Talk:John Lott

Participation in call to pressure Georgia election officials

Lott's participation in Trump's phone call to pressure election officials in Georgia to overturn the 2020 election results clearly belongs in the article. It's reported in RS[1] and gives readers clear indication of his role in the White House. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Lott actively made false claims of fraud in the 2020 election while serving in the Trump administration,[2] so his participation in the phone call was not random. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Using Peter Brimelow as a source for what Milton Friedman said

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

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

Archiving needs to be fixed

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

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

Obscuring "Mary Rosh persona" section within another section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cleanup needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lott's institutions in lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page Name

The Gnome, would you be opposed to changing the name to John Lott (firearms researcher), (firearms activist) or similar. Lott is really known for for his firearms research and activism, not political activism in general. Springee (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Greetings, Springee. I agree that Lott is mostly known for this particular aspect of his activism, i.e. defending and promoting the institutional freedom of gun ownership and use, but perhaps we should hesitate before changing the title from the general to the specific. Lott, per sources, is a prominent person in American right-wing politics, and, consequently, ready to be active in other issues that are important to the right. We cannot ignore he's already involved, as pointed out in the article, in issues such as abortion, immigration, women's rights, environmental law, and voter fraud claims. Should we perhaps wait some time before we narrow this down? -The Gnome (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I see your point. I'm not sure I'm convinced but I see nothing wrong with taking a wait and see approach. Springee (talk)
    • I agree, IMO it needs to be changed to what he is actually noted for (IMO, an author). Also, if some feel that an author's work is activism, that does not change that they are an author. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

      "Author" and not economist, researcher, activist or gun rights advocate? SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

      I think "researcher" would be a close second, but not economist and the others.North8000 (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

      But not a researcher either, according to what's now in the article. Advocate works better, or his detractors would call him a polemicist, I suppose. SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

      He also self-identifies as an economist, and current mainstream references mostly introduce him as an author or president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. But I think "author" is best for a one word disambig.North8000 (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

      What about firearms author or firearms advocate? I think he is most known for his work related to firearms. I don't like activist because that can come off as just someone who makes noise about a subject but ignores Lott's scholarship in this and other subject areas. I'm OK with things like author though I think someone who see's "author" might think this is a different Lott. Again, since I associate him with firearms topics I would find anything that isn't "firearms..." to make me do a double take. Springee (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

      I think that you're mostly right. But we need to keep in mind that this is basically a 1 or 2 word disambig, not a summary of the person. North8000 (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see political activist being to far off the mark, but what we should be focusing on is what the CONSENSUS OF RELIABLE SOURCES SAY, not what any one of us thinks it should say. DN (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Lott makes the news as an activist whose fields of interest are gun rights (mostly) and assorted other ones of interest to the American right-wing side of the aisle. That's what sources are saying. He's not much known as an economist, while his work in research is almost exclusively in support for his political advocacy. Again, per sources. -The Gnome (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• A literal list of what the best RS call Lott is kinda what I'm hoping for, for transparency's sake. Looking at the article though, and seeing as how he has branched off from his original pro-gun advocacy "research" and currently receives his recent notoriety from a variety of political hot topics, I have a hard time disagreeing with The Gnome at this point. He could be perceived as political advocate from the start, given his research was questionable at times, as it leaned in certain very PREDICTABLE directions. Then there's the Mary Rosh debacle, which hits about as close to home as it gets for Wikipedia editors. DN (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

He's known for his firearm related books. If the books are characterized by some or many as advocacy, they are still an author. If not, then we have thousands of author articles to rename. Which is a whimsical way of saying that such is not the norm. North8000 (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The question should be, "which citations say that?", and "How do we weigh older VS current citations in that regard?" Currently, he is more well known for claiming the 2020 election was fraudulent, see [3]. DN (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

That's RECENT and honestly, also your opinion. Springee (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

This old chestnut again? See your talk page. We are not doing this here. DN (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree, his work in the area of firearms, which includes peer reviewed publications, is what he is primarily known for. Activist discounts his scholarship and, in my mind the bigger issue, is fails to say anything about his association with firearms which, I think most would agree, is what he is most known for. I also would be reluctant to base this off just recent sources as well as being careful about using popular media vs more rigorous sources. Honestly, I think it was fine the way it was without a disambiguation. Springee (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

His "research" has been questionable, at best. DN (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Says who? Springee (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Try actually reading the article. If you are still confused and need me to start listing all the citations I will oblige after you have put in some effort. Cheers! DN (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

How many of those are from people who are motivated to discredit his conclusions because they don't like the conclusion? Springee (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Based on a page view analysis this is clearly the wp:PRIMARYTOPIC. It was also the original topic. I think the name change should be reversed. Springee (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)