Talk:John Lott/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about John Lott. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

No support of his work?

Why aren't any positive reviews of this work quoted in this article? The block quotes are:

Ted Goertzel (says that anyone can work the data to say whatever they want—negative)
New England Journal of Medicine (negative)
Gary Kleck (negative, even though he speaks positively of the book in general)
National Academy of Sciences (negative)
James Q. Wilson (kind of positive, but then just to be safe, negative)
Chronicle of Higher Education (neutral)
New England Journal of Medicine (irrelevant—doesn't address the contents, just a "great try" to follow up their "your study is wrong")

And then comes the issues of questionable importance (an entire section over misrepresentation?) and implying that filing suit for defamation injures his credibility. If this isn't POV, I don't know what is. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 22:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the previous poster. This article seems wildly unbalanced, and consists largely of string quotes of criticisms. Even Hitler has a more balanced entry. - --ozoneliar - 12 March 2007

Do any authors still maintain a positive reception of his work after Lott's exposure as a sock puppeteer? Neutral point of view does not require equl numbers of comments pro and con. A comporable article would be David Brock, even though many on the left support his Media Matters campaign he is a self-confessed liar and has little credibility. --66.31.39.76 22:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Exposure as a sockpuppet may damage someone's credibility, but it doesn't impact whether his views are valid or not. And it actually hasn't hurt him as much as you might think, since he still has a significant voice (USA Today editorial last week, etc.). NPOV would mean a balanced view of his work, including arguments of people both for and against, and would describe the sockpuppet business. The reader could then judge Lott's credibility for himself. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 18:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken that neutrality is having two opposing views represented equally. If the dude's research is invalid, it's invalid. No "balance" is required. Further, false, invalid, or fallacious analysis is not "balance". It's propaganda and it has no place in Wikipedia. If someone wants to defend his work on it's merits, so be it. But I'm not seeing any defence because his "research" is false and indefensible.

The truth does NOT require balance. I see no reason to post supportive articles if they have no integrity. The point of the criticism is to expose that he's wrong based on the facts. We don't need phony opinions that are not based on facts. It's really as simple as that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.111.125 (talk • contribs).

Your comment betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. Please review WP:V, and note that Wikipedia does not record "truth" or "facts", it records information that has been recorded elsewhere, no more and no less. We imagine our readers intelligent enough to make up their own minds when exposed to both sides of a dispute. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 04:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Lott's academic critics Ian Ayres and John Donohue in their critique

of Lott's hypothesis listed five articles supportive of Lott's thesis and five opposed. The five supportive were:

Bruce L. Benson & Brent Mast, Privately Produced General Deterrence, 44 J.L. & ECON. 1 (2001);

Stephen G. Bronars & John R. Lott, Jr., Criminal Deterrence, Geographic Spillovers, and the Right to Carry Concealed Handgun, 88 AM. ECON. REV. 475 (1998);

Carlisle E. Moody, Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness, 44 J.L. & ECON. 799 (2001);

David B. Mustard, The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths, 44 J.L. & ECON. 635 (2001);

John R. Lott, Jr. & William M. Landes, Multiple Victim Public Shootings, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=272929 (last modified June 10, 2001).

For anonymous IP number 24.118.111.125 to imply that Bruce L. Benson, Brent Mast, Stephen G. Bronars, Carlisle E. Moody, David B. Mustard, and William M. Landes engaged in "false, invalid, or fallacious analysis ... propaganda ... no integrity ... phony opinions that are not based on facts" just shows how low the discussion of this issue has been dragged by partisans in gun politics. Benson, Mast, Bronars, Moody, Mustard and Landes are established academics published in peer-refereed journals; you do not pass peer review for an academic journal if what you write is false invalid fallacious propaganda with no integrity expressing phony opinions not based on facts. John Lott has published empirical research that contradicts strongly held a-priori assumptions about the relationship of civilian gun ownership to the crime rate; the correct answer to that is calm, respectful and respectable empirical research, not character assassination.

In interest of full disclosure, I believe that gun control laws like the USA and UK Gun Control Acts of 1968 impact the behavior of the law abiding, not the criminal. To me, saying you can affect criminal behavior through gun control laws is as rational as saying you can stop prostitution by piling ever-increasing restrictions on marriage licenses. By the law of unintended consequences, the actual effect is opposite the intended effect. As Hans Toch who once supported banning handguns asked, why is it that the parts of the USA that have more guns per capita have less crime per capita than the jurisdictions that have virtual bans on legal gun ownership?-- Naaman Brown (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's because they don't. Or more precisely, because the "More Guns Less Crime" faction can't get the difference straight between number of crimes and number of crimes per capita:

Regional Offense Trends and Rates

The UCR Program divides the United States into four regions: the Northeast, the Midwest, the South, and the West. A map of the United States delineating the regions is included in Appendix III. Estimated crime volume, rates, and percent changes by region are published in Table 4.

                           per 100,000 
             violent crime                 murder 
northeast       416.5   -2.80%            4.1   -3.70% 
midwest         424.9   -1.40%            5.1   -3.50% 
west            508.2   -2.10%            5.8   +4.10% 
south           571.0   -2.00%            6.8   +0.70%

[1].

The gun-banning northeast has the lowest violent crime rate, the lowest murder rate, the steepest decline in violent crime, and the steepest decline in murder rates. The second-amendment-loving south has the highest violent crime rate, the highest murder rate, the second lowest decrease in violent crime rate, and the second highest *increase* in murder rate.

Include property crime?

The FBI's Crime Index rate reflects the total number of offenses per 100,000 residents. According to the FBI, the national Crime Index rate for 2002 was 4,118. The Northeast region of the United States had the lowest crime of the four regions, with a rate of 2,889 offenses per 100,000 population. The next lowest region was the Midwest, with a Crime Index rate of 3,883 offenses. The Western region followed with a rate of 4,418 offenses, while the Southern region showed the highest crime rate of 4,722 offenses per 100,000 residents. [2]

100 Largest Metro Areas
(Ranked in order from Least to Most Crime) 
 Nassau-Suffolk NY 
 Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon NJ 
 Ventura CA 
 Monmouth-Ocean NJ 
 Bergen-Passaic NJ 
 Scranton-Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton PA 
 Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle PA 
 San Jose CA 
 Pittsburgh PA 
 Orange County CA 
 Ann Arbor MI 
 Albany-Schenectady-Troy NY 
 Boston MA-NH-ME 
 New York NY 
 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton PA 
 Syracuse NY 
 Philadelphia PA-NJ 
 Hartford CT 
 Rochester NY 
 Newark NJ 
 Buffalo-Niagara Falls NY 
 San Diego CA 
 Providence-Fall River-Warwick RI-MA 
 Jersey City NJ 
 Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland MI 
 Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria OH 
 San Francisco CA 
 New Haven-Meriden CT 
...
St. Louis	MO-IL
Salt Lake City-Ogden	UT
Wichita	KS
Mobile	AL
Houston	TX
Nashville	TN
Orlando	FL
Fresno	CA
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission	TX
Fort Worth-Arlington	TX
Charleston-North Charleston	SC
Jacksonville	FL
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill	NC-SC
Dallas	TX
Omaha	NE-IA
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater	FL
Columbia	SC
Toledo	OH
Albuquerque	NM
Tacoma	WA
Columbus	OH
Kansas City	MO-KS
West Palm Beach-Boca Raton	FL
Honolulu	HI
Oklahoma City	OK
Stockton-Lodi	CA
Baton Rouge	LA
San Antonio	TX
Little Rock-North Little Rock	AR
Phoenix-Mesa	AZ
Miami	FL
Memphis	TN-AR-MS
Tucson	AZ

[3]

Does a pattern emerge?

The cities listed here are the 114 Mid-sized Metropolitan Statistical Areas, 
ranging in population from approximately 500,000 to 200,000.
114 Mid-size Areas
(Ranked in order from Least to Most Crime) 
Danbury	CT
Stamford-Norwalk	CT
Johnstown	PA
Dutchess County	NY
Portsmouth-Rochester	NH-ME
Lowell	MA-NH
Lawrence	MA-NH
Newburgh	NY-PA
Lynchburg	VA
Appleton-Oshkosh-Neenah	WI
Manchester	NH
York	PA
Erie	PA
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc	CA
Binghamton	NY
Worcester	MA-CT
New London-Norwich	CT-RI
Lancaster	PA
Green Bay	WI
San Luis Obispo-Atascadero-Paso Robles	CA
Utica-Rome	NY
Brazoria	TX
Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers	AR
Portland	ME
Reading	PA
Brockton	MA
Roanoke	VA
Santa Rosa	CA
...
Anchorage	AK
Lakeland-Winter Haven	FL
Longview-Marshall	TX
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek	MI
Beaumont-Port Arthur	TX
Chattanooga	TN-GA
South Bend	IN
Biloxi-Gulfport-Pascagoula	MS
Gainesville	FL
Spokane	WA
Tallahassee	FL
Jackson	MS
Savannah	GA
Modesto	CA
Galveston-Texas City	TX
Shreveport-Bossier City	LA
Macon	GA
Fayetteville	NC
Yakima	WA
Lincoln	NE
Lubbock	TX
Salem	OR
Corpus Christi	TX
Amarillo	TX
Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito	TX
Wilmington	NC
Waco	TX
Laredo	TX
Montgomery	AL
Myrtle Beach	SC

[4]

Same pattern?

The cities listed here are the 117 Smallest Metropolitan Statistical Areas, 
ranging in population from approximately 200,000 to 55,000.
114 Smallest Areas
(Ranked in order from Least to Most Crime) 
State College	PA
Steubenville-Weirton	OH-WV
Wheeling	WV-OH
Pittsfield	MA
Wausau	WI
Nashua	NH
Parkersburg-Marietta	WV-OH
Glens Falls	NY
Williamsport	PA
Jacksonville	NC
Danville	VA
Jamestown	NY
Sharon	PA
Bismarck	ND
Hagerstown	MD
La Crosse	WI-MN
Dubuque	IA
Rochester	MN
Barnstable-Yarmouth	MA
Cumberland	MD-WV
Kenosha	WI
Altoona	PA
Fitchburg-Leominster	MA-NH
Sioux Falls	SD
Elmira	NY
...
Albany	GA
Athens	GA
Bryan-College Station	TX
Enid	OK
Sioux City	IA-NE
Jackson	TN
Rocky Mount	NC
Tuscaloosa	AL
San Angelo	TX
Auburn-Opelika	AL
Anniston	AL
Flagstaff	AZ
Greenville	NC
Sumter	SC
Great Falls	MT
Panama City	FL
Lake Charles	LA
Wichita Falls	TX
Florence	SC
Alexandria	LA
Monroe	LA
Pine Bluff	AR
Topeka	KS

http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/crime5.aspx

Still more of the same pattern? Look around for yourself http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl06.xls:

for instance:

Rate per 100k   Crime   Violent Property Murder  rape   Robbery assault 
Houston         7,313.9 1,223.1 6,090.9 12.5    43.7    549.5   617.4 
New York        3,100.1   789.6 2,310.4  7.3    20.9    336.8   424.7 
Houston metro   5,505.4   814.2 4,691.2  8.4    36.3    322.1   447.5 
New York metro  2,973.4   717.2 2,256.2  6.6    19.2    303.5   387.9

Even New York city (both proper and metro area) with gun control has less crime (violent crime of all types and property crime) per capita than Houston (both proper and metro area), where armed citizens are routine.

(In interest of full disclosure, I believe that gun control laws like the USA and UK Gun Control Acts of 1968 don't make a measurable difference, in either direction.) -- Gzuckier (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Amazing how New York has suddenly become proof of the effectiveness of gun control, after decades of hig crime. Lott's research found that the strongest effect on violent crime were arrest and conviction rates. Carry permits were third. What Giuliani accomplished in NYC supports Lott's research, it doesn't contradict it.

And as for the regional numbers, yes, it's true that levels of violent crime are generally higher in the SE, and so are levels of gun ownership. The problem is that the gun crimes overwhelmingly involve handguns in the cities, while the difference in firearms ownership are of long guns in the rural areas. While it's possible that the thugs in the cities are shooting each other more often because the folks out in the country own shotguns, I'm not able to visualize a mechanism by which this might happen. --jdege (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It may be true in general that researchers are honestly pursuing the truth, and it may even be true that most researchers in this area are honestly pursuing the truth. But there clearly are researchers involved in the gun control issue who are pursuing a political agenda first.

And it's also clear that the standard of peer review in the public health field don't match up to those in most scientific fields, sociology and criminology in particular.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html

---- jdege (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I presume Gzuckier's "gun banning northeast" includes Vermont and New Hampshire. When you rank US states by their Brady Bunch gun law grades and crime rates per capita there is no pattern. And Hans Toch was not part of a MoGuLeCr bunch at all.Naaman Brown (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

- Hans Toch and Lott's use of rate v number: Gzuckier posted: "the "More Guns Less Crime" faction can't get the difference straight between number of crimes and number of crimes per capita" in answer to my comment on Hans Toch. Toch was one of the Eisenhower Commission who recommended banning handguns in the 1950s; in later years, his research convinced him he was wrong, long before "More Guns Less Crime" was published in 1998. So how Toch could be part of a "Lottophile" faction before it existed is a puzzle. In the Oct 2008 Rosenkrantz Foundation debate on guns later aired on NPR, John Lott used murder rate per 100,000 population per year to compare the before-and-after effect of the DC gun ban; Lott's critic John Donohue objected, pointing out that while the rate was higher, the absolute number of murders per year went down (people who could afford to leave DC left as the crime rate went up, so there were actually fewer people to be victimized after the gun ban even tho' the rate was higher); Donohue accused Lott of misleading the audience about the effect of the ban by citing rate rather than number.Naaman Brown (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: Gzuckier refers to the gun-banning northestern USA having lower murder rates.

State Brady Campaign Ratings and Crime and Homicide Rates
Northeastern US
STATE        GRADE  CRIME  HOMICIDE
Connecticut    A-   308.2    3     
Maine          D-   108.9    1.2   
Massachusetts  A-   469.4    2.2   
New Hampshire  D-   148.8    1.4   
Rhode Island   B-   285.6    2.3   
Vermont        D-   110.2    2.3

The Crime Rates and Homicide Rates are per 100,000 population per year from the FBI UCR Crime Reports. The Brady Grade is from The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 2003 Report Card. The D- grades reflect the fact that the gun policies of those states (with exception of one city in Maine) are laxer and more libertarian than many "gun-loving" Southeastern states. Even though Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island got A- and B- (the higher the grade, the more restrictive the gun law) they do not totally ban firearms either. On the right-to-carry issue (last time I checked) CT issues more CCW licenses per 100,000 population than TX issues TCHL licenses per 100,000 population. The Brady grade on CT represents the perception that CT is "discretionary" rather than "shall issue"--the irony being that "shall issue" often has higher standards for issuance than "discretionary"--not all discretionary issue jurisdictions have the near-prohibition approach of the NY Sullivan Act 1911, the Brady Campaign ideal nationwide.

Of the six Northeastern states, three are gun-libertarian and three are gun-restricting. For decades Vermont has been the only US state where a citizen can carry concealed weapons for self defense with no restriction, long before the right-to-carry movement started, and has consistently had a low homicide rate.

While comparing stats between states proves little, a survey of felons appears to support the self-defense side: The NIJ Felon Survey (James D. Wright, Peter Rossi, Armed and Dangerous (Aldine 1986)) involve 1874 convicts, 18 prisons, 10 states: one third had been shot at or chased-off by armed victims, two thirds knew a felon who had been shot at or chased-off by an armed victim, one third had canceled planned crimes based on the perception the intended victim was armed. Most felons agreed they feared an armed victim more than being arrested by police or imprisoned.Naaman Brown (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up II

State Brady Campaign Ratings v FBI UCR Crime and Homicide Rates
Northeastern US          2003              2006
STATE        GRADE  CRIME  HOMICIDE   CRIME  HOMICIDE    
Connecticut    A-   308.2    3        280.8    3.1
Maine          D-   108.9    1.2      115.5    1.7
Massachusetts  A-   469.4    2.2      447.0    2.9 
New Hampshire  D-   148.8    1.4      138,7    1,0    
Rhode Island   B-   285.6    2.3      227.5    2.6
Vermont        D-   110.2    2.3      136.6    1.9

Violent Crime includes Homicide (Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter), Rape, Armed Robbery and Aggravated Assault. The 2003 stats are not a fluke: the Northeastern States with tough gun laws (high Brady grades A-B) have higher rates of violent crime than the Northeastern States rated as having lax gun laws (low Brady grades D) year after year.

I have read the NAS2004 chapter on R-T-C, which basicly claimed that econometric regression methods prove nothing for or against R-T-C effects on reported crime rates; and NAS2004 stated that the true test of effect of R-T-C on criminal behaviour would be a survey of felons (essentially a repeat of the NIJ Felon Survey). Given the Wright-Rossi study supra cite, I doubt Lott's thesis would fall. In Florida, car jackers who targeted rental cars told police they did so because native Floridians could get permits to carry guns and out-of-state tourists could not.Naaman Brown (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So, places where people are indoors more of the year has a lower homicide rate than places where the climate is warmer much more of the time? Whod have thunk it?!? Gee, that lack of gun control has pushed North Dakota's homicide rate up to 1.3 per 100k in 2006! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.235.152 (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There's only a higher crime rate in the gun loving south if you don't control for race. If you control for race it appears that southern cities actually have lower rates of crime. Gastrointestinal Cancer Simulation (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Guns and Crime Study for Consideration

SprDg (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Someone brought this more recent and updated study (15, May 2019) to my attention and I noticed the protected John Lott page doesn’t cite more recent studies that readers could benefit from. Other gun-topic pages might benefit as well which I’ll leave to someone else. Lott replies to the study in a media article I’ll link.

Title: Right‐to‐Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and a State‐Level Synthetic Control Analysis

Abstract - “This article uses more complete state panel data (through 2014) and new statistical techniques to estimate the impact on violent crime when states adopt right‐to‐carry (RTC) concealed handgun laws. Our preferred panel data regression specification, unlike the statistical model of Lott and Mustard that had previously been offered as evidence of crime‐reducing RTC laws, both satisfies the parallel trends assumption and generates statistically significant estimates showing RTC laws increase overall violent crime. Our synthetic control approach also finds that RTC laws are associated with 13–15 percent higher aggregate violent crime rates 10 years after adoption ...”

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jels.12219

Media article -

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/danvergano/more-guns-more-crime

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SprDg (talk • contribs) 23:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Significant issues with this article

The bulk of this article isn't about John Lott, the bulk is a wiki-editors-constructed debate on/against the ideas put forward by Lott, and thus rather than being about Lott, it's about and a soapbox & wp:coatrack for the opinions of opponents who are politically opposed to the views espoused by Lott. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Participation in call to pressure Georgia election officials

Lott's participation in Trump's phone call to pressure election officials in Georgia to overturn the 2020 election results clearly belongs in the article. It's reported in RS[5] and gives readers clear indication of his role in the White House. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

It's also absurd that the lead doesn't cover that Lott was an official in the Trump administration. Serving in a presidential administration is clearly noteworthy enough for the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The Politico article only said he was on the call. It doesn't say if he said/did anything. The removal from the lead is reasonable based on weight. We have two (or three) sentences saying he was appointed as an advisor to the DOJ (not Trump's cabinet or something closer to Trump) and was their for just a few months. It may be reasonable to put later in the lead that he was appointed to the DOJ by the Trump admin and served from Oct 2020 to Jan 2021. It doesn't appear there was much notable about his service but I would agree that for people who are not career politicians such an appointment for any length of time is notable. Springee (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that his service in the Trump Administration should be in the lead. As to the call, unless sources describe the significance of it, I would leave it out. It's asking the reader to make an inference about his role. I suspect that by that point, Trump was scraping the bottom of the barrel and that anyone and everyone still left in the White House might find themselves drafted for surprising roles. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Lott actively made false claims of fraud in the 2020 election while serving in the Trump administration,[6] so his participation in the phone call was not random. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I've clarified some of the detail about the voter fraud stuff (feel free to add more, I didn't see this section before I made any edits). Regarding the call, if all we have is a list of names that includes Lott, I mean there's not much we can really say about it. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Using Peter Brimelow as a source for what Milton Friedman said

The editor Springee has edit-warred newly added content sourced to the white supremacist Peter Brimelow who claims that Milton Friedman praised Lott: “John Lott has few equals as a perceptive analyst of controversial public policy issues.” This content should be removed. I find nothing to substantiate that Friedman ever praised Lott in this manner. Content like this needs to be reliably sourced. It should not be sourced to a Brimelow interview with Lott. Lott has a history of making up praise for himself, which creates additional reasons to be wary of poorly sourced praise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that you didn't edit war the material? You removed it twice. Are you claiming Forbes isn't a RS? This is reading like a case of IDONTLIKEIT. Do you have any evidence the quote is false? It seems like a notable thing to include since it was economist to economist. Springee (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Archiving needs to be fixed

If someone can fix it. There are too many decade-old discussions on this page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Feel free to tweak the params. Currently 1 year, keep 6 threads, which is fairly conservative. GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

I became aware of this due to the COIN listing for this article, but taking a look at the edit history and the overall content of this article, WOW, it has become a mess. I know that there are some VERY WELL MEANING individuals trying to improve it, but over the past several years it has been edited to death -- in what seems to be a tit-for-tat edit war with several COI and POV accounts, as well as several AGF editors. Far more editing and reverting going on compared to the amount of discussion taking place. Going back 5+ years ago and the article seemed like it was in a far better place than it is today. I'm not talking about the specific nuances of "disputed accuracy" (which is also important), but rather the overarching goal of conveying information about a person, important topics, notable issues, etc. It was a far better read and carried better weight in the topics. I think somehow in the process of working towards more technical accuracy we've copy-pasted this article too much and we're reaching closer to becoming accurately meaningless.

May I be so bold as to suggest the following -- the current involved editors take a one week pause -- during the interim, I will work on a sandbox version that works towards a NPOV and BALANCED article. No I don't proclaim myself to be better or smarter or anything special aside from being someone who has zero bias or vested interest in this specific article, but have experience helping rewrite contentious material that all sides can be happy with, and hopefully be more encyclopedic. Admittedly I've been on wikibreak for a while, but I'd be happy to work on this project. But it will certainly take time, and if this article is undergoing edit warring while I'm trying to rework it, it will be counter productive.

The sandbox version will be available before I move it into the mainspace-- so we can call this a BOLD sandbox, instead of a straight up BOLD edit - because, respectfully, WP:BRD isn't working all that well here.

Feelings/thoughts/agreement? TiggerJay (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the current article is a disaster. I normally am not a fan of total rewrites but this one is so bad that that might be the way to handle it. North8000 (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely, rewrites are not good as it breaks down the edit history a lot, but as you said, this might be the best way to handle something like this. TiggerJay (talk)

I would also support at least an attempt at a rewrite. I do understand it's a lot of work. "A lot of work" is why I haven't tried to redo more than a few articles. Still, how could it possibly hurt to give it a shot and present it in draft space for people to review before changing the live article. I'm for it. Springee (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @SPECIFICO and Snooganssnoogans: Want to make sure you're all aware of this proposal as well. TiggerJay (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I think a lot of the text can be made more concise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

These comments are correct and the article seems much too long for this individual. It can and should be condensed considerably. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a list identifying section by section issues would be helpful and would allow major rewrites while avoiding a single whole-article diff and subsequent talk page chaos. SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

My read is the intent is to do the rewrite off line. Yeah, that can be an issue when trying to do a "track changes" sort of review but sometimes articles just need a massive tear up. It certainly can't hurt (other than the effort needed). Even if the rewrite as a whole is rejected it may yield a lot that could be incorporated as changes to the current version. If we were dealing with a BOLD rewrite that just went live in the article space I would absolutely agree with your concerns (which are valid even with a section by section rework). Springee (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Obscuring "Mary Rosh persona" section within another section

Lott's history of inventing praise for himself does not belong in the 'Disputed survey' section, but rather its own section. The "Mary Rosh" persona did not solely defend Lott's disputed survey, which makes the placement of this content under that section bizarre. To me, it seems like an attempt to make the "Mary Rosh" incident less prominent by lumping it in at the bottom of a tangential section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Why isn't the reverse true? What evidence do you have for trying to make it a separate subsection? Springee (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The content in question is not solely about the disputed survey, so why should it be in that section? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The Mary Rosh gambit was and is a defining feature of Lott's career, and extremely unusual if not unique among would-be distinguished academic experts. Readers would expect to see a header for this content. SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Why would we emphasize that but not include the views of a Nobel laureate in economics, Lott's own field? Springee (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated. A 20 year old opinion vs. a fraud perpetrated by a purported academic expert? SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Both things are about two decades old. Why is the option of one of the most noted economists of all time not significant? Springee (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the Mary Rosh thing is covered in multiple reliable sources, and in each instance the entire article is mainly about that episode. Is the same true of Friedman's praise? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Friedman is a Nobel laureate and the content is being fully removed. No one is removing the Rosh material. Springee (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be elevating Uncle Miltie above his due. I'm sure he had much to say about all kinds of things, but his significance for this encyclopedia -- and for that matter for current economic thought -- is much more limited. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, Nobel, economics. His opinion is certainly notable. Springee (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Friedman's favorite vegetable was the Brussels Sprout -- well sourced common knowledge. But we don't mention that in the BS article. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Lott's institutions in lead

Snooganssnoogans, can you explain why you feel that an academic's intuitions are not lead worthy? I understand that SPECIFICO wanted to reduce the length of the lead but once North8000 and I restored the material I think we need consensus to remove it. Please make the case for removal. Springee (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Visiting professorships and fellowships are not noteworthy for an academic. Lott is not known for having had a non-tenure track position at Yale for two years, so it's bizarre to list it in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

If your argument was to remove the less significant examples then I would be OK with that. However, he was at U Chicago for 5 years. Even non-tenure track at a school with a name like Yale is significant. Perhaps a half way were we take the two longest intuitions and leave the others out. Remember that you are removing long standing content. Springee (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

No, brief non-tenure track positions at fancy schools are not noteworthy. There are countless fellowships, postdocs, predocs, teaching positions and research positions at universities – tenure-track positions are meaningful. Lott's career is defined by short stints at numerous universities – he is not known for having been at any of them which makes it bizarre to list some or all of them in the lead. I think it's misleading to readers for the lead to present him as a "Yale University academic" or "University of Chicago academic" when he is not known as such in reliable sources or by anyone. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

It's that your opinion or a claim you can back? Springee (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

"Even non-tenure track at a school with a name like Yale is significant." Is that your opinion or a claim you can back? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

That argument (Springee's) is invalid on its face, conceding, as it does, that the Yale mention confers some kind of fame or notability by association. Exactly the kind of content to which we do not give lead spotlight emphasis. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm arguing that we keep the status quo consensus version of the article. The burden to make the case for change isn't on me. Two editors have challenged this removal so it should stay until a new consensus to remove it has been shown. Springee (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

It must hurt a bit to have to resort to that sort of wonkery, rather than acknowledging the hollowness of your earlier point. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, no. We are debating how much weight to give information in the lead. This is to a large extent subjective editor assessment. Our status quo is to stick with what we had. To change it we need to show a consensus to change. We have your argument, in effect, "no it isn't signficant" but you have no evidence to say why your opinion is correct. We have mine and N8K's which is this information is DUE for the lead. I admit my argument isn't really any stronger (yes, I would say spending more than a year at each of these well known universities is significant). However, we also have NOCON, which is wiki policy. It states, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." That means the content should be restored because we don't have consensus for the disputed change. Snarky, personalized comments don't supersede Wiki policy. Springee (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

NOCON -- for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it. SPECIFICO talk 12:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that his academic positions are contentious? If so why are they in the article? Springee (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

From what I see the item, of that large bundle of removals one which is now completely missing from the article is the assessment on the economics side by Milton Friedman. A a prominent economist and Nobel prize winner, and this was a removal from the body of the article. What is going on here? North8000 (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Trump admin section UNDUE tags

[7] I agree with SPECIFICO this is not enough for it's own section. This could be easily remedied by moving it to the beginning of the Voter Fraud Claims subsection, which would actually help improve that bit IMO, and does seem to bare some weight. DN (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

That seems ok and we can get rid of the tag. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

What happened to the archive?

I don't see any talk page edits prior to 2021. Did the archive get lost in the transfer? Springee (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It appears the archives got lost in the DAB - The Gnome, can you please recover them? I found Archive 3 Atsme 💬 📧 13:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Fellows, you're mistaking me for someone adept at the technical stuff here.

I don't mind putting in the work but I want to be sure I'll not be piling on more damage! Did anyone contact the bot operator as I suggested? -The Gnome (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@The Gnome: When you moved the page, you saw a page that looked similar to this: Move John Lott (political activist). At the bottom, it shows that there are five subpages (the archives).

When moving a page which has talk subpages, administrators and page-movers see a box which is checked by default:

Move subpages of talk page (up to 100)

Unless the box is unchecked, the archives are all automatically moved.

But you did not see this box. If you see that a page you're moving has talk subpages, DO NOT move the page yourself. Ask an admin or a page-mover for help. The best option for you here would have been to start a WP:Requested moves discussion, given that it is not clear that "(political activist)" is the best way to disambiguate this biography. I'm not great at keeping track of my time, but I think I probably spent about an hour sorting out what happened here, and cleaning up after you and a couple others who compounded the problem with their attempts to fix what you started. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Moving a page#Talk subpages. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much, wbm1058, for both the advice and the work you put in, which you did not have to and for which I apologize. Lesson learned. -The Gnome (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)