Talk:John Lott/Archive 4

Article name
There is no other existing article on a John Lott on Wikipedia, and regardless, this one is the best known. Thus, according to Disambiguation, this article shouldn't be at John Lott (econometricist), but at John Lott, even though somewhere on earth there are other John Lott's who may deserve Wikipedia articles. Any objections to moving this? --Spangineerws (háblame)  14:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not entirely sure econometricist is an actual word.... Gzuckier 16:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Econometrician is the more usual term. I agree with the move back to John Lott. -- zzuuzz(talk) 16:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Moved, and double redirects have been fixed. --Spangineerws (háblame)  20:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Defensive gun use surveys
I've rewritten the section on the defensive gun use survey(s) that Lott conducted. Things changed: I think that's all I changed. Feel free to suggest other modifications or problems with these edits. --Spangineerws (háblame)  04:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hemenway's faculty website is not a source for facts, only a source for what Hemenway says, which is irrelevant. I've removed it as a source.
 * John Lott defended himself on his website. This fact is verifiable by the existence of the website; I've cited that.
 * Removed POV gems like "While some see it as a minor character flaw which does not affect the validity of his other work, the more militant assert that this is an example of bias and willingness to falsify, both to a degree unacceptable in a scientific researcher, and that therefore all his work must at best be meticulously scrutinized, if not totally disregarded."
 * Added specific and significant citations for information I was able to verify, like specific citations of use of the 98% figure (including after the criticism began).
 * I was not able to verify that Lott used the 98% figure after publishing the 2002 study, and the Public Opinion Quarterly (no fan of Lott's study) admitted that he switched to use the 95% number. I removed that detail entirely.
 * I removed the bit about Lott citing the study before the publication of the book; I fail to see how this is relevant (does any significant media suggest that Lott invented the number and then performed the study afterward?)
 * Removed the huge list of unformatted citations that appears to have come directly from a anti-Lott blog; much of it is not verifiable (no links to TV program transcripts), and in any case it's overkill.
 * Changed the section title to better reflect what the section covers for the general reader who doesn't know anything about Lott. I recommend moving this material into the section on media bias, as the studies were initially performed to demonstrate that the media under-reports defensive gun use.

Pproctor's edits
User:Pproctor made two edits, and I reverted both:
 * First edit was this one, suggesting that criticism could be politically motivated. I personally agree with Pproctor's position, but the problem is that we don't say in the article that Lott's study could be politically motivated (that he's doing this to prove a point, or whatever), and doing so would be silly.  The research is what it is; it should be debated on its merits.
 * The second edit I thought had potential until I read the source. The article merely said that the study was supported by the Joyce foundation.  Lott has been criticized for taking money from gun manufacturers (a claim that he thoroughly refutes in the 2nd ed of MGLC) to fund his studies, but we don't cite one of his articles that says "funding from XYZ corporation" and say that he has been criticized for it (because that's not what the source is doing).  We need to actually cite the criticism.  We need to find a reliable source (preferably something in a journal, not some columnist spewing hate) that gives real evidence that the studies were faked or biased because of funding from interested parties, and then we can include that. --Spangineerws  (háblame)  02:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Point taken on first edit, though my point was that this area is very politicised and NPOV requires that this be noted.   As for the second edit,  I do not express a POV, but merely give a reference to one expressed in the NEJM.  But neither point is worth hassling over.Pproctor 13:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet comment
In early 2003, it was suggested that Lott had created and used "Mary Rosh" as a fake persona to defend his own works on Usenet and elsewhere, to a greater degree than was common among academics with online pseudonyms

This paragraph suggests that it is common for academics to use sockpuppets to defend their own works on Usenet and elsewhere and that Lott merely did it more than usual. Although my experiences are anecdotal, most of the academics I know who use pseudonyms online use them for simple anonymity. It is certainly not common to use them to shill for one's own work. I edited the paragraph to reflect the point in a more neutral manner, but it was reverted. I am not sure why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.134.204 (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw the revert and left it as it was because the "considered professional practice" bit that you replaced it with was opinion. I agree with your reading of the current text, however, so I've deleted the entire clause&mdash;since it's all unsourced speculation anyway. --Spangineerws  (háblame)  04:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, after reviewing my edit it was framed as opinion as well - your deletion made more sense and left the relevant information intact. Cheers! 142.244.43.11 15:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that there is anything to be gained by trying to summarize opinions on using pseudonyms. Some people like them, and some don't. Just say he used a pseudonym, and let the reader decide. Roger 17:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Organization
Rather than having two level two sections called "Lott's work" and "Criticism of Lott's work", why not divide these by subject, and cover each point individually? Maybe a section on concealed carry vs. crime rate, one on number of defensive gun uses, one on affirmative action, and one catch-all at the end? It seems to me that it would be much easier for a reader to understand the arguments for and against Lott's research if it were taken one at a time. Any objections to this? Note that I'm not suggesting any changes to sections on his academic career or the Mary Rosh persona. --Spangineerws (háblame)  16:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The distinction between criticizing research and criticizing opinions needs to be clear. Research criticisms will always be based on data and methodology, and I doubt it would be useful to list those complaints over and over in each section.  That does not preclude expanding the sections on Lott's work to cover the ongoing academic debates.  Kborer 17:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you explain what you mean? It seems to me that your second and third sentences are contradictory.  I'm thinking that the each section describe the work and cover the reaction to that particular piece of work, both pro and con.  This might get repetitive, but I think that can be avoided by quoting actual reviews.  A separate section could be used for discussing his political opinions (subjects of his editorials, blog postings, etc.).  Thoughts? --Spangineerws  (háblame)  02:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What I was trying to say was that instead of writing summaries of attacks and counterattacks for each subject, it would probably be better to list the related references in an easy to understand format, and then keep the criticisms sections as summaries.


 * Lott's initial paper
 * First Paper Attacking
 * counter attacking paper
 * Second paper attacking
 * counter attacking paper


 * I do like the idea of having a separate section covering his views, editorials, and blog postings. Kborer 16:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, especially for the major topics. Perhaps the "counter attacking paper" portions could include his responses in the 2nd edition of More Guns, Less Crime and the articles he writes and publishes via his blog?  That's in addition to things that other people write in his defense. --Spangineerws  (háblame)  17:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

JEL Subject codes and headings of articles by Lott: B  Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology B31 History of Thought: Individuals D  Microeconomics D72 Economic Models of Political Processes D84 Information and Uncertainty: Expectations - Speculations E  Macroeconomics E62 Fiscal Policy - Public Expenditures, Investment, and Finance - Taxation G  Financial Economics G11 Portfolio Choice H  Public Economics H11 Structure and Scope of Government H52 Government Expenditures and Education J  Labor and Demographic Economics J28 Safety - Accidents - Industrial Health - Job Satisfaction - Related Public Policy J71 Discrimination K  Law and Economics K13 Tort Law and Product Liability K32 Environmental, Health, and Safety Law K41 Litigation Process K42 Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law L  Industrial Organization L11 Production, Pricing and Market Structure - Size Distribution of Firms L12 Monopoly - Monopolization Strategies books by Lott: K  Law and Economics K1 Basic Areas of Law K4 Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior L  Industrial Organization L4 Antitrust Policy Given the wide range of Lott's work and the fact that the criticism of Lott seems harshest against his work under subject K42 and there against his work on gun control, I am led to the conclusion that this is more a reflection of the polarised nature of the gun debate than a reflection on the character of John Lott himself.Naaman Brown (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Lott writes on several subjects, not just gun control: in a search of the 1994-2003 BKISSUES of the June 2003 CD-ROM of the JEL of the AEA, I found article citations and abstracts by Lott under several classifications:

Re: Citation Required on Curriculum Vitae
Re: citation require as a fellow at University of Chicago. I have a citation for the year 1996 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1030937

You have to listen to the audio archive. Regards. Johndoeemail (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the rules on valid citations very well, but: "Curriculum Vitae... The John M. Olin Law and Economics Fellow, School of Law, University of Chicago __ September 1995 to August 1999. The John M. Olin Visiting Assistant Professor, The George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago July 1994 to August 1995"

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Lott_CV_03_08.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndoeemail (talk • contribs) 19:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC) forgot to sign the change, sorry Johndoeemail (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I have a citation for 1998: "Lott is The John M. Olin Law and Economics Fellow at the School of Law of the University of Chicago." http://www.ccrkba.org/defender1998.htm Johndoeemail (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I have a citation for 1999: "Mr. Lott teaches criminal deterrence and law and economics at the University of Chicago Law School, where he is the Jphn M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow." http://www.ioscorepublicans.org/arcbooks.htm Johndoeemail (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Regards And that typo in the quote is actually on the web page. Johndoeemail (talk) 21:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Another citation for 1999: "John R. Lott Jr. teaches criminal deterrence, and law and economics, at the University of Chicago, where he is the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow." http://www.americanexperiment.org/uploaded/files/aeqv2n2lott.pdf Johndoeemail (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I have a citation for 1997: "John R. Lott is John M. Olin Visiting Professor at the Graduate School of Business of the University of Chicago." It is page 240 of: The Economics of Organised Crime By Gianluca Fiorentini, Sam Peltzman Contributor Gianluca Fiorentini, Sam Peltzman Published by Cambridge University Press, 1997 ISBN 0521629551, 9780521629553 301 pages See: http://books.google.com/books?id=DepEk9KiKHsC&dq Johndoeemail (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Just in Case, a citation re Yale dated December 16, 1999: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec99/violence_12-16.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndoeemail (talk • contribs) 22:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Sorry forgot to sign again. Johndoeemail (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone has the following book (he's in there in 3 places but its restricted and the book is beyond my means): http://books.google.com/books?id=29U9GeQQnSUC&dq Page 508 Sorry, this page's content is restricted. Page 928 Page 936 Johndoeemail (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, no mention in the article of his association with SUNY-Binghamton (May 2007): "John Lott, dean’s visiting professor and author of the upcoming book Freedomnomics ..." http://www.binghamton.edu/inside/inthenews/mar-apr/07apr-may.html Sorry, it was April 2007 and I forgot to sign. Johndoeemail (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This does not solve the "citation required" that he left AEI in 2006, but he was at AEI in November 2005: http://econ.binghamton.edu/researchfs05.htm Johndoeemail (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"March 28, 2006...John Lott, who’s a resident scholar here at AEI..." http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.1285/transcript.asp Johndoeemail (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A few mentions of people joining AEI on their website, but none I can find of anyone ever leaving :( http://www.aei.org/publications/contentID.20050311100712127/default.asp Maybe I should email them to address that on their webpage ??? Johndoeemail (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, sorry but I do not know how to create a new section so my stuff is all under NPOV SECTION Johndoeemail (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I figured out how to create a section. I hope this is okay. I have not applied my references above because I do not know how to do inline citations yet. Regards Johndoeemail (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I found a citation for 1995 now: http://research.chicagogsb.edu/economy/research/articles/109.pdf Johndoeemail (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Concealed weapons and crime rate rewrite
I've rewritten the Concealed weapons and crime rate section so that it now includes both praise and criticism of the work, rather than attempting to cover all of that later. I think everything is sourced that needs to be. Basically, what I've done is:
 * Attempt to cover all views on Lott's work. Both sides of the debate get their say, and specific criticisms are presented.  I think that there may be opportunities for rebuttal of some of the critics' points, but I'm waiting to add those.
 * Reduce the level of detail. This is an encyclopedia article, and I feel that it generally suffices to briefly discuss a view argued in a paper.  The book itself is covered in one paragraph, so why should articles supporting or opposing get similar levels of treatment?
 * Cut out unreferenced material. I removed the 2nd half of the Chronicle of Higher Education quote because I didn't see it in the source.

Please comment on this changes; I believe that they represent a significant improvement over what was here before but I'm open to discussion.

I'd like to model the other sections of Lott's work after this one, but I don't know if his other work has received the same level of scrutiny. Any help on this would be appreciated.

The Freakonomics libel suit information needs to be redone. It could be included at the end of the Concealed weapons section, but I think it seems out of place there. I fail to see its relevance in the Criticism section. Is the information really necessary? Or could it perhaps be moved to Freakonomics or Freedomnomics? --Spangineerws (háblame)  21:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On concealed weapons and crime rate: the reviews of current research and data on firearms and violent crime by CDC 2003 and NAS 2004 looked at more than Lott's research, dozens of books and scores of journal articles, and concluded NO gun control policy had a measurable beneficial impact on crime (not just right-to-carry). Lott (More Guns Less Crime (2nd Ed, 2000)) reached the same conclusion, except he found benefits from right-to-carry which NAS said would be better tested by a felon survey (asking if r-t-c affected their behavior) than by an econometric regression.Naaman Brown (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Media bias and defensive gun use
I feel this statement sounds flippant:

"when asked for proof, Lott responded that a bookcase fell on his computer and the documentation of the study was lost."

It reads like "Lott answered the dog ate my homework."

Lott's harddrive crash of Summer 1997 has been well documented even by Lott's critics. The original Lott-Mustard data set of FBI UCR stats and demographic data for all USA counties 1977-1992 and about four other data sets were lost in a harddrive crash and then reconstructed from co-authors' backups. One data set with a co-author could not be recovered, and the "phantom" survey was a solo effort (no co-author's backup to fall back upon).

Lott claims that in his move from Chicago to Yale in a personal vehicle, he had to abandon a lot of personal property, and paperwork on a lost data set was not a high priority in that move.

"when asked for proof, Lott responded that the data set was unrecoverable from a harddrive crash and documentation on the lost survey was abandoned during his move from Chicago." Naaman Brown (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I finally ventured to make an edit 5 Nov 2008 to the article subhead Media bias and defensive gun use to clarify the discussion on Lott's claims about harddrive crash and abandoned paperwork (as outlined above). ""When asked for proof, Lott responded that the data set from the solo survey was unrecoverable from the harddrive crash that also lost the original Lott-Mustard data set (recovered from his co-author's backups) and that the documentation on the lost survey was abandoned during his move from Chicago with other personal property.""

On 7 Nov 2008 user BobH63 excised the whole discussion with the comment: ''Not correct that data was recovered from Mustard. Lott also lost data with many other co-authors who have publicly stated that.''

I really don't care to get involved in a revision war, but the fact is the Lott-Mustard data set was rebuilt from Mustard's copies; even if it wasn't, that would not justify removing the whole paragraph.

"The data set used in the original Lott study has been lost, although Lott reconstructed a version of the data, which he has made available to other researchers as well as the committee." -National Academy of Sciences, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (2004) page 122. http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309091241.html/122.html

Lott's co-author David B. Mustard wrote the Washington Post in February 2003: ""On February 11, 2003, in the article "A Fabricated Fan and Many Doubts", the Washington Post incorrectly questioned whether John Lott experienced a computer crash in the summer of 1997. I can testify that Mr. Lott's computer crashed at that time and that he lost everything he had on his hard drive. He and I discussed this crash many times. John and I were co-authors on a project that ended prior to the crash. Because he lost all the data from our project, I replaced as much of the data as I could.""

The co-authored project was John R. Lott, Jr., and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-To-Carry Concealed Handguns," (XXVI J Legal Studies (Jan 1997)) which Lott expanded upon for his book More Guns, Less Crime (U Chicago Press, 1998).

On the subject of the Lott-Mustard data set, David Mustard recalled in October 2003: ""On Friday 8 August 1997 my wife and I closed on our home in Athens, Georgia. While we were unloading our belongings in our new home a phone rang.... John Lott was on the phone. I believe that he told me at this time about his computer crash.... I had additional conversations with John about his hard drive collapse and his lost data, and I agreed to provide him with all my data..... I likely provided John with the data from our concealed carry paper in mid-September to October.""Naaman Brown (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC) (Oops "Forearms... " edited to "Firearms..." BTW,the NAS study is alternately refered to a National Research Council NAP 2005 publication in other cites.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naaman Brown (talk • contribs) 20:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Sections
I have added two NPOV-Section tags to this article, in two places where there are direct links offsite to papers specifically written by John Lott, hosted on a site that I am not sure has recognition with Wikipedia as being a credibly neutral site for information. Given that the articles directly expand on the short additions to Wikipedia that link to them, it would appear that this is an attempt at self-promotion rather than abiding by the NPOV rules of Wikipedia. That is the reason I have added these tags. Whisperwolf (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

On further reading of the entire article I have nominated this article for a POV-check since there are a lot of occasions where it is stated "Lott found..." as if his own research results should be taken as fully accurate. Since there is evident political bias in some of the items I do consider that the balance of the article overall is straying away from NPOV and would therefore invite discussion as to the overall neutrality of this article. While I accept that "(researcher) found" can be accurate in some cases, since there is obvious political bias and some of Lott's work is controversial, I feel it is inappropriate for such terms to be used with the frequency that they are in this article, without some balance of opposite political views. Whisperwolf (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

First, these are published academic articles. The abortion article was published in the economics journal Economic Inquiry. Second, if there is subsequent academic research that directly comments on this research you can cite it and state what it claims. Third, the statements saying "Lott found . . ." seems unbiased. It is stating that "Lott" had found the finding. It is not saying that all academics state the same finding. Finally, other posting by other academics are written in similar ways -- see the postings on Steven Levitt. Serenity (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * While I can appreciate what you say on the subject of "Lott found..." I still feel that to link directly to his papers crosses the line of WP:NOR which specifically states:


 * Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
 * Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
 * only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
 * make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.


 * Clearly in directly linking to a paper rather than having a reference link to a third party reliable source, this section breaches Wikipedia's Guidelines. If something was published elsewhere, and that elsewhere is a credible source, then the article here should link to that credible source, not direct to the paper. --Whisperwolf (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The links to John Lott's papers ought to be included, but preferably as a regular reference (citing the actual publication info, with a link to where they can be read). The main problem that WP:NPOV warns against is interpretation of the primary source; as long as we're not doing that, there's no issue with citing these papers, because that's where most of the debate remains. --Spangineerws  (háblame)  04:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to decide what to do with the section on Lott et al. researching media bias. The whole paragraph is poorly written. For instance, what does "how to objectively measure what the actual news story was" even mean? I guess they mean they are measuring something about an event covered by a newspaper, but what about it was measured? It seems to only suggest that the media presents events with a political tilt of some kind, but without a clearer summary, I think this should be cut. Threepillars (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In the Women's Suffrage section, this is written: , but it's not quoted or anything. I'm new to wikipedia but that looks like that no original research bogey. Regards. Johndoeemail (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"Lott found" is not that unbiased; I think the language you're shooting for is "Lott concluded". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImperfectlyInformed (talk • contribs) 05:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
Does this article still need the neutrality tag? If so, what sections need work? Kborer 00:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Both subsections of "Controversy" contain more detail than what is necessary to communicate the points, and they also tend to rely heavily on sources of doubtful reliability (timlambert.org, Mother Jones, etc.) I think rewriting the Mary Rosh section using only newspaper articles would help immensely (albeit including links to the original Julian Sanchez post and the actual usenet comments) but I haven't gotten to it yet. --Spangineerws  (háblame)  04:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I trimmed this section a bit. The quotes were redundant, and one of the points seemed irrelevant.  Kborer 17:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Does this article still need the neutrality tag? If so, what sections need work? Kborer 15:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's ready to come off. There hasn't been much disagreement over recent edits, so hopefully that means that others agree that it has improved.  The article still needs some referencing in places (the last few sections of his work, for example), and the defamation suit section can probably be shortened, but overall I think it's much better than it was a couple months ago.  I've just removed the tag. --Spangineerws  (háblame)  01:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article lacks balance, and mimics the pro-gun talking points and pseudo science. See for instance the scathing criticism of Lott's work published in Public Opinion Quarterly 69.2 (Summer 2005): p246(18) SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Pseudonym at Amazon.com
Regarding the recent edit, revert of the pseudonym at amazon.com issue, "no source". I see this sourced over here:. Though, it is might ben an open question if timlambert.org is a WP:RS. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Original research - section on Women's suffrage and environmental growth
This section was clearly WP:OR. I've removed it twice, and twice it's been replaced by IP editors (possibly the same editor) with either no other contributions or just a couple of contributions, which could be a way of avoiding the effect of any Admin actions. Whether or not Lott is notable for this, we need reliable 3rd party sources who say this. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources have said about a subject, not our own ideas. I ask whoever is replacing this to stop and if they can and want to, add something that is reliably sourced. Doug Weller (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * An SPA editor (ie only edits have been on this page) says it is from Lott's paper. It certainly doesn't read that way and I've replaced it with the abstract. The article is about Lott, not woman's suffrage, and even this might be too much for an encyclopedia article. Doug Weller (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Long post Women's suffrage and government growth was replaced with a one liner with a typo. I gave what I hope was an accurate but short summation, but given that Lott has published over ninety articles in peer reviewed academic journals, is it really necessary to abstract or summarize all of them in detail? Naaman Brown (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It certainly isn't necessary or appropriate. The article should represent proportionately what he is best known for (sorry about the grammar). dougweller (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of section: "Studies based on Lott's gun research"
I'm curious about this edit:. The reason given was that it duplicates a list of links at Lott's website - but does removing it really improve the article? Mark Shaw (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:EL Links should be kept to a minimum and links to stuff that is indirectly related to the subject (ie studies based on his research) should be avoided. --TimLambert (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think you're saying that the problem is that the links are for work associated with, or similar to, Lott's, rather than his own. I'll certainly go along with that.  Thanks! Mark Shaw (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Lott Criticism on RTC
A quick overview of the early stages of the Right To Carry (RTC) or Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) debate might be gained from:

Clayton Cramer and David Kopel, ""Shall Issue": The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit       Laws," Tennessee Law Review 62:3 pp. 679-757 (Spring, 1995) David McDowall, Colin Loftin, & Brian Wiersema, "Easing Concealed Firearm Laws: Effects on      Homicide in Three States,"  86 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 193-206 (Fall 1995) John R. Lott, Jr., and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-To-Carry Concealed      Handguns," 26 J. of Legal Stud. 1 (1997)

In the years before the Lott-Mustard study, academic articles looking at RTC looked at very limited jurisdictions and time frames. Cramer & Kopel 1995 compared three sets of counties in California whose permit systems were ranked as most restrictive, restrictive and least restrictive. McDowall, Loftin & Wiersema 1995 looked at five cities in three states in selected before-and-after time periods. Lott & Mustard 1997 looked at all ~3080 US county FBI UCR crime stats and Census Bureau demographics related to crime for the years 1977 through 1992.

John Lott and David Mustard claim they took all the available data and followed them where they led. Mustard has written that before their study, he had held pro gun control beliefs and their research called those beliefs into question. Lott has written that before they began their study, his home was a "no guns zone" even to the exclusion of toy guns; after their study, he changed his mind and bought a gun for self-defense, becoming a pro gun rights activist and a critic of gun control.

While the recent debate on the subject of RTC has been centered on confirming or refuting Lott & Mustard 1997, the trend toward liberalized RTC permit laws was well-established a full decade before Lott & Mustard 1997 published on the issue:

Numbers of States 1986 - 1996: Change : Type of Handgun Carry Law 1 -   1  :    0   : Unrestricted--No permit or license required (Vermont) 8 -  30  :  +22   : Shall-Issue--Permits to all applicants who qualify 24 -  12  :  -12   : May-Issue--Permits at discretion of authority 17 -   7  :  -10   : No-Issue--RTC not allowed

A list of articles published about Lott & Mustard 1997 is found in Table 2 of Moody & Marvell 2008 (Carlisle E. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, "The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws," Econ Journal Watch, Volume 5, Number 3, September 2008, pp 269-293. Ian Ayres and John Donohue are scheduled to respond to Moody & Marvell in the Econ Journal Watch, January 2009.) The academic studies cited by Moody and Marvell total 24 studies of the impact of Shall-Issue Right-To-Carry concealed weapon laws, with 13 studies finding a reduction in crime, 3 studies finding an increase in crime, and 8 studies finding no impact.

Not much has changed on the debate about the Lott & Mustard 1997 study in the time since Chicago Tribune Magazine reporter Linnet Myers wrote: ""Three professors interviewed at separate universities said Lott's data and computations were mathematically correct. But because each professor's analysis differed, one didn't find significant drops in crime while another found more dramatic decreases than Lott did. The third said Lott's results have been "confirmed in the sense that they've been replicated." "" --Chicago Tribune June 20, 1999 Sunday

from Moody & Marvell 2008 Academic Evidence on the Relationship between Shall-Issue Laws and Crime Abbreviations used by moi (classifications from by Moody and Marvell): Pro Shall-issue Reduces crime Con Shall-issue Increases crime Non Shall-issue has No significant effect on crime RefB peer reviewed, Refereed Book RefJ peer reviewed, Refereed Journal UnrB Non Peer reviewed, unrefereed book (non-academic press) UnrJ Non Peer reviewed, unrefereed journal (eg, student edited review) Work Working paper, unpublished article YEAR Position Type Citation 1997 Pro RefJ J.R. Lott and D.B. Mustard, "Crime, deterrence, and right-to-carry                   concealed handguns," Journal of Legal Studies 26: 1-68. 1998 Non RefJ D.A. Black and D.S. Nagin, "Do right-to-carry laws deter violent crime?" Journal of Legal Studies 27: 209-219. 1998 Non RefJ H. Dezhbakhsh and P.H. Rubin, "Lives saved or lives lost--the effects of                   concealed-handgun laws on crime," American Economic Review 88: 468-474. 1998 Non RefJ J. Ludwig, "Concealed-gun-carrying laws and violent crime: Evidence from                   state panel data," International Review of Law and Economics 18: 239-254. 1998 Pro RefB J.R. Lott, "More guns, less crime : understanding crime and gun-control                  laws," Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1998 1st Ed (revised 2000, 2002). 1998 Pro RefJ J.R. Lott and D.B. Mustard, "The concealed handgun debate," Journal of Legal Studies 27: 221-243. 1998 Pro RefJ S.G. Bronars and J.R. Lott, "Criminal deterrence, geographic spillovers, and                  the right to carry concealed handguns," American Economic Review 88: 475-479. 1998 Pro RefJ W.A. Bartley and M.A. Cohen, "The effect of concealed weapons laws--                  an extreme bound analysis," Economic Inquiry 36: 258-265. 1999 Pro UnrB J.R. Lott and W.M. Landis, "Multiple victim public shootings, bombings and                   right-to-carry concealed handgun laws: contrasting private and public law                   enforcement," Published as Chapter 6 of J. R. Lott, "The bias against guns," Washington, DC, Regnery (1999, 2001, 2003). 2000 Non RefJ M.V. Hood and G.W. Neeley, "Packin' in the hood?: examining assumptions of                   concealed-handgun research," Social Science Quarterly 81: 523-537. 2001 Pro RefJ B.L. Benson and B.D. Mast, "Privately produced general deterrence," Journal of Law and Economics 44: 725-746. 2001 Pro RefJ C.E. Moody, "Testing for the effects of concealed weapons laws:                   Specification errors and robustness," Journal of Law and Economics 44:799-813. 2001 Pro RefJ D.B. Mustard, "The impact of gun laws on police deaths," Journal of Law and Economics 44:635-657. 2001 Pro RefJ D.E. Olsen and M.D. Maltz, "Right-to-carry concealed weapons laws and                   homicide in large U.S. counties: the effect on weapons types, victim                   characteristics, and victim-offender relationships," Journal of Law and Economics 44:747-770. 2001 Pro RefJ F. Plassmann and T. N. Tideman, "Does the right to carry concealed handguns                   deter countable crimes? only a count analysis can say," Journal of Law and Economics, 44, pp. 771-798. 2002 Non RefJ G. Duwe, T. Kovandzic, and C.E. Moody, "The impact of right-to-carry                   concealed firearm laws on mass public shootings," Homicide Studies 6: 271-296. 2003 Con UnrB J.J. Donohue, "The impact of concealed carry laws," In J. Ludwig and P.J.                   Cook (eds.) "Evaluating Gun Policy," Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 287-325. 2003 Con UnrJ I. Ayres and J.J. Donohue, "Shooting down the more guns, less crime                   hypothesis," Stanford Law Review 54: 1193-1312. 2003 Pro UnrJ J.R. Lott, F. Plassmann and J. Whitley, "Confirming `more guns, less crime'," Stanford Law Review 54: 1313-1369. 2003 Con UnrJ I. Ayres and J.J. Donohue, "The latest misfires in support of the `more guns,                  less crime' hypothesis," Stanford Law Review 54: 1371-1398. 2003 Non RefJ T. Kovandzic and T.B. Marvell, "Right-to-carry concealed handguns and violent                   crime: crime control through gun decontrol?" Criminology and Public Policy 2: 363-396. 2004 Pro RefJ E. Helland and A. Tabarrok, "Using Placebo Laws to Test `More Guns, Less                   Crime'," Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy 4: Issue. 1, Article 1. 2004 Pro Work J. R. Lott, "Right-to-carry laws and violent crime revisited: clustering,                   measurement error and state-by-state breakdowns," Working paper, American Enterprise Institute. 2005 Non RefB National Research Council (National Academy of Sciences), "Firearms and                   Violence: A Critical Review," Committee to Improve Research Information and Data on Firearms. Charles F. Wellford, John V. Pepper, and Carol V. Petrie, editors, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2005 Non RefJ Kovandzic, T. V., T.B. Marvell, and L.E, Vieraitis, "The Impact of `Shall-Issue'                  Concealed Handgun Laws on Violent Crime Rates," Homicide Studies, 10: 292-323. NAS 2004 (NAP 2005) was rated by Moody and Marvell as finding RTC has no significant effect on crime (although there was a dissent by James Q. Wilson who claimed RTC did reduce murder). NAS 2004 was also critical of the Ayres & Donohue hybrid model that claimed a miniscule increase in crime from RTC.

The three studies cited by Moody and Marvell as claiming shall-issue increases crime have one thing in common: John J. Donohue III as author or co-author. John Donohue has been a staunch critic of John Lott's "More Gun Less Crime" hypothesis:

I. Ayres and J.J. Donohue, "Nondiscretionary Concealed Weapons Laws: A Case Study of      Statistics, Standards of Proof, and Public Policy," 1 American Law and Economics Review 436 (1999). I. Ayres and J.J. Donohue, "Shooting down the more guns, less crime hypothesis," 54 Stanford Law Review 1193 (2003). I. Ayres and J.J. Donohue, "The latest misfires in support of the `more guns, less crime'      hypothesis," 54 Stanford Law Review 1371 (2003). J.J. Donohue III, "The Final Bullet in the Body of the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis," 2 Criminology & Pub. Pol. 397 (2003))  J.J. Donohue, "Guns, Crime, and the Impact of State Right-To-Carry Laws,"       73 Fordham L. Rev. 623 (2004)


 * I would like to point out that the standard in the Moody & Marvell 2008 list was original, empirical research studies on the subject, which excluded reprints, re-hashes, book reviews or editorial comments; Donohue's "The Final Bullet...." 2003 is a reaction essay to Kovandzic & Marvell 2003 while Donohue 2004 appears to cover the same ground as Ayres & Donohue 2003 as part of a Second Amendment and gun policy conference. Not included in the Moody & Marvell list are many of the articles often cited for or against Lott's research since those articles were not original research studies themselves but opinion or editorial responses with no original research.Naaman Brown (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

John J. Donohue wrote "if RTC laws are harmful and Lott and Mustard's now discredited work has led to their greater adoption, then Lott and Mustard have imposed serious costs on the victims of the increased crime. Conversely, if the RTC laws have virtually no effect on crime but legislators voted for them thinking that they lowered crime, then at least there would be no blood on Lott and Mustard's hands, but there would still be the harm to the democratic process of encouraging the adoption of laws on false pretenses (however innocent the erroneous findings originally were)."

Donohue's focus on Lott & Mustard 1997 is strange to me: 22 states between 1986-1996 adopted shall-issue RTC permit laws before Lott & Mustard 1997 was published.

Moody and Marvell found only 3 original studies (all by or with J.J. Donohue) claiming an increase in crime from RTC, and 8 studies claiming no impact, with 13 studies claiming some reductions in crime. Of those 13 studies, Lott and Mustard neither wrote nor co-wrote at least six (Bartley & Cohen 1998, Benson & Mast 2001, C.E. Moody 2001, Olsen & Maltz 2001, Plassmann & Tideman 2001 and Helland & Tabarrok 2004, all peer-reviewed journal articles). So calling Lott's RTC work "discredited" may be an overstatement. In their reviews of the literature on the gun laws of the past decades, CDC 2003 and NAS 2004 could find no measurable benefit from the restrictive gun laws.

One could parody Donohue: ''If restrictive gun laws are harmful and academic advice has led to their greater adoption, then the advisers have imposed serious costs on the victims of the increased crime. If the restrictive gun laws have virtually no effect but legislators voted for them thinking that they lowered crime based on academic advice, then at least there would be no blood on the advisers' hands, but there would still be the harm to the democratic process by encouraging the adoption of laws on false pretenses (however well-intentioned were the erroneous findings that lead to the unintended consequences), as well as tax dollars and man-hours wasted on useless policies that criminalised otherwise non-criminal gun owners.'' Naaman Brown (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Marvell and Moody discussion is rather biased. For example, I don't think that any reasonable person could characterise Helland & Tabarrok as supporting Lott's conclusion. --TimLambert (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Helland & Tabarrok did find support for the Lott & Mustard substitution theory. Tabarrok responded to me that on the Moody & Marvell scale of RTC "decreases--no effect--increases" he felt the H&T results were closer to no effect than decreases. (No peer-refereed academic study claims an increase in crime from RTC.) If H&T found "no effect" on rates due to substitution, even then one might consider substitution of property crime for crimes against people to be a good effect. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So Tabarrok himself tells you that his study should be classified as "no effect". --TimLambert (talk) 05:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Tabarrok's words were ""closer to the "no effect" group"" which I read as not "no effect" and not "increases" but not strongly "decreases" because their data did not speak clearly. Naaman Brown (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Media Bias
The current head "Media Bias" is flagged NPOV and see discussion in Talk; the paragraph flagged is about "Is Newspaper Coverage of Economic Events Politically Biased?" by John Lott, Kevin Hassett, paper at SSRN The paragraph basicly summarises the article without judging whether the thesis is true or false. Is a NPOV tag actually appropriate for this head at this time? Naaman Brown (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Abortion and Crime
Regarding the entry on abortion and crime, I have two suggestions. First, I am not sure this deserves its own entry. The paper in question is a non-published working paper at the Yale working paper series. Until it's published in a peer-reviewed journal, should it really be highlighted in an encyclopedia like this?
 * THE PAPER WAS PUBLISHED IN ECONOMIC INQUIRY IN APRIL 2007 (Volume 45, Issue 2, pages 304–324, April 2007).
 * GIVEN THAT MISTAKE, THE REST OF THIS IS IRRELEVANT: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.110.212 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 11 December 2010
 * The mistake appears to be yours, for overlooking that the comment you are replying to was made in January 2007. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I could imagine what might be better is if the article is referenced earlier, as an area of research interest, but not necessarily something that should (yet) stand alone in the article. The paper is, after all, almost 6 years old. That it has not been published could mean something is wrong with the findings (I'm just guessing - I haven't read it). Secondly, if the community decides to keep the entry as is, then I think it's unnecessary to have a requirement to support his finding that abortion increased murder rates "by around about 0.5 to 7 percent." This was obviously lifted verbatim from the abstract (page 3) from the article, which is cited earlier in the paragraph. Having said that, I am inclined to think this page should focus on Lott's extensive publications, not his working papers. Therefore, I propose we delete this section. Since this page gets so much vandalism and controversy, I am reluctant to do it myself, and would prefer a conversation first about the suggestion. Scunning 15:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This is part of a wider discussion of the issue covered at "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime" and some of the papers listed are still just working papers. 76.7.179.74 (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * John J. Donohue III & Steven Levitt, "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(2), pp. 379-420 (2001) originally posted as a working paper in 1999.
 * Levitt, “Does Abortion Prevent Crime?” Slate Magazine, August 23, 1999, debate between Steve Sailer and Levitt at Slate.com 1999 over the working paper version of Donohue & Levitt (2001).
 * John R. Lott Jr. & John E. Whitley, "Abortion and Crime: Unwanted Children and Out-of-Wedlock Births," Yale Law & Economics Research Paper No. 254 (2001) a pre-QJE publication critique of Donohue & Levitt (2001).
 * Theodore Joyce, "Did Legalized Abortion Lower Crime?" Journal of Human Resources, 39(1), pp. 1-28 (2004).
 * Donohue & Levitt, "Further Evidence that Legalized Abortion Lowered Crime: A Reply to Joyce," Journal of Human Resources, 39(1), pp. 29-49 (2004).
 * Christopher Foote & Christopher Goetz, "Testing Economic Hypotheses with State-Level Data: A Comment on Donohue and Levitt (2001)," Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Working Paper 05-15 (2005).
 * Donohue & Levitt, "Measurement Error, Legalized Abortion, the Decline in Crime: A Response to Foote and Goetz," Levitt's working papers at U Chicago (2006)
 * Levitt & Stephen Dubner, Freakonomics, William Murrow publishers (2005)
 * John D. Mueller, "Dismal Science: A review of Freakonomics...." Clairemont Review of Books (Spring 2006).

Current position
Is there any support for stating that John Lott is currently a researching at the University of Maryland (or at the University of Maryland Foundation)? A search of both websites reveals nothing. The two supposedly supporting links  do not mention him. Nor does the University of Maryland list him as an employee in 2009-2010. If no evidence is found, I believe the intro should be reworded to say that he is a currently media commentator (often with the WSJ and FoxNews). --Bequw (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Google cache of the two supporting links shows that he was listed as of Dec 25 2010, but he has since been removed from the list. So it is seems likely that he is no longer a visiting at U Maryland.  I agree that the intro should be reworded. TimLambert (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Lott is not currently listed as visiting research scientist UMd College Park. Lott did attend the American Economic Association meeting 7 Jan 2011 link here listed as John R. Lott (University of Maryland Foundation) presenting papers on The Benefit-Cost Analysis of Public Safety and Crime with Scott Farrow (University of Maryland Baltimore County) and W. Kip Viscusi (Vanderbilt University) link here. SSRN still lists Lott with the Foundation link here. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Citations needed for ideological claims
The claim that he is a "conservative political commentator" is not provided in the article body, nor is it cited in the lead. Likewise, the claim that "He is also known for taking conservative positions on a wide range of political issues" is not provided in the article body, nor cited in the lead. I have tagged both items. Drrll (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is back to saying that he is a "conservative political commentator," after having briefly said that he was a "conservative academic and political commentator." So far as I can tell, there is nothing in the WP article to suggest that he is a "political commentator," other than perhaps for the fact that for less than a year he wrote a column for foxnews.com.

Neither sources now used to support "conservative political commentator" actually say that. The IHT source says that he is a conservative scholar; the WT source (which is actually directly quoting a WSJ editorial) says that he is a conservative statistician. The two sources combined could be construed to support that he is a "conservative academic" (similarly, according to reliable sources, we could then say that such academics as Henry Louis Gates, Lani Guinier, Alan Dershowitz, and Jonathan Turley are "liberal" and that Noam Chomsky is "left-wing" or a "leftist"), but to say definitively in WP's voice, in the very few first words, that he is conservative, requires some pretty extraordinary sourcing.

If that sourcing can be found, or if it is decided that we start labeling all academics that way in the opening sentence, then I'll go along with it. Drrll (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As the editor who changed it from "conservative academic and political commentator" to "academic and conservative political commentator," I should say that I agree with Drrll. I wasn't sure if a complete reversion was warranted, but I certainly didn't think "conservative academic" should stand. Mark Shaw (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (after a couple of revert cycles) I suggest applying the principles from WP:BRD here. Mark Shaw (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I really fail to see what the problem is here. He's widely cited in the media, including the conservative media, as a conservative, and his own employer Fox News (he is a columnist for them online) identifies him as such.  Gamaliel (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. Let's see what others have to say. (As a point of comparison, I note that Paul Krugman - who has been in the news for his commentary at the time of this writing - is not identified as a liberal.) If anything, however, the adjective should be moved so as to modify "political commentator" rather than "academic." Mark Shaw (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Um, what? It's right there in the lead section: Krugman considers himself a liberal.  Gamaliel (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Must've missed it as it's down at the end and self-described. I wonder what would happen if some editor were to insist on putting it in the first sentence. Anyway, though, that's neither here nor there: this discussion is about Lott. I'd like to hear from Drrll or others on this question, but I think it's fair to put a deadline on that - say, 2359 UTC 13 September 2011. Would that be agreeable? Mark Shaw (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "He's widely cited in the media, including the conservative media, as a conservative." It wouldn't matter if you could provide 40 sources characterizing him as a conservative. If you can come up with a source that says that he is usually characterized as a conservative in various news sources, or even if you can show by Lexis-Nexis results (or something at least as comprehensive) that more often than not he's characterized as conservative, I can support stating that he is a conservative. I seriously doubt that that could be done to support that he is a "conservative academic" or even a "conservative political commentator." Such a high standard is necessary, especially in a BLP and especially in early in the lead, to say definitively in WP's voice that he is a conservative. I don't understand how you would support adding that to a BLP as the first word in the lead after "is a" when you don't support even adding "often characterized as liberal" to the non-BLP Media Matters for America article in the second sentence of the lead. I can come up with hundreds of sources characterizing MMfA as "liberal."


 * "his own employer Fox News (he is a columnist for them online) identifies him as such": that might carry more weight if in the foxnews.com bio for him it said so or at the top or bottom of his articles there it identified him as a conservative, rather than in an independent news story on Special Report with Bret Baier.


 * Do you think that we should label such academics as Henry Louis Gates, Lani Guinier, Alan Dershowitz, and Jonathan Turley as "liberal" academics and Noam Chomsky as a "left-wing"/"leftist" academic in the first few words of the leads of their BLPs just because some sources label them as such? Drrll (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The difference is that MMFA calls itself "progressive" as is labeled as such in hundreds of sources, which contradicts the sources you favored for the intro. Give me one instance of Lott calling himself something other than "conservative".  Gamaliel (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as MMfA labeling in sources go, a LexisNexis search of all sources (with a majority of the sources being unreliable sources) shows "liberal" used over 2.5 times as often as "progressive." When restricted to 'Major World Publications' (with all or nearly sources being reliable sources), "liberal" is used over 6 times as often as "progressive." Amongst straight news pieces in three top sources, the NYT, the WaPo, and NPR (hardly conservative sources), MMfA is characterized as "liberal" dozens and dozens of times--a majority of the time that it is mentioned in any way by those sources. Contrast that with John Lott being characterized as "conservative." Amongst the thousands of straight news pieces in reliable sources included in a LexisNexis search of all its sources, Lott is called "conservative" a grand total of 6 times (3 of which you cited). As far as Lott's self-identification, "give me one instance of Lott calling himself" a 'conservative academic,' a 'conservative political commentator,' or even simply a 'conservative.' Drrll (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not the appropriate forum to relitigate the Media Matters issue. The fact is that, whatever you think of the sources discussed there, the sources offered different labels, liberal vs. progressive.  Here the sources presented here thus far all concur: conservative.  The contradictory approach here is yours, not mine.  If you were to be consistent, you would support using what the secondary sources say just as you did in the MMFA article. Gamaliel (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's much question about whether Lott is generally conservative in his political commentary. And the work product of his academic research does tend to support conservative views on certain social issues. The question here, in my opinion, is whether it's appropriate to overtly state that in the lede. Based on what we see elsewhere on WP - for consistency's sake, that is - I believe that it is not. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any evidence of that kind of consistency on Wikipedia. Ideological identifications abound: Paul Krugman, George Will, Ross Douthat, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Sean Hannity, David Brooks (journalist)... Gamaliel (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's take George Will as an example, then. The version of that article at the time of this writing says: "George Frederick Will (born May 4, 1941) is an American newspaper columnist, journalist, and author. He is a Pulitzer Prize-winner best known for his conservative commentary on politics." That's somewhat softer in tone than what you have proposed for Lott's article - it states that Will is noted (actually, best noted) for his conservative commentary, not that he is himself a conservative. In addition, the more nuanced and descriptive opening sentence (as well as the "best" modifier") leaves open the idea of there being somewhat more to the man than his political commentary. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to alternate wording. Gamaliel (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This edit of yours is satisfactory, I have no objection to it. Nice work. Gamaliel (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well, then. Cheers! Mark Shaw (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've had only a little time lately for WP. Here is the response I prepared before I saw that the recent change was made:


 * I don't believe that George Will, Ross Douthat, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Sean Hannity, and David Brooks are good examples to look to when considering this BLP. I think we should instead look to academics who also happen to do political commentary, such as Krugman, Dershowitz, Turley, and Chomsky.


 * In their BLPs, none of them are identified as a liberal/progressive/left-wing academic, a liberal/progressive/left-wing political commentators, or as being a liberal/progressive/leftist--anywhere in the article, not just in the lead. Dershowitz has absolutely no ideological identification, despite being described as a political commentator in the first sentence of the lead. Turley has no ideological identification in his lead; in the Politics section it describes how he is regarded by others. The 10th sentence of Krugman's lead mentions his self-identification as a liberal. Lastly, the 6th sentence of Chomsky's lead mentions his self-identification with anarchism and libertarian socialism.


 * Since the proportion of news stories that characterize him as a conservative is tiny compared to the ones that don't, since he doesn't seem to self-identify, and given how the four other examples handle it, I don't see how that putting ideology into the lead is justified. I don't mind a mention in the article body that [Such & such] characterizes him as a conservative or something like "he is occasionally characterized as a conservative," but definitely not that he is a conservative academic, that he is a conservative, or even that he is a conservative political commentator.

The current change is certainly preferable to putting "conservative" as the very first word after "is a" and saying that he is a conservative academic, but I have a problem putting this in the lead for the above stated reasons. I also have a problem stating that he is a "political conservative." Instead, how about putting in the article body that he is regarded by [such & such] as a conservative? Drrll (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. – Lionel (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

dead link edit
Edit 02:26, 24 October 2011‎ by VKokielov with comment (dead). Amazon.com#Reader reviews credibility is dead; moved to Amazon.com controversies#Amazon Reviews. The move was easy to find. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Flawed citation
"In 2001, Rutgers University sociology professor Ted Goertzel[60] considered use of econometrics to establish causal relationships by Lott (and by Lott's critics Levitt, Ayres and Donohue) to be 'fundamentally flawed' junk science.[61]"

Neither of the articles cited (footnotes 61 and 62) contain the phrase 'fundamentally flawed'. Who is the author of this 'quotation' actually quoting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.135.57 (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "fundamentally flawed" in ref to use of ecometric regression is from Goertzel in an email relative to the article; I have replaced the statement with a paraphrase of Goertzel's published argument in the paper. --Naaman Brown (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Washington Times TSA editorial
I have removed this section. The editorial seems to have disappeared from the Washington Times's website - a Google cache is here, but Lott's name appears nowhere in it. Mark Shaw (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have found this:
 * From FactCheck.org Annenberg Political Fact Check March 21, 2009
 * Lott, a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland who writes editorials for the Washington Times on the side, says he contacted the TSA for comment at 10 a.m. the day before the editorial ran. But while the administration kept promising to get back to him, he says, the TSA didn't do so before his deadline. "I would've loved to have them tell us on the record," Lott says, adding that "maybe the TSA is going to change their policy back to what it was going to be."
 * He says he went back to the pilots after the TSA said the program wasn't being closed, and his sources "were adamant about what they had told me before." Lott writes in the editorial that the pilots couldn't speak on the record "for fear of retaliation" from the TSA and that pilots could face criminal charges if they cause a "loss of confidence" in the program.
 * So, at this point it's the pilots' word against the TSA's, we asked? "Right," Lott says.
 * So, at this point it's the pilots' word against the TSA's, we asked? "Right," Lott says.

The FactCheck.org reporter, Lori Robertson, lists as her source Interview with John Lott, author of Washington Times editorial, 20 March 2009. After the editorial ran Tue 17 Mar 2009 in the Washington Times, Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) contacted Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and TSA assured ALPA that the Obama administration supports the Federal Flight Deck Officers (FFDO) program. A 24 Mar 2009 WT statement says: "Homeland Security officials and pilots say that the program has proven to be an important security layer and that they are interested in making the program more efficient." This is surprising since neither the Bush nor Obama administrations have shown great public enthusiasm for the program and pilots have complained of delays and discouragement since the program started. Naaman Brown (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Even with the editorial itself - which at present exists only in a Google cache - Factcheck.org's identification of Lott as its author is tenuous at best. Without it (and a Google cache hardly counts) it's simply hearsay and does not belong here under WP:BLP. Mark Shaw (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The link works fine for me. . So long as it is clearly attributed correctly I see no reason not to include it.


 * That is a link to Factcheck.org's response to a Washington Times editorial. We do not have a reference for the editorial itself, much less for Lott's name under it. Mark Shaw (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So now you are suggesting there was no editorial? We can certainly include some of the quote above. Do you really think that "He says he went back to the pilots after the TSA said the program wasn't being closed, and his sources "were adamant about what they had told me before." isn't a pretty good clue that he wrote the editorial? But that's ok, we don't have to say he wrote it. And we don't need to be able to link to the editorial. dougweller (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And "Mr. Bray and the pilots groups disputed a March 17 editorial in The Washington Times entitled "Guns on a plane: Obama secretly ends program that let pilots carry guns," which suggested that recent discussions about spending some of the program's money for supervisory jobs amounted to killing the program." and "The Times' editorial pages recently were brought under new management and operate separately from the newsroom. Editorial writers produce content that is not reported or overseen by newsroom employees. "The Editorial Department has been in transition these last few weeks. We're aware of the error and are investigating what happened so we can learn from the mistake and not repeat it," Associate Publisher Richard Amberg Jr. said".


 * By the way, it doesn't look as though WT editorials are signed in any case. dougweller (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether the editorial ever existed or not is immaterial. Per WP:RS, [s]ources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made.  The Factcheck.org piece is a secondary source.  We need, at the very least, a primary source for the editorial itself to avoid violating WP:BLP.  Mark Shaw (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Existence in the print version is good enough, even if the WT scrubs it from their website. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

this is an important illustration of a recurring aspect of lott's career and should be restored to the article, especially since lott is best known as a news/current-events commentator by the general public, who is usually presented as an academic with impeccable credentials... it shows that his primary impetus is political, as evinced by his unremitting and hyperbolic attacks on obama as a clear and present danger to americans and their liberties...  he made a serious charge in this editorial, without receiving any adequate confirmation or comment from the government entity which supposedly effected the policy he decried, and it is indicative of his tendency to ensure that his data sets complies to his pre-conceived notions and agendas -- even if that means ignoring contradictory information provided to him by the affected parties -- the pilots themselves...  in both his popular and "academic" works, he constantly misrepresents basic factual information, such as the actual firearms possession laws, usage statistics and strict government controls exercised in israel and switzerland, both of which lott incessantly uses as models of the "success" of concealed carry and widespread fireamrs ownership on crime rates, and completely ignores the dramatic difference such strict controls have on the suicide rates between switzerland, israel, and the united states...  there may be some of you who hesitate to call lott a "conservative academic" but he is -- without a doubt -- a "conservative commentator" -- as evinced by the titles of his recent books, the tenor of his commentaries, and the highest-profile platforms from which he communicates with the american public in the guise of an impartial academic, cocerned only with the nexus between concealed carry and crime, by the very outlets who most vociferously and frequently cite his work -- fox news and the conservative media, such as the washington times, which published the piece in question, which are the foundation of an echo chamber that has made lott the favorite go-to academic of people who usually disdain academics and belittle their egg-headed attempts to "descend" from their "ivory towers" to "tell us peasants what is best for us"... oedipus (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

New edits
Hi, I've already reverted this edit once, so someone else is going to have to pick up the slack. Editor is citing an Ann Coulter review as a source, Lott's website, other private individual's websites, and adding various POV additions. &mdash; goethean 21:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

POV
"The criminologist on the NAS panel, James Q. Wilson, wrote a dissent from the econometricians' conclusion."

That reads like someone making an argument. "The only expert on the pineal said the panel of non-experts were wrong". Is it even correct to refer to them as 'criminologist' and 'economoetricians'? - 101.169.42.152 (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sock puppets
There is a section on the whole sock puppet thing, but not much detail. I believe these talk pages provide more detail - perhaps some could be added to the article. - 101.169.42.152 (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Face
What is it with his face - every time I see him on TV I think of Romulans or something ?. There is no mention of this in the article, buy someone asking the same question as here (albeit in a slightly cruder manner) in the talk archives. Is it a particular medical condition? - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Lott had an operation on his forehead with complications that required two follow-up operations. If you look closely on some photos there are visible scars. Photos taken of him (for example at the end of a long lecture) will show his forehead drawn up. His enemies often post the most unflattering photos they can find. --Naaman Brown (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Enemies? What enemies?  You're free to propose an alternative photo.  Maybe that's just what he looks like.  SPECIFICO  talk  01:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could have some information like that in the article (if appropriate) - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * For some reason it never dawned on me to do a little research on disfigurement that I had always attributed to poor makeup before a TV interview. I think it's at least worth a line or two.   SPECIFICO, I'm fairly certain that's what he always looks like but we all have less flattering moments/sides/features. Except for my dad (RIP) who was one of the most handsome men until he passed just before 80.  Not trying to gain sympathy or ward off rebuttal; feel free.  The man just never aged.  For myself, pictures are a rarity. Sorry if this violates some wiki-etiquette.  I haven't made any significant contribution in quite a while.  --Geneb1955 talk 17:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * After finding the right search term to filter out all the "creepy eyebrow" comments, I found this on John R. Lott's blog. If Dr. Lott wants it explained here, he or one of his assistants can do so.  The post I found at  implies that an older post might have elaborated more.  I don't find a search which really does surprise me.  I won't be making an edit.  --Geneb1955 talk  18:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

How do we know that a hard drive crash occurred?
We can't know it. We can know that other people recall it, or recall Lott mentioning it to them at the time. But the citations for this in the section in question are only from John Lott's personal site. I tried to find a compromise wording on this, but I could find no NAS citation claiming that an HD crash occurred in the section in question. There is a link on this talk page, but it is 404. The wording I gave was the most credibility I could lend to the claim.

WP:SELFPUB suggests to me that Lott quoting things that promote his version of events must be attributed to him, and can't merely be taken as fact on Wikipedia. This doesn't mean they are false; it means they ought to be attributed to Lott. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to step away from this for the moment, but here's something from a third party. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

As of March 2003 Eugene Volokh, Julian Sanchez and Tim Lambert had accepted the claims of Lott's co-authors that the hard drive crash did occur in the summer of 1997 before the existence of the survey became a controversy in 1999. There are multiple "not Lott's personal website" sources. The controversy should be Lott has no hard proof that he lost a 1997 DGU survey in that hard drive crash, not questioning whether that hard drive crash occurred. "He said the hard drive crash that had wiped out the original Lott-Mustard data set and four or five projects with co-authors had destroyed his solo survey data set also," should by this time be uncontroversial.

I misspoke that "NAS 2004 recognized Lott had had a harddrive crash": NAS 2004 recognised Lott had lost and reconstructed the Lott-Mustard RTC data set. (NAS NRC Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (2004) Ch. 6 Right-to-carry laws p.122 does state "The data set used in the original Lott study has been lost, although Lott reconstructed a version of the data...." Elsewhere, co-author David Mustard detailed that Lott reported loss of their RTC data set in a harddrive crash in 1997 and how they reconstructed that RTC data set from Mustard's backups and hardcopy. I conflated the two in my comment to the edit. My bad.) Naaman Brown (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I cant find support for the following: "As of March 2003 Eugene Volokh, Julian Sanchez and Tim Lambert had accepted the claims of Lott's co-authors that the hard drive crash did occur in the summer of 1997 before the existence of the survey became a controversy in 1999." Volokh seems to accept that the emails he received supporting the existence of the crash are genuinely from the people they are nominally signed by. I can't find a working link from Sanchez or Lambert saying they believe the crash to have occurred. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In chronological order:

Julian Sanchez: "Plenty of people — from publishers to academic collaborators — can corroborate that Lott had a hard drive crash in 1997."

Julian Sanchez: U Chicago prof William Landes was working on a paper with Lott and confirms that Lott lost quite a bit of data in July 1997; Lott mentioned the data loss to his U of Chicago Press editor during the production of "More Guns Less Crime" 1998 1st Ed. and the editor recalled: "I have a vague recollection of a chapter or a section or sections of a chapter that had to be scrapped because of the computer crash, but I don’t at this stage remember the subject of it (or them)."

Among several issues covered by Sanchez: reports Mustard's recollection that the original Lott-Mustard data set was lost before August 1997 in Lott's harddrive crash.

Volokh Conspiracy archive Scroll to the Wed 12 Feb 2003 Eugene Volokh posted four confirmations from co-authors that data was lost in a harddrive crash, and noted: "Julian Sanchez says this is irrelevant, because there's no doubt that the computer crash happened -- the doubt is whether there was data from a specific survey that was lost in the crash."

In Sanchez notes: that Tim Lambert, "Lott's most dogged critic", has acknowledged that the fact of the crash is beyond doubt at this point (13 Feb 2003).

I believe Volokh, Sanchez and Lambert do not question the harddrive drive crash. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think these are strong enough that, if they are cited in the article, we would be fair to say "the hard drive crash" rather than "a hard drive crash". WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This looks okay to me. Mark Shaw (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * When did Lambert acknowledge Lott's HDD crash? I'm a former academic. What kind of researcher does this much work without a back up drive or storage? A hard drive crash has never been accepted as an excuse for failure to submit on time. Flanker235 (talk) 10:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * By Jan-Feb 2003 everyone involved, including Lambert, pretty much conceded Lott had had a harddrive crash.
 * 'What kind of researcher does this much work without a back up drive or storage?' In 1981, Peter D. Hart did a survey for a gun control advocacy group which included Defensive Gun Use questions; later, Gary Kleck called Hart and had their results read to him over the phone for use in his article "Guns and Self Defense" (Social Problems, Feb 1988). Hart could not find their dataset.
 * 'A hard drive crash has never been accepted as an excuse for failure to submit on time.' The MS for the book had already been submitted to Geoffrey Huck, editor U Chicago Press, with the book in the prepress stage, before the harddrive crash is supposed to have occurred (summer 1997).
 * I worked in the computer assisted typesetting department at Kingsport Press from 1969 to 2003. My wife operated her own business from the early 1990s to 2007.  We encountered a lot of people around 1997 who believed that an external harddrive was magical permanent storage. --Naaman Brown (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That's fine but where exactly did Tim Lambert acknowledge Lott's hard drive failure? I have only read that someone else said he acknowledged it. I have never seen any direct quotes from the man himself. More accurate the other way around. Whether or not people believed HDDs were magical, ultimately, Lott would have wanted to access and disseminate the information himself so failure to back up - something which computer users have been warned about since the dawn of the PC - is hard to swallow at that level. On top of that, there is still the possibility of data recovery and that has been around for a pretty long time too. Have a read of this:


 * http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2002/10/17/lottduncancomments/


 * There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of positive support for the claim. I can't accept that Lambert actually "acknowledges" the claim. Nor does he openly express disbelief. But hey, if you really want to sort this out, just email Tim Lambert and ask him. Flanker235 (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on John Lott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150502153845/http://www.mywire.com/pubs/Newsweek/2001/03/12/314509?extID=10051 to http://www.mywire.com/pubs/Newsweek/2001/03/12/314509?extID=10051

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Lott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110826224146/http://search.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=16317 to http://search.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=16317
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216142918/http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&shofile=07-3095_022.pdf to http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&shofile=07-3095_022.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Criminal Justice Enhancements Not Cited as Primary Reason for Decrease of Gun Crime
Lott tries to attribute the dramatic decrease in gun crime since the 1980's to an influx of concealed carry permit holders, despite the facts that CCP holders represent a very small fraction of the population, drug use and gang activity has been greatly diminished through various inner-city programs and increased inner-city school funding, we spend well over twice as much on criminal justice as we did in the 1980's (accounting for inflation), and there are over 4.5 times more incarcerated persons (meaning much of the criminal element is locked up and cannot commit gun crime). Why were none of these points addressed in the Concealed Weapons and Crime Rate section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:345:4202:4BF0:851F:4ABE:FA98:1C82 (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Introduction reads as un-encyclopedic
The first few paragraphs sound exactly like how someone would introduce him as a guest speaker.

Exactly. One wouldn't know from a quick glance that his findings have been repeatedly debunked and his behavior in response to legitimate criticism has been unethical. Rousse (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Lott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100616105437/http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/41.lott_.final_.pdf to http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/41.lott_.final_.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits to lede
A lot of this text is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. It's full of puffery, obfuscatory language and is poorly sourced. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)