Talk:John Lott
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles. |
Contents |
[edit] 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? 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 saig 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)
[edit] External links
I have trimmed the external links down dramatically. I would note that [1] is categorically unnaceptable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] No support of his work?
Why aren't any positive reviews of this work quoted in this article? The block quotes are:
- Ted Goertzel (says that anyone can work the data to say whatever they want—negative)
- New England Journal of Medicine (negative)
- Gary Kleck (negative, even though he speaks positively of the book in general)
- National Academy of Sciences (negative)
- James Q. Wilson (kind of positive, but then just to be safe, negative)
- Chronicle of Higher Education (neutral)
- New England Journal of Medicine (irrelevant—doesn't address the contents, just a "great try" to follow up their "your study is wrong")
And then comes the issues of questionable importance (an entire section over misrepresentation?) and implying that filing suit for defamation injures his credibility. If this isn't POV, I don't know what is. --Spangineerws (háblame) 22:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the previous poster. This article seems wildly unbalanced, and consists largely of string quotes of criticisms. Even Hitler has a more balanced entry. - --ozoneliar - 12 March 2007
[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary_topic, 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)
-
-
- Moved, and double redirects have been fixed. --Spangineerws (háblame) 20:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
