Talk:John Lott

Page Name
, 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 Wikipedia 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)


 * 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.  Springee (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. For the reasons above, plus long standing, plus the undicussed new one is very POV ish. North8000 (talk) 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. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 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. DN (talk) 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> (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. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (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. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (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. '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 ["John Lott" election] and ["John Lott" gun]. 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 - added 16:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 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. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> 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.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (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. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> 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, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (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. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (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? <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (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?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not my first choice, but fine with me. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (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 Wikipedia disambig purposes, which is a different question. The question and task is disambig in view of the other John Lott articles on Wikipedia, 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> (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.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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 Wikipedia 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)


 * John R. Lott avoids the problems with trying to ID him with a parenthetical description. In his economics papers such as A Guide to the Pitfalls of Identifying Price Discrimination (1991), which has nothing to do with political activism or firearms, that's the name he uses. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:24, 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.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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 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)


 * 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 John Hancock to it were it on paper. I suppose we can proceed with that. -The Gnome (talk) 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> (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)


 * Since The Gnome is the one that originally added political activist and has now agreed to gun rights advocate, I will also support this decision. DN (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I see we have a consensus here on gun rights advocate. I check to the raiser and suggest that  Springee closes down this discussion and changes the title. -The Gnome (talk) 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.   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.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (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  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 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.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (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.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (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 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)
 * Wow, wbm1058. Just wow! You were, peshaps half-jokingly, asked to offer strictly some technical assistance to the change. Yet, you interefered entirely inappropriately 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. -The Gnome (talk) 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.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (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.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (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.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (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.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (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. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll wait a bit / maybe we should wait a bit to see how the dust settles.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ 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)

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 -, can you please recover them? I found Archive 3 <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> 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)
 * 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 Moving a page. – 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)

Grad speech deception
, I think the [John_Lott_(political_activist)#2021_"graduation_address"_event] 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.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not trivial? I am posting here under my real name, but most of those here on Wikipedia 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 <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> 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...
 * the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
 * 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 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  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
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)
 * ✅ Charliehdb (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)