tag until we've discussed issues. I've made concrete challenges and am working slowly, becuase I was askled to take baby steps and then wait for responses,s o that's what I'm doing. There's ALOT more that I apln on doing to try andf edit down the criticism section so that this article is NPOV. There's been support for the tag...so please just leave it alone. I't snot hurting anyhting and helps bring in more opinions here. It was th weekend adn I don;t edit on the weekends, so maybe that's where the confusion came from. Ok that's fine. Happy Monday everyone, let's get back to work...] ] 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

:I waited 48 hours without a single comment or edit from you. The article remained in your last edited state. In the event that another 48 hours pass without edit from any reputable editor on the other "side" of this assine contravercy, I will remove the NPOV tag, and will revert any attempts to reinsert it unless such is accompanied by an edit or discussion on talk page that does not read "I want my tag back." (which, by the way, is how I characterize your paragraph above.) There is currently no dispute on the talk page (except for that from non-reputable "editor" Serenity, who does not have standing). As such, the tag is innacurate unless you are in the process of finding something to discuss on the talk page. ] - ] 15:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I totally diasgree (it was the weekend and I explained that and I'm till challenging NPOV...so....the tag is totaly justifie) but am not going to go to war over something so trivial, so I'm giving up on this. Let's just focus on the editing.] ] 15:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

:I don't give two shits what you are "challenging." The tag reads as follows "Please see discussion on the talk page." If there is no discussion on the talk page, and there is no editing going on to the article, you should feel free to put the <nowiki>{{sofixit}}</nowiki> tag on it, which you can make to read "Some user dosen't like this article, but isn't doing anything to improve it or solve his concerns." ] - ] 15:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Watch the language, I'm givng up remember? You win. I jsut came here to say that I agree with your last edit. Well done. Then I saw above....I could go ona ll day with responses, but no comment. Let's just move on.] ] 15:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

: Feel free not to comment. You have not brought a single concern you have had to this talk page. Not one. Everyone here is sitting on pins and needles waiting to find out what this elusive POV concern you have (so far, you've just been cutting down paragraphs in a way that no one appears to have a problem with). Size concerns are not POV concerns, especially not size concerns that NO ONE IS DISPUTING (no dispute = no dispute). As you might know, what you should be looking for is Misplaced Pages backing up one side in a dispute. IE - "John Lott is a fraud" vs. "Hipocrite says John Lott is a fraud." ] - ] 16:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

OK OK, you're right I'm wrong, I'm not doing anything and had no basis whatsoever for a NPOV dispute and am not making any real changes....happy? Good, let's get back to work, We're arguing about a non-issue. '''PLEASE''' stop. I'm trying my best to AGF and work with you. None of this is necessary or interesting. Let's just edit and move on.

Now, I support your last edit, was there anything else or can I move on to another paragraph? Just let me know.] ] 16:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

== Moving on to 2% paragraph....ideas? ==

Wow, I didn't know where to begin in tryign to narrow downa dn sumamrize this paragraph....any suggestions? I didn't want ot start hacksawing through this without some input, but it's very very long and that lends to the overall NPOV problem with this article Thoughts? If nonet hen I'll just have a stab at it, but I wanted to get ideas from others first.] ] 22:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:How about you propose a concrete change right here on this talk page, paying SPECIFIC ATTENTION to the amount of press that the 2% problem recieved in the academic world from Lindgren and others. ] - ] 22:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh I'd be happy to, I'm just interested in what others would have to say first. There's quite a bit there and I have been advised to take baby steps so that's what I'm doing. Good edit by the way.] ] 22:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:The section is fine as it now stands, if not bending over ass-backwards to be Lott-POV. Paying specific attention to the section titled "Undue weight," there is exactly 1 scientist who believes that Lott did a study that showed 98/2, and the entire scientific community that believes that he misunderstood what Klerk said and continued the "stonewall" policy of never admitting error. The belief that lott did a survey that showed 98/2 is a flat-earth theory, and should be treated as such. ] - ] 22:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, you think that no changes '''at all''' need to be made. I respectfully disagree. it relaly needs ot be cut down. No problem, though, we can disagree and not go to war lol. As long as you cosider my edits adn not blndly revert (which I am assuming you would never do) there shouldn;t be a problem. We can '''continue''' to work well together.] ] 22:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Like the big giant tag at the top says, please discuss major changes on the talk page before making them. Major changes, like removing all mention of a national survey. ] - ] 22:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Allright if that was too "major" for you, I'll be more careful. I didn't think it was a big deal, but I'm aiming to please here. I apologize.] ] 22:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

OK cool, it looks like we're making progress here Hip and I'm glad. I gotta get going though so I'm done for the night. Gotta get home, balance the checkbook and then shovel the driveway, then eat dinner go to ebd adn start all over....yay...See yah!] ] 22:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

===And Serinity weighs in===
Well, if you can recycle your old garbage here, what the hell, eh? So without further ado, back to just the 2% section, for now, my first two objections, which you may be familiar with by now:

::::: Gzuckier, do you think that simply by reposting what you have below you can pretend that . Before making people read again what you keep on reposting, I thought that people should see that this has already been answered. What is below is his response that he already posted. At the end of your post below you write others "cannot even come up with some reason why my objections to these two of your (plural) mass edits are invalid." Ignoring the responses seems to be your only way of saying that there is no response. ] 22:57, January 7, 2006 EDST)
:::::: This response involved some reading of the archives to write up. <b>Several points are necessary to what is reprinted below from the archives by Gzuckier.</b> The first part of Gzuckier reprinting of past archived material relies solely on allegations by Lambert. There are not other sources for these private email exchanges, and the archived material also states Lambert's history of doctoring documents thus leaving at least some question here. Isn’t there also some rule that the facts in these articles has to be able to be independently confirmable by others? Let us be direct on this. Has anyone, including Lambert, interviewed anyone who worked on this survey to see when everything was set in motion? Rather than trying to get into someone's mind and worry about the alternative interpretations for Lambert’s evidence, wouldn't this solve the question and you wouldn't have to rely on Lott. Just ask was the survey being worked on prior to the very end of Sept. As has been pointed out in the archived sections, the time claimed to get everything together seems like an awfully short time to hire people and get everything set up. Finally, who cares? As Al Lowe pointed out multiple times, the survey was redone and the numbers used made it difficult to claim that the media was biased against guns, Lott used numbers that made his claim more difficult. There doesn't seem to be a question that this was redone and all the numbers are similar. Heck do you expect two surveys done in different years to get exactly the same results? Even if we concede all the mindreading is on target, why do we care? However, if you think that it is important, get some direct evidence.

::::::: Of course I haven't doctored any evidence -- the accusation is ridiculous. It is nottrue that the only source was "allegations from Lambert" The email came from . If you seriously doubt that there was a mailing list discussion on the survey starting in September 2002 you could check with some of the other participants, like, oh, ]. And for those keeping track, CHoward is almost certainly another Lott sock puppet.]


:::::::: WARNING STOP CUTTING OUT MY DISCUSSIONS FROM THE TALK SECTION. YOU ALL CAN DISH OUT DISTORTIONS, BUT CAN NOT TAKE EVIDENCE YOU FIND INCONVIENENT. EVIDENCE THAT CAN"T BE VERIFIED BY ANYONE MEANS THAT WE HAVE TO EVALUATE THE PERSON WHOSE WORD THAT WE ARE TAKING FOR THE CLAIM. FROM MY POST THAT YOU CUT: On just one post, several people provide multiple examples they say of Lambert . What is the response to . CBaus put together quite a number of people who you have accused of being sockpuppets including him (he also had other links to people discussing Lambert). Start with , who you have accused of being a sockpuppet more than anyone else. Shucks, I forgot, you think is a sockpuppet! ] 22:57, January 7, 2006 EDST)


::::::: Ah Serinity, the master of the Write Only Browser. Whether you deliberately ignore my original replies to the comments you feel were not replied to, or you honestly can't see them for some reason; either way, it makes you tough to have a discussion with. So once again, a trip into the recent past, where Serinity had left us:

::::::::''Next up, my statements re the time at which the controversy began have nothing to do with Lambert's email, that's his addition. My statements come from a simple google search of usenet. I did not receive any email from Dr. Lott, but since I was in on the discussion on usenet at the time, I am also in a position to verify the dates involved, and google gives a public record of those dates. ... As for allegations of Lambert sockpuppets, the site involved gives no evidence whatsoever of same and is simple, baseless character assassination. If you are so upset about being baselessly accused yourself, where there was circumstantial evidence including actual sockpuppets whose position you were repeating, I'd think you'd be a bit more sensitive about repeating groundless slander. Similarly, the evidence for Lambert falsifying evidence is lacking, other than the sayso of somebody trying to defend their own actions. But those are mainly for Lambert to speak to, I merely bring it up since it seems to be part of the alleged support for the set of mass rewrites you wish to introduce. Finally, let me apologize from the bottom of my heart for the false accusation of socketry puppetry, even if I had nothing to do with it, which has scarred you so deeply. However, as I mentioned previously, this does not constitute support for falsehoods masquerading as NPOV. Now happy frigging new year and don't fire your guns up into the air to celebrate ] 02:06, 31 December 2005

:::::: On the survey results being unlike those of others, why isn't it relevant that all but two of the conflicting surveys are separated by over twenty years? The earlier archived sections of the Talk here also mention how the sets of surveys did not ask the exact same questions. Lott's asked about the last year. All the others apparently inquired about the last five years. Why doesn't this supply the reason for the differences? ] 00:57, 30 December 2005 PDT) (Sorry, minor fix on user ID) Since you just reprint what you have below, I have just reprinted what choward has already put together. ] 22:57, January 7, 2006 EDST)

::::::: And again:
:::::::: similarly, the 9 surveys which mysteriously equal two in your (plural) suggested mass revision have nothing to do with any private archive of Lambert, but are freely countable in the scientific literature. You say: ''There doesn't seem to be a question that this was redone and all the numbers are similar.''; in fact, the results of his own second survey indicate a '''less than .05 chance of getting the results claimed for the first survey''', which fits the generally accepted scientific definition of '''"proved false"'''. Regarding the question of Cbaus' first edit, you were taking the position that whether or not he did the survey he claimed to have done is irrelevant because he clearly believes he did it??? In the first place, that's a pretty bad example of getting into somebody else's mind, and in the second place, that's about the most biased point of view thing I have seen in quite a while. I stand by my original position, that since the vast preponderance of the evidence proves that he did not do the survey except for one person who believes (but can't be certain) he might have been part of the surveyed population, the statement that Lott believes he did it is indeed tantamount to stating that he is insane. Which I would not feel comfortable placing in this article, even if you believe it would remove the "point of view" regarding his lapse of professional ethics. ] 02:06, 31 December 2005

::::::: That response is wholey inbadequate. There were more than two surveys over the time period. This is a true statement. The surveys in the period are cited. We know when the new survey was started because it was so well documented. We know when the contravercy started because there are all kinds of public record questions about the 2% number. Stop talking about how evil tim lambert is. The statement that the surveys are separated by 20 years is garbage. Look at the dates. ] - ] 16:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

::::''OK, let's go one at a time. You claim the second book was written before the controversy over the existence of the first survey. The controversy had already started in 1998. The book was written in 2002. Kindly give us some evidence the book was written before 1998, or that 1998 is after 2002. Gzuckier 02:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::''You aren't trying to be serious, and you obviously didn't read the discussion above, or at least didn't care. Out of all the points raised above you raise one and do so incorrectly. My understanding is that this discussion got serious in the beginning of 2003 and that to set up a survey and get all the people to participate in doing it probably took some time before the survey was even done. That probably puts us in the middle of 2002.Timewarp 19:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
::::''Your various attempts to cast aspersions on my motives, competency, or level of effort in no way alleviate you from the need to justify your counterfactual mass of edits, which you appear to believe represent one single large and lumpy fact. What part of "OK, let's go one at a time." confuses you? Who are we to believe, your understanding or the record of Usenet debate as freely searchable? Would you prefer it to read "the second book was written after the debate on the survey, but before the date which Timewarp says he understands to be when the debate got serious"? Gzuckier 16:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::''As for when the discussion got serious, does this email from John Lott on Sep 21,2002, ring a bell?
::::::''I am extremely busy so please save up what you want to send me for a week or so, but this sounds like an excellent test. If they do any type of search, Nexis/Lexis or google or check the transcripts of my testimony, I am willing to bet that I don't start mentioning this figure until the spring of 1997. If I use it before I said that I did the survey, I will say that they nailed me. But if I only started using it about the time that I said that I did the survey, I think that it would be strong evidence the other way. Let's see what they find. ''(John Lott)
:::::''--TimLambert 17:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
::::''Since Timewarp seem eager to move on on multiple fronts, let's go to point two, in my limited list. This in no way is to be construed that the debate over the assertions regarding his personal hunch as to when the debate over survey #1 got serious are convincing regarding when the debate over the survey actually began.
:::::''In fact, Lott's 98%/2% figure contradicts the other '''two surveys''' over the last twenty years that estimated this rate. ''(changed from ''all the other surveys'')
::::''Actual list of surveys, (more than two)
::::''Survey Percent firing Source
::::''Kleck 24 Kleck 1995
::::''NSPOF 27 Duncan 2000
::::''NCVS 1987-1990 28 Duncan 2000
::::''NCVS 1987-1992 38 Rand 1994
::::''NCVS 1992-2001 21 NCVS online analysis system
::::''Field 34 Kleck 1995
::::''Cambridge Reports 67 Kleck 1995
::::''DMIa 40 Kleck 1995
::::''Ohio 40 Kleck 1995
:::::''AS you know and even if you did not it was pointed out in the previous discussion, these data here are when these surveys were cited, not when they took place. It is just an example of the misediting that people such as XRLQ have pointed to Timewarp 22:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
::::''Firstly, the date of these surveys is irrelevant to the fact that Lott's estimate is wildly divergent from any and all of them, in terms of the question of whether his survey was done at all. Or are you suggesting that he can only be expected to tailor the reported results of his survey to match the data known at the time, and cannot be faulted for not matching results which only came in later? Secondly, in any event, the fact remains that his 98%/2% statement "if national surveys are correct" is false, based even on only whichever two surveys of the 9 which you deign to accept. Thirdly, the statement that the dates in the table reflect the publication date of the surveys, not when they were done, is not any sort of support for your assertion that there were only two surveys over the previous twenty years, given that six of the surveys have publication dates in 1994 and 1995. Or are you assuming that they were published before they were done? Turn the tables, if people accuse Lott of making up a survey result, maybe you can accuse everybody else of making up their surveys?
::::''If you don't mind, I'll hold up on points 3, 4, 5, 6, ..... N until the community has reached some sort of consensus with these two, as the constant vague references to this all having been discussed previously keep things from making any progress.Gzuckier 17:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
::::''If you don't have good answers to these objections, perhaps you should not be reposting the objectionable material as a part of a wholesale overhaul, under the guise of "being nonpartisan". Gzuckier 01:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I reiterate yet again: if you cannot even come up with some reason why my objections to these two of your (plural) mass edits are invalid, I don't see how we can honestly include them in the article. That being the case, I don't see how we can honestly use your (plural) communally accepted mass rewrite/frequent revert en masse. If you wish to deal honestly with these objections, then we can go on to the long list of other, similar objections I have to the other, similar, illogical, unsupported, counterfactual, and otherwise unacceptable edits, several of which I have taken the time and effort to list (now resident in the archives) without response (thus my starting off with only these two). And all the personal insults and self-righteous self-pity you guys continue to post here has '''no relevance''' as to whether these objections should be ignored. Even if everything you have stated about "our" treatment of your poor suffering truth seekers is true, you still have to answer to the general satisfaction of the community the valid questions about why your (plural) apparently irreducible set of edits do not appear to make any sense before you can expect said edits to remain as "counterbalance to a biased point of view". And I've seen enough of the unsubstantive weaselly "responses" here (see the section on "if the 2% question is so minor, then why...") to know that I need to restate again: '''these two objections are not the totality of my objections to your (plural) mass rewrite; see the archive for my list of just the objections to your (plural) rewrite of the bogus survey section; if that's too much trouble for you, I'll be glad to repost them here. And those are not the only objections to the entire rewrite you (plural) propose; that's just the one section. So, even if you blow off these two edits you propose, I can't honestly accept the rest of the misinformation you attempt to post until we resolve all those questions.''' ] 04:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

PS if there is any doubt, every other thing Severity has inserted into the 2% part is equally objectionable, I just don't see the need to waste even more time. And I feel fairly safe in assuming that every other piece of the Serinity edit is as reliable. ] 02:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

== Person who claims to partcipated in survey ==

I took a look at the link in question and the web page does not say hal;f the tigns about that guy as our rtcile did. All of this talk about him being an activist or that he '''later''' believed that the survey was for Lott is simply not in that cite. This stuff '''may''' be true (still has NPOV problems as characerizing someone as an activist can be POV unless they clasim it themself or its exceedingly obvious) but the cite doesnt support any of that, so it should not be there until thise assertions can be. The artcile just says he was a attorney who claimed that he was apart of the survey. That's it. Al tis other stuff is entirely unspported and needs to be if it should be a part of the article Can anyone find something on that? Thanks.] ] 21:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

== David Gross ==

Further, other than one Second Amendment activist who recalls being surveyed about guns in that period of time and now believes it to have been the Lott survey, no one has come forward to report that they were associated with survey. ]

vs.

However, at least one person has come forward to report that they were associated with survey.


1. There is no evidence that anyone else has come forward. "At least one," while it includes "one," is not as accurate as "one."

2. The individual that came forward was David Goss, , ,
, , who is best described as a "Second-Amendment Activist"

3. If you were fully engaged in the issue, you would be aware of Lindgren's interview with Gross that said, in part "As I delved into the other studies being done in the 1996-97 period, I found that Gross’s description of the questions that he was asked fit a 1996 Harvard study by Hemenway & Azrael better than Lott’s account of his study questions." If you'd like to bulk up that section, I would be glad to do so. ] - ] 21:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

PS 4. The same interview with Lindren also included : "When I asked him if he remembered anything about who called, he said that he “was beginning to think” that the call came from students in Chicago, perhaps at Northwestern or the University of Chicago, but he was very uncertain about whether the call came from a Chicago area source. In his public statement issued after he talked with me more than once, however, Gross’s very uncertain memory became a bit more certain, suggesting that the call probably came from the University of Chicago. That and the timing (which he was also not certain about) were the only things that pointed to him having been called by Lott as opposed to another survey organization." ] - ] 21:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not being "fully engaged" so feel free to cite the "fact" that he is an activist and that he is the '''only''' one. Unless there is SOME kind of support for those assertions, they just can't be made, that's crazy! You can;t jsut assume he's the only one because he's the only one that you or I know of LOL! Go ahead and cite away and we'll take a look at it from that point, thanks, have a good one.] ] 21:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

:Is there another person that has come forward? No one seems to know of one - Lott only alleges one came forward. Lott's detractors allege only one came forward. Is there someone else who alleges someone else came forward? LOL! ] - ] 21:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, thats the point. You can;t jsut assume that w/o some kind of cite lol. You said Lott only alleges one came forward. Ok, cite that and that's fine, but it clearly can;t stand on its own without SOME proof, come on lol.

You can't prove a negative. He's the only one Lott has shown coming forward. If you can find someone else coming forward, then we'll include them also. LOLOLOLOLOL. ] - ] 22:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all: jus relax, it's not a big deal, Second: then what basis does '''anyone''' have to say that he's the ONLY one??? If it's only becuase he's the only one that you know of...then that's not good enough. If you have an actual cite that says he's the only only one I'd probably trust that or a cite that has Lott saying he's the only one...that'd be even better, but it's just OR without SOMETHING to back it up....of course! I'm not demadning hard core proof, just SOMETHIGN that says that he was the ONLY one. The blog just seems to imply that he was the first...not the only one. Thanks for the cites, it's fine and much better cited, thanks!] ] 22:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

:He's not the only one I know of, he's the only one that's been reported anywhere. He's the only one Lott talks about at www.johnlott.com. He's the only one the critics talk about at their various cites. He's the only one who issued a press release. There is no other person that has come forward. No one reports "No one other than this chumly has come forward," they report the news "chumly has come forward." If you could find a news source that said "In addition to chumly, chump has come forward," please do so. With regards to "relax," I'm not the one fat-fingering keys and honestly inserting "lol" at the end of everything I write - that's you. ] - ] 22:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

::Lott himself can't come up with anyone else who was surveyed other than Gross so I really don't feel it would be NPOV for '''us''' to assert that there were more than one. PS it's probably good for Gator to "keep us honest" by asking for robust support for our position; I await with some trepidation the riposte from the "other side". ] 04:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

::In fact, now that I think of it, before the "other side" reports Lott's self-justifications as truth, I'll preemptively prepuncture what's in Lott's survey defense page linked to above; Lott presents his documentary "proof" and for the following assertions:
:::1)Lott states ''1)Professor David Mustard confirms that I discussed doing the survey together with him many times during 1996''; Lott's supplied documents, however, have Mustard saying precisely:
::::''Do I have direct first-hand evidence about John Lott’s survey?
::::''I did not co-author the work on the survey with John, I did not work for John as a paid employee, and I do not know anyone who worked with John on the survey. I have not seen any survey instruments or primary data from the original survey.
:::Mustard tries to soften the blow to his friend by confirming the existence of Lott's disk crash without reference to the survey, and that Lott had thought about doing a survey, and that he can't remember when Lott first mentioned the survey but he thinks it highly probable that it was in November 1998 (2 years after Lott had been discussing the 2% figure in public and print):
::::''Did John specifically mention that he lost his survey data in his computer crash?
::::''John told me that he had lost all his data in the crash. He specifically told me that he lost all data related to our paper, which I later restored to the best of my ability. He also mentioned how he lost many things related to his book, which set him back in completing the book and forced him to eliminate some things he intended to include in the book.
::::''Was their evidence of Lott’s intending to do a survey?
::::''As we worked on the concealed carry paper, John talked about pursuing other projects to extend our work on concealed carry and guns. We talked extensively about self-defensive uses of guns and how we knew how frequently guns were used for self-defense and in what contexts they were used. John articulated a desire to learn more about self-defensive uses through a survey
::::''...
::::''When do I first remember talking with John Lott about the survey?
::::''I do not remember the first time John Lott and I talked about the survey. At the time there was nothing exceptional about the survey for me to associate with it and help me remember when I first learned about it.
::::''I believe it likely that John informed me of the completed survey in 1997.
::::''I think it highly probable that John told me he had completed the survey at the time of my talk at the Academics for the Second Amendment conference in Washington, DC in November 1998.
::::''I know beyond a reasonable doubt that John and I talked about the completed survey before I testified to the Maryland House of Delegates Judiciary Committee on 20 October 1999
:::Mustard goes on to confirm the existence of Lott's 2002 survey and his disk crash, neither of which are in any doubt. In fact, many witnesses can testify to the loss of Lott's main body of work in the crash; yet none of those presented by Lott as witnesses can attest to the loss of this survey under question. It's as if a kid who claims the dog ate his homework attempts to prove it by producing a picture of his dog. ] 05:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Lott then cites ''2)A statement by John Whitley, who at the time was a graduate student at the University of Chicago and is now at Adelaide University in Australia, saying that he believes that he met the students that conducted the survey. He also confirms my hard disk crash.
:::In fact, Lott's provided documents have Whitley saying precisely:
::::''Unfortunately, I can't directly corroborate the survey, but I do have one memory which may be related. I remember stopping by John's office one time I think during my first year and there were some undergraduates in the office. John was finishing up with them and my recollection is that he introduced me to them and then they left. I think he introduced their names (which I don't remember) and said that they had recently worked for him (although I don't remember if he said on what), they then left and I met with John to talk about working as an RA for him. I am pretty sure they were undergraduates because I seem to recall them being impressed when I said I was an econ graduate student (anything that inflates your ego during the first year of graduate school at the University of Chicago is a big deal at the time).
::::''In that situation, what I really remember most is the scene and not the words. I don't know when exactly it was, but I can remember the room. It was in John's old office, when he was in the middle of the back wall of the Chicago Law School library (before he moved over near the stairwell to the smaller office). I can remember him sitting at his desk and the students (I am pretty sure there were two students, but not 100% positive) were standing between me at the door and John at his desk against the far wall. I think one was taller than me (I am 5'6") and had lighter hair while the other was shorter and had darker hair (the heights I am pretty sure of, the hair color I am less sure of). The taller one was closer to me and seemed to be more of the leader. For some reason, that image sticks in my head.
::::''Unfortunately it is possible that I am mixing this scene up in my head with other events, but it is fairly clear in my head so I am at least reasonably confident in it. If my recollection is correct, it is entirely possible (very likely, in fact) that these were some of the students who had worked on the survey (I do have some vague recollection that they had coordinated something and that others may have been involved). Unfortunately that is all I can really remember on that one right now, sorry I can't be more specific.
:::Of course, Whitely goes on to recollect that there was a disk crash, although without any recollection that a survey was involved. ] 05:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

:::''3) David Gross, a former assistant city prosecutor from Minneapolis, provides evidence that he was interviewed in my survey in 1997. There were only two other defensive gun surveys after 1995 and neither was done in 1997. Both those other surveys were done by Hemenway and were extremely different from the survey that I gave.
:::As described above, when Gross told Lott he thought he remembered being in the DGU survey, Lott did not reply that that was '''his''' survey; that came later.

:::''4) Geoff Huck, the editor at the University of Chicago Press who handled More Guns, Less Crime, remembers that I lost the computer file for my book in the computer crash and that part of the book was permanently lost, though it has been six years and he can't remember what part that was. While he no longer works for the Press and does not have his work e-mails, he does have one e-mail on his home computer from the end of July 1997 that helps verify the loss of material for my book.
:::Yes. There was a crash. Once again, Lott lost the main piece of his book; he told everybody that at the time; nobody questions it. He told nobody he lost the survey until the existence of the survey was questioned.

:::''5) Multiple academics also confirm my hard disk crash. Many of these academics were involved in co-authoring research with me and themselves suffered from this loss because it affected our joint research. They don't remember all the other data that was lost, but they can confirm that the hard disk crash was catastrophic and that I lost all the data that I had. All these statements are backed up by memos in the attached file. Eight academics wrote letters to the Post, but I could have gotten many others
:::Yes. There was a crash. Once again, Lott lost the main piece of his book; he told everybody that at the time; nobody questions it. He told nobody he lost the survey until the existence of the survey was questioned.
:::If that's the best defense Lott himself can provide for the existence of the survey, I don't feel too comfortable taking the unsupported word of the Lottophiles that there is other evidence that Lott apparently doesn't know about himself. ] 05:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Gzuckier and Hip, it's much better cited now, thanks. I refuse to have any hard feelings towards you Hip, no matter how angry you become with me. Real progress is being made on the artcile, so it's hard to understand the level of animosity of the talk page. See AGF. I have no hidden motives here. What you see is what you get. Great edits by the way.] ] 21:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

== I protest! ==

Just kidding, I'm ok with all the edits to my last version as of now. Excelsior! ] 04:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

== References ==

Oops, I thought that were automatically deleted. My mistake! Thanks!] ] 22:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

== rosheduction ==

Yeah, I'm OK with the current. ] 23:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The deleted info is definitely uncited, but I do not see why its vague or fundamentally unsupportable. It seems to me that the best thing would be someone familiar with the Mary Rosh postings to re-insert it, complete with citations for every assertion. ---] 00:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Or we could just have Serinity rewrite the whole article for us. ] 20:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

A great deal of that was uncited and I've been unable to find evidence on those points. can anyone get cites for al those quotes and paraphrasings? If not, then its unsupported. I don't think the whole sockpuppet thing deserves much mention anyway. If it were not for the fact that sockpuppetry is a mortal sin no where but here, it would barely get any mention if at all, but I admit is is notable, but still needs to be cited.] ] 20:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That alst edit was me, I got signed out for some reason. Please stop putting it back without the proper cites. It's not amatter of preference, all taht nformation jsut needs to be cited and it's not. I looked and cannot find that info, so fel free to have a go, but reverting adn putting in uncited info like that is not the way to go here. Please stop.] ] 20:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

: I agree. Its not good enough to say that all that stuff has been sourced by TL elsewhere. It needs to be sourced in this article. Every claim in that paragraph needs to be accompanied by a specific citation. --] 21:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

::It'd be helpful if editors could use accurate edit summaries. One editor removed the Mary Rosh quote with the summary:
::*''Mary Rosh online persona - moved things around to get same point across in a more NPOV fashion.)
::Things weren't "moved around", they were deleted. And if the issue is sourcing then say so, rather then saying that the problem is NPOV. It is hard to answer an objections which isn't stated. -] 21:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if "moved around" wasn't accurate enough for you, but I can see where you're coming from. As far as NPOV, that was my initial objection but when I took a second look at it I did realize how little was atually cited. A lot of quoted so I assumed it must have been cited, so I didn't look coser, but on second glance I saw the problem and provided the appropriate edit summary. My apology for the confusion.] ] 21:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

:If sourcing of the quote was the problem, it only took a few moments to find it. -] 22:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks for finding that cite I havent checked it yet, but thanks. And not hat was not the onyl problem but was oen of them. The section is still almost entirely unsupported with only a couple cite needed tags in there. While that's a step, the fact remains that thwere is unsupported material in the article. If it isn't supported, how long should it remain that way before it just needs to be removed? As a measure of good faith, I won't remove it and will give it time for someone to source this stuff, but for how long? Thanks.] ] 13:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
That section needed alot more cites than just two, it needs several more in order for all thsoe assertions to be properly supported and remain int he article, so I added citation needed tags as appropriate.] ] 13:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, wehave a problem. If those thigns don;t need to be cited, then come here and explain why, but blidnly reverting and remogint erh ccite needed tags is the wtrong approach. I think all of those thigns need o be cite adn I don;t think I'm "gettign carried away." It looks like alot, becuase, frankly, there is a ton of unsupported claims in this section (I haven;t even looked at other sections yet) and they jut need to be supported if they are going to remain. please stop blibndly reverting and make your arguments here. Thanks.] ] 14:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I have no idea what happened with those cites. If I did that inadverently I apologize. Deep breaths folks.] ] 14:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

=== Bad memory or bad faith? ===

You removed the following content that was in the article before you came here, because you said the article was too long on the rosh stuff:

"After the discovery, Lott stated to the Washington Post:

"I probably shouldn't have done it – I know I shouldn't have done it – but it's hard to think of any big advantage I got except to be able to comment fictitiously." "

Today, you are putting cite needed on "Lott admitted that he had created and used "Mary Rosh" as a ] to defend his own works on ]."

Either you are acting in bad faith, or you lack the memory required to effectively edit this article. ] - ] 14:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If there is a cite for that quote, then let's use it to replace one of the cite needed tags (The one at the beginning I think). I don't remember there being one or else I would like to think I would have thought twice about removing it. If there is a cite, let's use that at the top. I still don;t think we ened the quote if he admitted it, but we do need a cite right? Thanks. Oh and AGF.] ] 14:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

==Thanks Hipocrite==
Thanks for finding those cites, Hip. That's what we needed.] ] 15:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

== Other sockpuppets ==

OK, I did read Tim's cite for otehr sockpuppets, but it's just a cite to his own blog with the allegations of other sockpuppetry. I didn't think that was nearly good enough and its not palced after the sockpuppet allegation so it's confusing. Now I'm not saying he didn't do it, I personally think he did, but my probelm is with the sourcing. Do other people feel that a cite to his own blog is good enough or should there be something more concrete? Thoughts? I will move/copy the cite to the correct placve so it looks cited.] ] 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

:Don't care. Attribute it to Tim Lambert, if you want. ] - ] 17:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else? Oh and Hip, if I didn't fix the cites correctly, I'm sorry, it's a little beyond me. Please feel free to show me how it's done and I'll do that correctly from now on. Thanks.] ] 18:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh and the whole "period" thing? What's that accomplishing? Come on.... Check ]. ] ] 18:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

== Cite ==

I started to go through some cityea dnt he first one I looked at had a problem.

The article attributes the following quote:

:"The papers that get downloaded the most get noticed the most by other academics. '''It is very important that people download this paper as frequently as possible'''." (Emphasis in the original) to: {{ref|roshdownload}}.

However, footnote 26, doesn't include this quote. Anyone know where that may be? Did I just miss it? Thanks.] ] 14:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


:Because you fucked up the footnotes - AGAIN - the numbering is off. Check the name of the footnote, not the numbering. ] - ] 14:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

::Dude, CHILL. I only touched them ONCE and you corrected and told me never to do it again "period" Remember that? Calm down and watch the language. Just find the right cite and put it there. It's not a big friggin deal. There is no need for a nasty comment from you every time you have to edit. Just stop it. See ] and read it this time.] ] 14:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

==Footnotes==
Why don't we use the traditonal citation method of just putting the website in single brackets after the cited sentence. Call me stupid, but this footnoting system seems overly complicated. Is there a real advantage to this system verus the traditonal method? Let's just do it the easy way. Thoughts?] ] 14:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

:No. What is currently in place is one generation behind best practice. You want to take it back to two generations back. If you'd like to learn how to do citations right, please review ], ]. We can't put the list of dozens of articles that you insisted I include in the references section as inclines. ] - ] 14:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

::I understand that one os more advanced or newer thant he other, but how exactly is it better? I've reviewed that before and I don't really see how one is generations ahead of the other. Just different. Why can't we put them as inclines? It takes up the same space and people can just click the number and go to the web page instead of having clicking the number and then being brought to the bottom and then having to go back up to remind themself what the footnote number was and then going down again and then clicking on the footnote.

If one is really better than the other that's fine, but I'm just not seeing how it is.] ] 14:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

: How exactly are you going to do note 9, which you insisted I include, as an inline? Why won't you just spend the time to learn how to do footnotes? Then, instead of POV warring across the encyclopedia, you could actually contribute. ] - ] 14:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Knock it off, I'm being polite and civil here. No one is POV warring here or anywhere else. I could care less about John Lott, it's you is astonishingly emotional about this guy (I don;t know why) so stop trying to prompt irate replies that can then be even further ridiculed, in turn. There's a word for that.

At your invite, I have learned how to do them I just really think they are unnecessarilly complex. I'm not sorry for insisting that things need to be cited but they were (and still are) alot of unsupported allegations. We could just remove them but people want all of them in so they need to be cited.

As far as footnote 9: we could either try and find an electronic version (which is preferable for cite checking anyway) or just cite it paranthetically. That's not as pretty, but those ciotes are in the minority, so I don't think we should adopt such a more cumbersome and complex system for jsut a handful of those kind of cites.

Anyone else have thoughts about the citation system that's been adopted?] ] 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

== PoV check ==

You've had your way with the article for two weeks with basically no disagreement from the standard editors of this page. It's about time for the tag to go. As such, I have modified it to pov_check, and must insist that people that see remaining POV problems with the article to POST THEM BELOW, ON THE TALK PAGE. ] - ] 15:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the tag. Much good work has been done despite unnecessary animosity. I was thinking of removing today or tomorrow anyway. Thanks.] ] 15:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
==== Pov Problems ====
===== Problem 1 =====

== Anonymous vandal ==

If the anonymous vandal reintroduces his biased version and is not reverted by Gator1 at some point within the next 24 hours, I will revert to my prefered version of the article. If it is to be anonymous sockpuppets flailing at people trying to fix the article, I might as well make my reverts count. ] - ] 03:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I go out of town for a little bit and all heck breaks lose. Word to anons and alleged sock puppets...use this page to argue for your version instead of just reverting. it makes you look like nothing other than vandals and will guarantee that your version (nor any part of it) will never be included in the article. Start talking. Stop reverting.] ] 13:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

== Semi-Protect ==

I've requested that this page be semi-protected to stop anon sock vandals from doing this garbage and Ihave reported the sokcs as vandals in multiple locations.] ] 16:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks, but I expect that this will not be seen as vandalism as opposed to agressive and poor editing by the sockpuppeteer in question. ] - ] 16:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
::Had same thought, but I'm trying anyway. At least a semi-protect, by itself, would help. We'll see what happens.] ] 16:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

:::Ahhh much better. Thanks!] ] 21:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

== An opinion ==
This page needs to be permanently semi-protected. --] 00:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it has been protected from all editing and I don't see the reason. Other than anon vandals, things are going well and there are no major discussions regarding content right now. Please go back to semi-protection.] ] 13:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

:Semi-protection is not designed to keep bad editors who refuse to log in from editing the page, and was innapropriate in this case. ] - ] 14:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

::Sei-protection keeps anon editors from editing, which is where almost al of the vandalism sock edits were coming from....if you're opposed to semi-protection thats fine, but why do you want to prohibit all editing? There are no discussions going on here that require that and (at least with semi-proection) you can stop most the the anon vandals? What's your rationale?] ] 14:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

:::While the anonomyous editors were doing nothing to help the encyclopedia, ] does not evaluate the quality of the edits, rather the motive behind them. The anonymous editors were not vandalizing the article, they were just editing poorly. As such, semi-protection is not justified. I did not request full protection. ] - ] 14:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

::::Alright, I thought you would want semi-protection to keep them out, but it looks liekw e agree that full protecton is unjustfied. I'd like to know who requested it or why Woohoo felt it was necessary. Let's get rid of it.] ] 14:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

::::: I agree that full protection is unwarranted at the moment. --] 15:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::Then please come to the request page and say that. I'm done arguing with him about every little thing.] ] 15:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

== Just the facts, Ma'am ==
I suggest that the entire piece be subjected to a meat-cleaver, reducing it down just a bibliography and academic background. There are hundreds (thousands?) of political commentators, and Wiki isn't the place for pro-and-con wrangling over their subject(s) of interest; ....that's what blogs and Amazon.com book reviews are for. See the ] entry for an example of truncation (see the history link for the formerly bloated and incessantly-argued version). --] 05:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
:The dishonesty in this case is the subject of articles in the Washington Post, and the academic dispute is the subject of numerous journal articles. ] - ] 12:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
::Er...exactly. Which is why chop/hack/thwock/mince/grind/crunch down to bib+aca, otherwise you'll never, ever get away from the endless cycle of people all clamoring to insert their most favoritist puff or slam piece on all earth.--] 12:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
:This would be a betrayal of our duty to write an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages does not shrink from controversy; see the ] article for details. Yes, this article will always be edited often, but I don't see why thats a bad thing. --] 15:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
:The controversy regarding Lott's studies, and concomitant accusations of dishonesty, are very significant factors regarding Lott. An article that omitted these would be incomplete. The challenge is ensuring that this is done in a ] manner, and that weight is given appropriately based on the prominence of various criticisms and defenses. <TT>] <SMALL>(] • ])</SMALL></TT> 09:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

== Sockpuppets and meatpuppets ==

The section below was added to the article by 152.163.100.10 (an AOL ip, probably Lott). It obviously doesn't belong in the article but it is relevant here in talk. 152.163.100.10 (let's call him 152 for short) asserts that the people in the list below have been accused of being sock puppets and writes:

: While Purtilo has been accused of being a sockpuppet for Lott over 20 times in different places, Jim Purtilo is actually a computer science professor at the University of Maryland.
: While Stotts has been accused of being a sockpuppet for Lott several times, he is a Professor at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
: While HenryBowman has been accused of being a sockpuppet for Lott several times, he is a professor at a small midwestern university. He was accused of being a sockpuppet for just pointing out that this page was contentious.
: While CBaus has been accused of being a sockpuppet for Lott at least four times in different places, Chad Baus lives in Ohio.
: While Gordinier has been accused of being a sockpuppet for Lott four times, Michael Gordinier teaches at the Washington University Business School in St. Louis, Missouri .
: While Henry1776 has been accused of being a sockpuppet for Lott, he is Henry Schaffer, at NC State.
: While Sniper1has been accused of being a sockpuppet for Lott four times, he is Mike Fleisher, a resident of suburban MD.
: Serinity was accused of being a sockpuppet for Lott four times before people stopped claiming that he was a sockpuppet in November, 2005.
: While 66.92.151.249 has been accused of being a sockpuppet for Lott several times, Jeff Koch lives in the same city as Lott, but he is not John Lott.
:
:
: Even those posting from places where Lott is unlikely to be located are accused of being him.
:
:
:
:
How does 152 know the real names of all these users? None of them identified themselves. The only explanation I can think of is that a call for help went out on some pro-gun mailing list and these users edited the article and reported back to the list (or to Lott) what they had done. That makes them ]. There is also a difference between saying that someone is a suspected sock puppet and accusing them of being Lott. I suspected that Purtilo might be Lott; I accused Timewarp of being Lott. Note that 152 does not deny that Timewarp is Lott. He also includes some users identified by IP address that I never suggested were Lott, but leaves out ones that I did suggest were Lott. I did say that 66.190.73.64 was probably Lott and that is indeed in Fort Worth. Thing is, though. All four edits by 66.190.73.64 were done on the night of October 13 2004 and he gave a talk in Austin on the 13th and in Lubbock on the 14th, so it sure seems reasonable that he spent the night of the 13th in Fort Worth. --] 13:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

: Tim, it's pretty exhausting trying to talk reasonably about this stuff in the forum when the first thing you do is obliterate the points we try to make. Answers to some of the rhetorical questions you raise were already there in earlier material, which you snipped. Oh well. So let's look at just the narrow question of sockpuppets and meatpuppets for the moment. I checked out the names I could find from the histories (fortunately there are other research tools besides WP on the web) and the ones I found are real people, and they're listed accordingly. What motivated them to want to get involved? Beats me, I don't speak for them, but there's no question this discussion has been noticed in many other forums on the web. (I'm cheerfully using it as the basis for disallowing Misplaced Pages's use as an authoritative source on my campus, for example.) Your antics in talk.politics.guns are well known, and surely there are blogs where someone has observed "there goes Lambert again." But look, your own analysis above isn't even self consistent. I dutifully traversed the links on the pages you cited above, and surprise, the log from Lott that you use to prove Lott was in a town on one date (and supposedly posted here as such) cites a different year than is under discussion. I'm not sure that what Lott did in 2004 has much to do with where he posted from at the relevent 2005 dates, other than those who don't look close might be satisfied - typical of the "I'll see it when I believe it" crowd. Give it a rest. -- Jim ]

:: I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "I checked out the names I could find from the histories (fortunately there are other research tools besides WP on the web) and the ones I found are real people, and they're listed accordingly." Huh? Listed where? How do you know, for example, that ] is Chad Baus from Ohio, that ] is Michael Gordinier from WUSTL, that ] is from UNC-Chapel Hill, that ] is Henry Schaffer, that ] is Mike Fleischer? -- ] 15:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:53, 25 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Lott article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 12 months 
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
WikiProject iconConservatism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFirearms C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms
CThis article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Talk:John Lott/Archive 4#Article name, Talk:John Lott#Page Name

Page Name

The Gnome, would you be opposed to changing the name to John Lott (firearms researcher), (firearms activist) or similar. Lott is really known for for his firearms research and activism, not political activism in general. Springee (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Greetings, Springee. I agree that Lott is mostly known for this particular aspect of his activism, i.e. defending and promoting the institutional freedom of gun ownership and use, but perhaps we should hesitate before changing the title from the general to the specific. Lott, per sources, is a prominent person in American right-wing politics, and, consequently, ready to be active in other issues that are important to the right. We cannot ignore he's already involved, as pointed out in the article, in issues such as abortion, immigration, women's rights, environmental law, and voter fraud claims. Should we perhaps wait some time before we narrow this down? -The Gnome (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I see your point. I'm not sure I'm convinced but I see nothing wrong with taking a wait and see approach. Springee (talk)
      • I agree, IMO it needs to be changed to what he is actually noted for (IMO, an author). Also, if some feel that an author's work is activism, that does not change that they are an author. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
        "Author" and not economist, researcher, activist or gun rights advocate? SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
        I think "researcher" would be a close second, but not economist and the others.North8000 (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
        But not a researcher either, according to what's now in the article. Advocate works better, or his detractors would call him a polemicist, I suppose. SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
        He also self-identifies as an economist, and current mainstream references mostly introduce him as an author or president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. But I think "author" is best for a one word disambig.North8000 (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
        What about firearms author or firearms advocate? I think he is most known for his work related to firearms. I don't like activist because that can come off as just someone who makes noise about a subject but ignores Lott's scholarship in this and other subject areas. I'm OK with things like author though I think someone who see's "author" might think this is a different Lott. Again, since I associate him with firearms topics I would find anything that isn't "firearms..." to make me do a double take. Springee (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
        I think that you're mostly right. But we need to keep in mind that this is basically a 1 or 2 word disambig, not a summary of the person. North8000 (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't see political activist being to far off the mark, but what we should be focusing on is what the CONSENSUS OF RELIABLE SOURCES SAY, not what any one of us thinks it should say. DN (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Lott makes the news as an activist whose fields of interest are gun rights (mostly) and assorted other ones of interest to the American right-wing side of the aisle. That's what sources are saying. He's not much known as an economist, while his work in research is almost exclusively in support for his political advocacy. Again, per sources. -The Gnome (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • A literal list of what the best RS call Lott is kinda what I'm hoping for, for transparency's sake. Looking at the article though, and seeing as how he has branched off from his original pro-gun advocacy "research" and currently receives his recent notoriety from a variety of political hot topics, I have a hard time disagreeing with The Gnome at this point. He could be perceived as political advocate from the start, given his research was questionable at times, as it leaned in certain very PREDICTABLE directions. Then there's the Mary Rosh debacle, which hits about as close to home as it gets for Misplaced Pages editors. DN (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • He's known for his firearm related books. If the books are characterized by some or many as advocacy, they are still an author. If not, then we have thousands of author articles to rename. Which is a whimsical way of saying that such is not the norm. North8000 (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
The question should be, "which citations say that?", and "How do we weigh older VS current citations in that regard?" Currently, he is more well known for claiming the 2020 election was fraudulent, see . DN (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
That's RECENT and honestly, also your opinion. Springee (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
This old chestnut again? See your talk page. We are not doing this here. DN (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Agree, his work in the area of firearms, which includes peer reviewed publications, is what he is primarily known for. Activist discounts his scholarship and, in my mind the bigger issue, is fails to say anything about his association with firearms which, I think most would agree, is what he is most known for. I also would be reluctant to base this off just recent sources as well as being careful about using popular media vs more rigorous sources. Honestly, I think it was fine the way it was without a disambiguation. Springee (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
His "research" has been questionable, at best. DN (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Says who? Springee (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Try actually reading the article. If you are still confused and need me to start listing all the citations I will oblige after you have put in some effort. Cheers! DN (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
How many of those are from people who are motivated to discredit his conclusions because they don't like the conclusion? Springee (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
This is absolutely the wrong question for you to even ask. Let's avoid Poisoning the well by pretending there's some nefarious force at work to discredit JL. Use the cited reliable sources and stop using WP:OR. DN (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
If someone is known for being an author, opinions on his works do not change that. North8000 (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Again, cite your sources that say he is "just an author". DN (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I never said "just an author" nor is what I wrote dependent on that. North8000 (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Then please be more clear with what you are saying. Is there a consensus of reliable sources that suggests he is NOT politically oriented, contrary to the current list of reliable sources that suggest he is a political actor? DN (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
That's a new question, and my response is that it not the relevant one to or the standard for the topic at hand. The question at hand is a short disambig (if any) for the title of the article. People are advocating that disparagement of an author's work by his political opponents means that he should be not be called an author. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
How exactly is it a disparagement? Do you and JL speak on the daily, and did he tell you he felt disparaged? I wouldn't consider it a disparagement, just a well documented and reliably sourced fact. DN (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Oh, I thought we were talking about the disambig. Well if he didnt want peers to disparage his work, maybe he should have done his job without all the shortcuts....DN (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC) In any case, reliable sources or no? He is a political actor, and likely has been through most of his career. Reliable sources show that explicitly. DN (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • If there's one attribute whose use to distinguish this Lott (no pun intended) I'd strongly oppose it would be "author." Although authors can be activists and vice versa, and from then on it all depends on each person, our Lott (ditto) is certainly not "mostly known" as an author. That is how he's often denoted when introducing him in texts, interviews, etc, and perhaps how some people see him, but most sources out there clearly show that Lott's a quite energetic, popular, and busy political advocate. Whether we should specify the particular issue of activism he's known for is another discussion, the main one. -The Gnome (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Our objective should be to use the term that best helps readers determine this is the John Lott they are looking for. Springee's term "firearms advocate" seems closest. I would suggest however "gun advocate" as better. I don't think readers will think, "I'm looking for the John Lott who said the election was stolen, not the gun advocate" and give up on finding him. TFD (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Our objective is to say what the consensus of reliable sources say. Read the article. Without cited sources, all of this is pure opinion and conjecture. Anything else at this point kind of feels like a waste of time. Ping me when you find those citations and I'll be happy to continue the conversation here. DN (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I did a Google news search for and . The ratio of stories was 1:3. When limited the range to news before 1 Nov 2020 I found that almost all of those articles that mentioned elections were about gun laws related to elections. He is clearly best known as a gun researcher/advocate. I would be OK with TFD's "gun advocate". Springee (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
As in gun laws, AKA politics? DN (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
A very specific subset of politics. Springee (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
His website description: "John R. Lott Jr. is an American economist with an extensive background and history in politics, economics and gun rights advocacy. Google shows the following numbers in search: (Google Trends showed a low count with most going to his complete name)
  • 640k John Lott economist;
  • 943k John Lott political activist;
  • 1.130 mil John Lott gun control;
  • 1.290 mil John Lott gun rights;
  • 2.080 mil John Lott author -
  • 3.240 mil John Lott politician.
I think (politician) would be misleading since he's an economist not a congressman or the like, and if we're going to use activist (which does not reflect a dispassionate tone, and it's rather dubious) I would support (economist), or (economist, gun rights), or (gun rights activist) which actually is his avocational position. Atsme 💬 📧 13:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this. I tried "John Lott advocate" and the first search result is his web page, on which he self-describes as an "advocate". So I would think John Lott (gun rights advocate) is a strong alternative. SPECIFICO talk 14:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
That would be more useful than the current recently added "political activist" which is both pretty worthless from a disambig standpoint and also not a good choice. Although I still think that "author" is best. North8000 (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
North8000, I added the Google search #s. I also noticed that John A. Lott (a lawyer and politician) was recently added to the dab which may cause readers a bit of political confusion. Either way, gun rights advocate or author or maybe "author, gun rights advocate" will cover all the bases. Atsme 💬 📧 16:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Given the entirety of his work and not just his authorship and pro-gun advocacy, we should try to encompass the clearest picture possible. As I understand it, "An activist is a person who makes an intentional action to bring about social or political change while an advocate is one who speaks on behalf of another person or group." His stint at the DOJ, research on the 2000 election, abortion, illegal immigration, women's suffrage, affirmative action, environmental regulations and most recent voter fraud claims all seem to bare at least some weight, if not much at least current trends. While activist and advocate are sometimes interchangeable, I think I would be fine with either at this point with politics being at the root, and in line with current RS. Even perhaps both depending on consensus and or MOS? DN (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I think that there are two issues with the recent (current) title. One is that it does a weak job on the disambig job that it is supposed to do. The other is that characterizing somebody with such a range of work (authorship etc.) as just "political activist" is somewhat negative POVish. I think that "advocate" solves the latter and helps a little on the former. We should just list the top 3-4 ideas and then everybody who has been involved here here weigh in on every one of them (to avoid math problems) and see if a decision comes out of that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Not to change the subject, but I'm trying to understand why "political activist" is somewhat negative POVish? How is the label a WP:BLP issue? Or is it something else? Honest question, I swear. DN (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Because having the top level description of somebody who engages in a profession simply say "political activist" in lieu of what that noteworthy profession is is IMO somewhat negative POVish. North8000 (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I obviously disagree with prioritizing a personal opinion over the consensus of RS. His work as a researcher has often been largely skewed or flawed, and as a result, commonly disputed by peers. At least that's what RS seems to say. DN (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • For example, if a John Smith, climate change researcher and author actively advocates for government to mandate carbon reduction, would you title their article John Smith (political activist) because of their activism, or would it be climate change researcher or climate change author or researcher or author? North8000 (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
It would entirely depend on RS. DN (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Oh, come on, North8000! "Negative POVish"?! That's truly too much. You actually think that denoting your example's John Smith a political activisty instead of climate-change researcher would somehow denigrates his ideology/work? It may not be accurate or disambiguation-friendly but "negative"? -The Gnome (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Of the suggestions thus far I think John Lott (gun rights advocate) is the best. While I think "author", "economist" etc are all valid, the goal is to help a reader quickly know they are going to the right article. Based on web searches it appears that Lott is most associated with his work in firearms (research/writing/advocacy/etc). I would also note that we are starting from a point of no consensus since the "prior consensus" was just his name. Springee (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
It appears to me that you have consensus for that. Does anyone disagree that there's consensus for gun rights advocate? SPECIFICO talk 19:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Not my first choice, but fine with me. North8000 (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Not my first choice either. However, gun rights are a form of politics, so it's slightly closer to the mark, but it seems to ignore everything he's been involved in over the last 10+ years. I think I'm undecided at this point. I realize we take search criteria/results into account, google trends etc (atsme's results are interesting - "*3.240 mil John Lott politician" seems to be the highest but is that the same John R Lott we are discussing?), but how do we prioritize that versus the RS we already have in the article? DN (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
To whimsically make a point on the distinction between coverage of him and a disambig title, I think that "John Lott (human being)" would be most widely supported by sources, but not a good choice for a Misplaced Pages disambig purposes, which is a different question. The question and task is disambig in view of the other John Lott articles on Misplaced Pages, or in view of what the reader is searching for. Nobody is going to he search for "human being" or "political activist" or distinguish him from others based on those terms. North8000 (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
If we don't agree on something pretty soon, somebody will come along and propose John Lott (conspiracy theorist) and then we'll have a real mess on our hands. SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I didn't know there was a time limit? The lead currently says "is an American economist, political commentator, and gun rights advocate. 2 out of those three suggest political leanings. What am I missing? DN (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I would also note from WP:DUE "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public." If other editors want to say he is a conspiracy theorist, I doubt they could back it up with RS. DN (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine with that if it solves the problem. DN (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I think our readers will not know his middle initial and that we need a disambiguation that relates to the most likely searches for him. Yes he has worked on other issues and published on other subjects, but he stands out as one of the foremost and best-credentialed gun rights advocates. Few accredited academics are to be found among gun rights advocates, and he rose to the forefront by virtue of this approach to the issues. SPECIFICO talk 00:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Again, what am I missing? Are we supposed to prioritize/concern ourselves with search terms over RS or not? Does everyone else agree that readers will see his middle initial and get confused? Pinging Nomoskedasticity and The Gnome since they haven't weighed in yet. The whimsical point made by North did make some sense, but I was hopeful at the thought of a quick solution by a simple initial. I would also like to whimsically suggest the name Mary Rosh as an alternative (I'm kidding of course). DN (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think his middle initial is particularly confusing, and his name does appear as "John R. Lott" or "John R. Lott Jr." in quite a lot of places. Regarding searches, if you google "John Lott" you will still easily get to this page, as it will appear on google (or the disambiguation page) as "is an American economist, political commentator, and gun rights advocate"; I don't think the middle initial will lead to anyone at all hoping to land on this page becoming unable to out of confusion. Endwise (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I support John R. Lott. He has done a lot of things, so any one occupation will not describe him fully and will leave some editors unhappy. He often quotes his own name as "John R. Lott" or "John R. Lott Jr.", see e.g. his website, his twitter, and the economics paper linked above. He's not the only one, see e.g. his short biography at Fox News, which is titled "John R. Lott". Endwise (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I think that long standing title John Lott is best. Due to the huge difference in degree of prominence (2 of the others even have zero suitable sources and probably wouldn't even survive an AFD), keep the long standing name John Lott and then a disambig line and link to a disambig page for the others. Basically, revert from the undiscussed change to the long standing name and plan. 2nd best would be John Lott (Author) because that provides disambig and also the specific role that he is best known for. Further down the list but also OK would be John Lott (gun rights advocate). The current new title is a very bad idea. It's also fine with me to add his middle initial to any of the above. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think his middle initial would be necessary if it isn't just being used to disambiguate this page with other people named John Lott. For the record though, out of all the John Lott (occupation) proposals I've seen, I think (gun rights advocate) is the best. Endwise (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Hmmm.... I sense a trap ( :D /hummor). Given the previous archive issues I don't want to risk messing things up now that I know it has to be done in a special way. wbm1058 can you help with this move? Springee (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
wp -The Gnome (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Recapping a portion of my post, the current title is really bad, and that change would be an improvement which I support doing, even if not my 1st choice.North8000 (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I just moved to John R. Lott. While there is a consensus that he is not primary for the name John Lott, which I confirmed when I found the need to correctly disambiguate the mathematician on Noncommutative standard model and Poincaré conjecture, I'm not seeing enough consensus to settle on a specific parenthetical yet. The {{short description|American economist, political commentator, and gun rights advocate}} and lead sentence lists "gun rights advocate" third behind economist and political commentator so it is not clear from the article that he's primarily known for gun rights. List of economists#L doesn't even mention gun rights. I suppose if the bulk of his political commentary is about matters of either economics or gun rights then "political commentator" may be considered redundant but I think John Lott (economist, gun rights advocate) should be considered. I suggest a followup WP:requested move discussion be started to ensure wide notification and broad participation, if the middle initial isn't sufficient enough for clear identificaiton. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • You were asked for technical assistance, not a close or supervote. Please undo the move, and if you are not comfortable with the consensus request, we will ask elsewhere for help. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The process discussion could get pretty complex. But IMO Wbm1058's idea is even better. A middle initial to make it unique, without tackling the problematic task of trying to characterize him in the disambig title. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Rather than view my page move as a "close" or "supervote" I'd prefer it be viewed as a (potentially) intermediary move to (partially) revert the earlier bold move, and a — Relisting. wbm1058 (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
You have no standing to put your opinion ahead of the informed talk page consensus. Please undo your action before we have a big problem here. SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
The reason I noted "The process discussion could get pretty complex" is that the the initial bold change was so complex and entangled that it was practically impossible to revert and go back to the longstanding name. It did not have even discussion much less consensus, and in subsequent discussion it certainly had no consensus. IMO the only clear cut thing that needed doing is a revert of the initial bold move and IMO the move to his name with a middle initial is the practical way to do just that. I know that the strongest support that I expressed was against the bold change and for the long standing title. I clearly said that my OK for the parenthetical title was merely a plan "B" to that, and regarding myself John R. Lott is a practical implementation of what I expressed the strongest support for. In any event, Wbm1058's take on their recent work as basically a revert of the bold move, with discussion of any proposed changes being the next step is I think a good approach. if there are still process questions, then IMO a full revert of everything to the long standing stable version would be the thing to do. North8000 (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
This does seem like a reasonable solution. The only reason to have the (descriptor) is because we have two subjects with the same name. If we can avoid the name overlap without using the descriptor so much the better. We use that method for George H. W. Bush vs George W. Bush. It also seems like a reasonable way to avoid debates. After all, we only had this debate because it was felt this article couldn't be the primary topic for the name. Springee (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Ignoring an ongoing discussion and attempt at consensus does not "seem reasonable". When The Gnome made the change it at least had the appearance of acting in good faith. We have all been around long enough to know better. This does not look good. DN (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Page move against consensus

There were two moves that might have been permissible for an outside editor. Either undo the previous move, which had little support, or implement the consensus after long collaborative discussion on this page. The principle that an editor can parachute in when asked for techincal software assistance and supervote their own opinion in the guise of a "good compromise solution" is categorically against WP process and unacceptable disruptive and destructive. This page needs to go either to the new consensus compromise or back to its longstanding original title. I am prepared to go for enforcement if this abuse of process is not corrected. SPECIFICO talk 16:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  • IMO there wasn't a consensus, just a sort of "I won't oppose/ lesser of two evils from many". Going back to the long standing version would be fine, but complex. IMO we 99% have the long standing stable version right now, with the only difference being the addition of his middle initial. North8000 (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Then there should/could have been a call for an uninvolved close. Not a drive-by under false pretexts. And it would have been fine to revert to the longstanding at any time. You said OK, now you see a chance for a second bite at the apple so you change your mind. Well, you can change your mind but you can't change the fact that the recent move was against the then-agreed consensus. SPECIFICO talk 19:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I was pretty clear that the long standing stable version was most preferred and IMO we essentially have that. North8000 (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Agree with SPECIFICO, while john R lott would be preferable in my view, consensus takes priority in this case. DN (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
John R Lott works for me. Can we accept this as a new consensus? Springee (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
If this is a joke, I don't get it. DN (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Not a joke (not even sure why that was a thought). If enough people are ok the this vs a name with a descriptor can we just accept this as a new consensus? It came about in a bit of a backwards way but if we like it why not accept it? Springee (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely not. That's like saying a vigilante mob lynched a guy who turned out indeed to be a murderer, therefore kudos to the lynching. Stop the steal anyone? No. I am going to seek enforcement if this is not reverted either to John Lott or to the consensus as of the time of the supervote move to the current title. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree in full with SPECIFICO's position as above. Irrespective of personal preferences, what transpired is truly inexcusable for an administrator: There is an ongoing, and quite civil, discussion about the page title, with numerous editors pariticipating and many iews expressed. I deduced, perhaps correctly, perhaps incorrectly, that we had a consensus on some choice 'A'. Those who opposed my view could, of course, have registered their disagreement. Yet, wbm1058, whom an editor had only asked to techinically implement 'A', came in and implemented choice 'K' which did not carry anything near a consensus, claiming this would be an "intermediary" step; yet, this had been thus far neither a too long nor an unproductive discussion. wbm1058 could not have acted in a more incendiary way if they tried. -The Gnome (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
P.S. : If I had supported 'K' and witnessed my choice been implemented the way did, I'd protest. And I have done this in the past under similar circumstances. I don't care for grand words but I must state I always place the integrity of the project above all personal preferences. So, I do not appreciate at all the applause accorded by supporters of 'K' to wbm1058's legerdemain. -The Gnome (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I too value process. There are a few ways to look at it which might assuage your concerns. One is that there was never a real consensus for any changes. And the closest thing that there was to a consensus was against "activist" title. The "advocate" one at best was much much weaker one, and possibly not one at all. So the "middle initial" version could be seen as the "temporary" state as stated, or a revert to pragmatic "close enough" to the long standing stable version. I'm just saying that this is one way to look at it which you might find helpful, not arguing for it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
There was enough consensus for the call to go out to what we thought was a good faith software helper to implement that consensus. There are already enough process failures among editors, but the discussion here was good and collaborative and a constructive compromise was reached. BTW I am fine with just leaving the status quo and given the light traffic on this article, I don't think it's worth any further worry. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, I think your out of process concern is legitimate. Looking back at the discussion I can see enough editors supporting John R Lott and could see a good faith editor with experience in disambiguation based moves thinking this was the "least" change. However, you are correct that a consensus had formed around John Lott (gun rights advocate). As such the correct action would have either been to implement the consensus or pause and make a case why the alternative was, in the view of an editor experienced in these matters, better. Can we/should we come up with a "way forward" proposal? Springee (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Do we really have a problem with John Lott at worst that would mean that the very small number of users looking for a different Lott would click the disambiguation link prominently displayed at the top. That would be my suggestion. I'm more concerned about trimming the UNDUE gotcha thing about the graduation speech sucker punch hoax, and maybe seeing whether he has any recent noteworthy publications we could add. SPECIFICO talk 20:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine with John Lott and I age with your thinking (at least I assume I do). It's really my first choice but my feeling was consensus was change was going to happen and it was just a question of what. Status quo is find by me. Springee (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I think that it's good and best as-is. North8000 (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Revert to long standing stable version

IMO John R. Lott is close enough to the long standing stable version (John Lott) that but if Sprcifico insists, I'll try to revert to the long standing stable version or we should get that done. North8000 (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll wait a bit / maybe we should wait a bit to see how the dust settles.North8000 (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 Done The disambiguation page and the American economist article are now back where they used to be (John Lott (disambiguation) and John Lott respectively). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Grad speech deception

SPECIFICO, I think the content is UNDUE for inclusion. You disagree but based on your revert comment do you think the content should have an entire subtopic? In the article we had only two sources. Additionally, given this was something done under false pretense I'm not sure we should give the source much comment. This is especially true since the group both lied about their nature and then deceptively cut the speeches to imply something that was false to the original comments. If we think this is due, fine, a 1-2 sentence blurb would cover it. I think this is kind of a reciprocity of weight question. Just because this might have weight in an article about the group who did the deception doesn't mean it's significant in an article about Lott. This really tells the readers nothing about Lott or his ideas/etc. Conversely, it says a lot about how this group uses the same deceptive tactics as a group like Project Veritas to try to discredit an ideological opponent. Springee (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure at the moment, but it was remarkable he was taken in by the fraud. Lets find some RS commentary on how it plated out beyond the MSNBC universe. SPECIFICO talk 16:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I think RECENT should be considered but I also think your suggestion is reasonably prudent. Springee (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone have a WP:CRYSTALBALL? DN (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any of us do but we can use judgement to decide if something has a lasting impact (ie the 10 year test) or is something that the news cycle talks about then forgets. This is particularly important when so much on line media is based around rapidly generating articles for clicks. I did a web search for "john lott graduation" dated Aug 2021 and later. The articles that came up were either dated to the time of the event (not sure why they showed up in my search) or they were not relevant. Basically this is an event that appears to have no lasting significance to Lott himself. Springee (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I think a lot of Lott's story is flash in the pan. He certainly has no mainstream stature today, whereas 15 years ago he was taken to be a serious researcher on several subjects. I wouldn't be too concerned about recentism, but other issues of weight remain to be tested. SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I would agree that this section is a bit much in comparison to the rest of the article. I would support trimming it down and making it a subsection like the others. DN (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes it could be trimmed rather than removed. We should concentrate on the RS reports, issues they raise, and relationship to his life's work and published research. SPECIFICO talk 19:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I have condensed it down, but it should be condensed even further. An article in Buzzfeed and a local TV news station about a stunt involving multiple people does not warrant multiple paragraphs of material in an article about one of the subjects of the stunt. It should at most be a sentence or two, and even then I'm not convinced it should be mentioned at all. Endwise (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I would also kill the paragraph about using a sock puppet 20 years ago. Does anyone care about anything so trivial? Roger (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
No, that was not trivial. It was at the height of his academic credibility and was a violation of core norms at a time when these deceptions were much less widely understood and recognized. He got more mainstream coverage from that than for all his academic publications. SPECIFICO talk 21:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Not trivial? I am posting here under my real name, but most of those here on Misplaced Pages are using pseudonyms. It is very strange for a WP article to complain about someone using a pseudonym. There is no agreement about those "core norms". Roger (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
What RS that share your view? I have seen Many many RS view this as a serious breach.Half the talk page archives feature Mary Rosh issues. Including this SPECIFICO talk 01:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
While I can understand debating how much weight to give the sock puppet section, I don't think removal is in order. The false graduation speech was an example of a group lying to someone and then deliberately misrepresenting what a person with honest intent said in order to make their political point. Even if they are right and Lott is wrong, they are wrong/dishonest for what they did. Still, that shouldn't reflect on Lott other than suggesting he is perhaps too trusting. He didn't set out to deceive anyone. The sock puppet stuff is about Lott's own chosen actions. Lott might not have thought much of it at the time and we can argue if critics are blowing it up to be bigger (or not as big) than it should be. Regardless, it is something Lott himself did (or is accused of choosing to do). That active choice element is the difference in my book. Well that and the fake graduation thing really didn't get much coverage (a local station and the click bait harvesters at the BuzzFeedNews). Source that are sympathetic to Lott's general views like Reason talked about the sock puppetry. Springee (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Lott used a pseudonym and his enemies mocked him for it. He is responsible for his choices. But who cares? For all we know, his enemies are actively editing his WP article under pseudonyms to say bad things about him. Roger (talk) 06:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
"But who cares" is not an argument. Basic rules of wiki are clear, to say what RS says. Please read the article before critisizing it any further, and maybe check some basic guidelines, too. That being said, you need to WP:AGF and remain WP:CIVIL, which means no more poisoning the well. This article is also under discretionary sanctions. Maybe try "zooming out".....DN (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't see anything outside of good faith on Roger's part. Springee (talk) 09:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
The editors here may honestly believe that using a sock puppet is some great moral failing. Maybe even there are some reliable sources that say so, I don't know. To me, it seems trivial and not worthy of an encyclopedia article. Roger (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Who is using a sock puppet? DN (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
The article says John Lott used a sock puppet 20 years ago. Roger (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I see, I wasn't sure what you meant but thank you for clarifying. In any case it is somewhat improper to make such statements as "For all we know, his enemies are actively editing his WP article under pseudonyms to say bad things about him." per WP:AGF. To claim he had enemies is also not clear and seems like POV without RS. According to sources, and his peers, his research is consistently lacking, to put it politely. Let's stick to RS and try not to keep bringing it back to what we think happened or is happening via WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. DN (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I was not accusing anyone. I do not have any knowledge of his enemies. It is clear from the article that he has critics, either from controversial positions or those who say, as you put it, his research is lacking. It is useful to have links to scholarly criticism. But there is also the silly criticism, such as using a pseudonym and getting tricked into giving speech. Roger (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I think I see your point on the speech incident, and I feel that a consensus to trim that down to a more appropriate size is currently in the works. The pseudonym bit, I will take a second look at, but I'm more confident that it is closer to an appropriate length and is properly cited. Whether or not it is "silly" is hard to use as a metric. DN (talk) 05:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Graduation address

On June 4, 2021, two parents of a child killed in the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School misled Lott and David Keene into believing they were to give a dress rehearsal for a 2021 graduation address for a fictitious school called, "the James Madison Academy". The space for the audience was made up of 3,044 empty folding chairs which were meant to represent victims of school shootings. According to BuzzFeed News, Lott claims he was instructed "...they insisted that I had to have half the talk...be on background checks in particular", while Lott says this was his first commencement address, he went on to assert, "So I said well okay if that's really what you want I can do that but it seemed a little bit weird for a commencement address."

Lott discovered that the event was a staged attempt to call attention to school shootings, and not a genuine commencement address dress rehearsal when the parents orchestrating the faux event posted segments of video that was filmed of the "dress rehearsal" to the internet. Lott says, "I gave a 15-min address, what they put online is about one minute of that 15-minute address, and it kind of chops up and takes out of context numerous points I was making," he said. "So it's quite disturbing, in that sense." Lott then went on to say in an interview local Las Vegas news that he is not opposed to all forms of background checks, but simply that he believes that background checks made broadly discriminate against persons of color, primarily black and hispanic potential gun buyers.

Will Pregman, an activist associated with a progressive group based in Nevada called Battle Born Progress said of the event, "They agreed to speak to a school without doing, ironically, a background check to find out if this was a valid school or a real event."

So I would like to spit-ball some ideas for trimming this down to the real WEIGHTED portions and trim the less notable parts. Consequently, I also feel this should be a subsection like the others. Here's my take, just a rough draft, feel free to chime in.

On June 4, 2021, two parents of a child killed in the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School misled Lott and David Keene into believing they were to give a dress rehearsal for a 2021 graduation address for a fictitious school called, "the James Madison Academy". The space for the audience was made up of 3,044 empty folding chairs which were meant to represent victims of school shootings. Lott discovered that the event was a staged attempt to call attention to school shootings, and not a genuine commencement address dress rehearsal when the parents orchestrating the faux event posted segments of video that was filmed of the "dress rehearsal" to the internet. Lott went on to say that he is not opposed to all forms of background checks, but simply that he believes that background checks made broadly discriminate against persons of color, primarily black and hispanic potential gun buyers. Will Pregman, an activist associated with a progressive group based in Nevada called Battle Born Progress said of the event, "They agreed to speak to a school without doing, ironically, a background check to find out if this was a valid school or a real event."

...DN (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

An improvement. I would drop the last sentence. It is just some nonsensical opinion from a nobody. How is it ironic? Does Lott getting conned somehow reflect on his research or his gun opinions? I don't see this as anything but some pranksters wasting someone's time. Roger (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I think that sentence can be removed from the article now. Non-notable person's opinion. Let's find a better reaction if any exists. SPECIFICO talk 23:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
If SPECIFICO finds something better I might be open to that. Personally, I think it adds some notable insight and NPOV balance regarding WEIGHT. To one side of the background check debate, this incident makes no sense and is seen as pointless, to the other side it's point is very clear in that it brings attention to the position of the importance of doing background checks. You may not see the irony, but I think many of those with a different perspective might. Considering in the previous sentence, Lott adds that he is not against all background checks, it seems to balance it out nicely. I wouldn't be opposed to switching them around so that Lott's statement is the last word, if that helps. Like so...

On June 4, 2021, two parents of a child killed in the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School misled Lott and David Keene into believing they were to give a dress rehearsal for a 2021 graduation address for a fictitious school called, "the James Madison Academy". The space for the audience was made up of 3,044 empty folding chairs which were meant to represent victims of school shootings. Lott discovered that the event was a staged attempt to call attention to school shootings, and not a genuine commencement address dress rehearsal when the parents orchestrating the faux event posted segments of video that was filmed of the "dress rehearsal" to the internet. Will Pregman, an activist associated with a progressive group based in Nevada called Battle Born Progress said of the event, "They agreed to speak to a school without doing, ironically, a background check to find out if this was a valid school or a real event. Lott went on to say that he is not opposed to all forms of background checks, but simply that he believes that background checks made broadly discriminate against persons of color, primarily black and Hispanic potential gun buyers."

...DN (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand the point (if any) he's trying to make about racial demographics. Gun rights is about gun rights. Gun control is about gun control. Racial justice and equal opportunity is something else entirely. SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
He's talking about it in context to background checks. Seems fairly clear IMO. DN (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
The two are not mutually exclusive, in other words. DN (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I think DN's original suggestion is a clear improvement. I agree with Roger, the last sentence should go. If it will seem more balanced we could get rid of Lott's comments as well. As for the last sentence, it contradicts Lott's comments in his WSJ article. It also adds length to a section of questionable weight. Per Loot's comments he only mentioned the gun topics because he was asked to. Springee (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes but what else would he be asked to speak about if not gun rights? SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not saying this is the hill I'm willing to die on, in a manner of speaking, but perhaps SPECIFICO is right that there may be something better out there that will help keep Lott's view, and the opposition's view on this, in a balanced perspective. If we want to trim it down further there are other options as well, such as "Lott discovered that the event was a staged attempt to call attention to school shootings, and not a genuine commencement address dress rehearsal when the parents orchestrating the faux event posted segments of video that was filmed of the "dress rehearsal" to the internet.... or even the whole sentence. DN (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
My sense is that Lott was already marginalized several years before this event and that they just used him to mock the arguments of those who oppose certain forms of gun regulation. The fact that this formerly mainstream formerly academic former expert was so hard up that he came to address an empty bunch of chairs just was used to ridicule him as a pathetic has-been. That has nothing to do with his ideas and was just used to dramatize the POV of the organizers who were angry that gun rights advocates of the prior 20-30 years had, in the POV of the organizers, enabled the deaths of thousands of innocent victims. SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Seems a bit off topic. We are talking about current and relevant RS to John Lott. Just because it isn't kissing his ass or another article about one of his controversial research papers doesn't mean it isn't WP:DUE. We aren't violating WP:BLP here. DN (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The current cite for the statement in question is from an NBC affiliate, so its not a bad source. The WEIGHT of this event, and the subsequent view that it is "ironic", also comes from the people that set up the event . Seeing as how this view is interwoven in this context, makes it very hard to remove and or ignore. There are some other sources such as NYT and Wapo, but there are paywalls for that. I agree that shouldn't be a concern, but it can cause logistical issues for readers that need to see it with their own eyes, and might otherwise throw a fit on the TP about it.

I would also mention that current polls suggest public approval for improved background checks seems to be at least around 50%, so if we want NPOV I would suggest we pay attention to that fact. Gallup Harvard Gallup Quinniapac...DN (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

But this isn't about Lott's views on background checks (it doesn't seem he is overly against them). In the WSJ article Lott notes that they went as far as setting up a website and other material to deceive people who did try to do a background check. Their claimed ironic quip isn't something that is due. If it stays then per ABOUTSELF Lott's comments refuting the claim should be included. While an OpEd, it was published in the WSJ, not a local news site. The easier option is just remove it as it was a throw away line at the end of the article. Springee (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you addressed my concerns instead of going off topic. Thanks. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
That said I'm not opposed to adding Lott's views, but not from an OpEd. DN (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
The opinion of the public at large on background checks isn't relevant to a the weight we give a group that deceived someone to create a false political statement (ie lied about Lott's statements). Yes, the WSJ article is an OpEd by Lott but ABOUTSELF can apply and, unlike the other sources, the WSJ is very prominent. Springee (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm hesitant to go there on the OpEd because it adds yet another layer of hoops instead of removing complexity and keeping it simple...
  1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
"The opinion of the public at large on background checks isn't relevant..." This seems to ignore NPOV. I don't know what "a false political statement" means, and it sounds like you are inserting WP:OR, or basically just your personal opinion. I suggest using citations to back that up. I suggest working towards consensus instead of just expounding your position repeatedly, it keeps getting closer to WP:BLUD since you have not and providing new cites or examples of what you are actually suggesting. I have tried to do my part and do my research on what's actually there. Let's all put in some work and avoid stonewalling. I'm done with this for now, I've had a very long day and I don't want to come off as cranky. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Lott's response to the incident may be DUE (absent a concern over the overall length of the section) as his view of the situation certainly is significant. I don't see that it violates any of the 5 items and allowing Lott to tell his side of the story certainly is reasonable.
I'm not sure why you are talking about OR. By "false political statement" I mean they deliberately distorted via editing and juxtaposition, Lott's actual message with a strawman message they wished to create. Now, my statement can't be inserted as is because it would be OR. However, my view that we don't need to give the offending party any additional weight to their opinions/unsubstantiated claims (for instance, Lott did no research on the school before accepting) is a question of WEIGHT vs OR. Additionally, any statements regarding general support of background checks vs Lott's specific views on the subjection, may be OR if the idea is to insert them in the article. If we want to include Lott's views on background checks we should do that from better sourcing. As for working towards consensus, I favor your first suggestion minus the last sentence. That is the one Schlafly also prefers. Please avoid BLUD and stonewalling comments. I think they could be applied to your comments just as readily. We are discussing yet disagreeing. I don't take your raising of "...current polls suggest public approval for improved background..." to be anything other than a good faith effort to justify inclusion. Please reciprocate by understanding that my replies are also good faith. Springee (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
"I mean they deliberately distorted via editing and juxtaposition, Lott's actual message with a strawman message they wished to create." That may be true, that may be what John Lott and people that agree with him see. Roughly 50% of the people in the US that might look up this article, might disagree with him, and may agree that it was "ironic". Let's continue tomorrow working towards consensus. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
So, to review, my only other disagreement is that the "irony view" is coming from the people that are responsible for event involving JL , so it's not UNDUE, although quite likely an immoral thing, but that's a back and forth we should skip. If I am the one that wants to address these two issues I mentioned above, and no one else speaks up in the next couple days I will concede the issue so we can move on. Sound good? Also, if there are no objections I will change it from a section to a subsection, like the others....DN (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Done ...DN (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that edit. I think it was a big improvement. Springee (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Additional edits

I thought we were fine with the suggested version...Now SPECIFICO seems to be tweaking on this small subsection after the fact with no mention on the talk page...What gives? DN (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Julian Sanchez

After investigative work by libertarian blogger Julian Sanchez

Is there any reliable source for Julian Sanchez being libertarian? 2601:547:500:4E80:7DA0:5E8F:6EFF:481C (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change website JohnRLott.com to JohnLott.com. The former address does not exist and the latter one resolves to the expected website. 2601:346:281:9F0:99E4:3D5E:50ED:CEC4 (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charliehdb (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

CPRC

A December 2024 article makes a strong claim: https://theconservativeview.com/illegal-migrants-cost-us-166-billion-in-crime-report-finds/ Kdammers (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:John Lott: Difference between revisions Add topic