Talk:John Lott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Deferred Quality ratings on this article have been deferred to other projects covering the article.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

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) I reinserted the links: http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/ and http://freedomnomics.blogspot.com/ after the automated bot deleted them because they are Blogger sites. They do in fact meet the requirements for External Links for Biographies of Living People because they are blogs created and edited by the subject, John R. Lott. http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/ is John R. Lott's personal blog. http://freedomnomics.blogspot.com/ is the blog created and maintained by John R. Lott for his 2007 book, Freedomnomics. 4.249.21.32 (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2008 (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

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

Exposure as a sockpuppet may damage someone's credibility, but it doesn't impact whether his views are valid or not. And it actually hasn't hurt him as much as you might think, since he still has a significant voice (USA Today editorial last week, etc.). NPOV would mean a balanced view of his work, including arguments of people both for and against, and would describe the sockpuppet business. The reader could then judge Lott's credibility for himself. --Spangineerws (háblame) 18:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You are mistaken that neutrality is having two opposing views represented equally. If the dude's research is invalid, it's invalid. No "balance" is required. Further, false, invalid, or fallacious analysis is not "balance". It's propaganda and it has no place in Wikipedia. If someone wants to defend his work on it's merits, so be it. But I'm not seeing any defence because his "research" is false and indefensible.
The truth does NOT require balance. I see no reason to post supportive articles if they have no integrity. The point of the criticism is to expose that he's wrong based on the facts. We don't need phony opinions that are not based on facts. It's really as simple as that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.111.125 (talk • contribs).
Your comment betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. Please review WP:V, and note that Wikipedia does not record "truth" or "facts", it records information that has been recorded elsewhere, no more and no less. We imagine our readers intelligent enough to make up their own minds when exposed to both sides of a dispute. --Spangineerws (háblame) 04:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Lott's academic critics Ian Ayres and John Donohue in their critique

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Oh, that's because they don't. Or more precisely, because the "More Guns Less Crime" faction can't get the difference straight between number of crimes and number of crimes per capita:
Regional Offense Trends and Rates
The UCR Program divides the United States into four regions: the Northeast, the Midwest, the South, and the West. A map of the United States delineating the regions is included in Appendix III. Estimated crime volume, rates, and percent changes by region are published in Table 4.
                           per 100,000 
             violent crime                 murder 
northeast       416.5   -2.80%            4.1   -3.70% 
midwest         424.9   -1.40%            5.1   -3.50% 
west            508.2   -2.10%            5.8   +4.10% 
south           571.0   -2.00%            6.8   +0.70%
[2].
The gun-banning northeast has the lowest violent crime rate, the lowest murder rate, the steepest decline in violent crime, and the steepest decline in murder rates. The second-amendment-loving south has the highest violent crime rate, the highest murder rate, the second lowest decrease in violent crime rate, and the second highest *increase* in murder rate.
Include property crime?
The FBI's Crime Index rate reflects the total number of offenses per 100,000 residents. According to the FBI, the national Crime Index rate for 2002 was 4,118. The Northeast region of the United States had the lowest crime of the four regions, with a rate of 2,889 offenses per 100,000 population. The next lowest region was the Midwest, with a Crime Index rate of 3,883 offenses. The Western region followed with a rate of 4,418 offenses, while the Southern region showed the highest crime rate of 4,722 offenses per 100,000 residents. [3]
100 Largest Metro Areas
(Ranked in order from Least to Most Crime) 
 Nassau-Suffolk NY 
 Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon NJ 
 Ventura CA 
 Monmouth-Ocean NJ 
 Bergen-Passaic NJ 
 Scranton-Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton PA 
 Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle PA 
 San Jose CA 
 Pittsburgh PA 
 Orange County CA 
 Ann Arbor MI 
 Albany-Schenectady-Troy NY 
 Boston MA-NH-ME 
 New York NY 
 Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton PA 
 Syracuse NY 
 Philadelphia PA-NJ 
 Hartford CT 
 Rochester NY 
 Newark NJ 
 Buffalo-Niagara Falls NY 
 San Diego CA 
 Providence-Fall River-Warwick RI-MA 
 Jersey City NJ 
 Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland MI 
 Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria OH 
 San Francisco CA 
 New Haven-Meriden CT 
...
St. Louis       MO-IL
Salt Lake City-Ogden    UT
Wichita KS
Mobile  AL
Houston TX
Nashville       TN
Orlando FL
Fresno  CA
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission        TX
Fort Worth-Arlington    TX
Charleston-North Charleston     SC
Jacksonville    FL
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill    NC-SC
Dallas  TX
Omaha   NE-IA
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater FL
Columbia        SC
Toledo  OH
Albuquerque     NM
Tacoma  WA
Columbus        OH
Kansas City     MO-KS
West Palm Beach-Boca Raton      FL
Honolulu        HI
Oklahoma City   OK
Stockton-Lodi   CA
Baton Rouge     LA
San Antonio     TX
Little Rock-North Little Rock   AR
Phoenix-Mesa    AZ
Miami   FL
Memphis TN-AR-MS
Tucson  AZ
[4]
Does a pattern emerge?
The cities listed here are the 114 Mid-sized Metropolitan Statistical Areas, ranging in population from approximately 500,000 to 200,000.
114 Mid-size Areas
(Ranked in order from Least to Most Crime) 
Danbury CT
Stamford-Norwalk        CT
Johnstown       PA
Dutchess County NY
Portsmouth-Rochester    NH-ME
Lowell  MA-NH
Lawrence        MA-NH
Newburgh        NY-PA
Lynchburg       VA
Appleton-Oshkosh-Neenah WI
Manchester      NH
York    PA
Erie    PA
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Lompoc        CA
Binghamton      NY
Worcester       MA-CT
New London-Norwich      CT-RI
Lancaster       PA
Green Bay       WI
San Luis Obispo-Atascadero-Paso Robles  CA
Utica-Rome      NY
Brazoria        TX
Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers  AR
Portland        ME
Reading PA
Brockton        MA
Roanoke VA
Santa Rosa      CA
...
Anchorage       AK
Lakeland-Winter Haven   FL
Longview-Marshall       TX
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek  MI
Beaumont-Port Arthur    TX
Chattanooga     TN-GA
South Bend      IN
Biloxi-Gulfport-Pascagoula      MS
Gainesville     FL
Spokane WA
Tallahassee     FL
Jackson MS
Savannah        GA
Modesto CA
Galveston-Texas City    TX
Shreveport-Bossier City LA
Macon   GA
Fayetteville    NC
Yakima  WA
Lincoln NE
Lubbock TX
Salem   OR
Corpus Christi  TX
Amarillo        TX
Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito        TX
Wilmington      NC
Waco    TX
Laredo  TX
Montgomery      AL
Myrtle Beach    SC
[5]
Same pattern?
The cities listed here are the 117 Smallest Metropolitan Statistical Areas, ranging in population from approximately 200,000 to 55,000.
114 Smallest Areas
(Ranked in order from Least to Most Crime) 
State College   PA
Steubenville-Weirton    OH-WV
Wheeling        WV-OH
Pittsfield      MA
Wausau  WI
Nashua  NH
Parkersburg-Marietta    WV-OH
Glens Falls     NY
Williamsport    PA
Jacksonville    NC
Danville        VA
Jamestown       NY
Sharon  PA
Bismarck        ND
Hagerstown      MD
La Crosse       WI-MN
Dubuque IA
Rochester       MN
Barnstable-Yarmouth     MA
Cumberland      MD-WV
Kenosha WI
Altoona PA
Fitchburg-Leominster    MA-NH
Sioux Falls     SD
Elmira  NY
...
Albany  GA
Athens  GA
Bryan-College Station   TX
Enid    OK
Sioux City      IA-NE
Jackson TN
Rocky Mount     NC
Tuscaloosa      AL
San Angelo      TX
Auburn-Opelika  AL
Anniston        AL
Flagstaff       AZ
Greenville      NC
Sumter  SC
Great Falls     MT
Panama City     FL
Lake Charles    LA
Wichita Falls   TX
Florence        SC
Alexandria      LA
Monroe  LA
Pine Bluff      AR
Topeka  KS
http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/crime5.aspx
Still more of the same pattern? Look around for yourself http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl06.xls:
for instance:
Rate per 100k   Crime   Violent Property Murder  rape   Robbery assault 
Houston         7,313.9 1,223.1 6,090.9 12.5    43.7    549.5   617.4 
New York        3,100.1   789.6 2,310.4  7.3    20.9    336.8   424.7 
Houston metro   5,505.4   814.2 4,691.2  8.4    36.3    322.1   447.5 
New York metro  2,973.4   717.2 2,256.2  6.6    19.2    303.5   387.9
Even New York city (both proper and metro area) with gun control has less crime (violent crime of all types and property crime) per capita than Houston (both proper and metro area), where armed citizens are routine.
(In interest of full disclosure, I believe that gun control laws like the USA and UK Gun Control Acts of 1968 don't make a measurable difference, in either direction.) -- Gzuckier (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Amazing how New York has suddenly become proof of the effectiveness of gun control, after decades of hig crime. Lott's research found that the strongest effect on violent crime were arrest and conviction rates. Carry permits were third. What Giuliani accomplished in NYC supports Lott's research, it doesn't contradict it.
And as for the regional numbers, yes, it's true that levels of violent crime are generally higher in the SE, and so are levels of gun ownership. The problem is that the gun crimes overwhelmingly involve handguns in the cities, while the difference in firearms ownership are of long guns in the rural areas. While it's possible that the thugs in the cities are shooting each other more often because the folks out in the country own shotguns, I'm not able to visualize a mechanism by which this might happen. --jdege (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)



It may be true in general that researchers are honestly pursuing the truth, and it may even be true that most researchers in this area are honestly pursuing the truth. But there clearly are researchers involved in the gun control issue who are pursuing a political agenda first.
And it's also clear that the standard of peer review in the public health field don't match up to those in most scientific fields, sociology and criminology in particular.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html
---- jdege (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I presume Gzuckier's "gun banning northeast" includes Vermont and New Hampshire. When you rank US states by their Brady Bunch gun law grades and crime rates per capita there is no pattern. And Hans Toch was not part of a MoGuLeCr bunch at all.Naaman Brown (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Follow-up: Gzuckier refers to the gun-banning northestern USA having lower murder rates.
State Brady Campaign Ratings and Crime and Homicide Rates
Northeastern US
STATE        GRADE  CRIME  HOMICIDE
Connecticut    A-   308.2    3     
Maine          D-   108.9    1.2   
Massachusetts  A-   469.4    2.2   
New Hampshire  D-   148.8    1.4   
Rhode Island   B-   285.6    2.3   
Vermont        D-   110.2    2.3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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)
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)

[edit] 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)
  • 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:
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Defensive gun use surveys

I've rewritten the section on the defensive gun use survey(s) that Lott conducted. Things changed:

  • 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.

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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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—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)