Talk:John Lott

drug-addiction-rehab-treatment

Statistical One-Upmanship Quote

When this page gets unprotected, I'd prefer to expand that quote to prevent misunderstandings (my changes got lost in the revert war).

Basically, one gets the impression from the current version of the article that people don't like Lott's findings because he performs really, really complex computations. However, this is not at all the point of the Goertzel piece being quoted; Goertzel is pointing out that econometric regressions of the sort Lott performs have to be robust, that you should not be able to make a few very small changes along the way that radically change the final conclusion. Lott, however, makes computation that cannot be performed on ordinary computers, resulting in the inability of other researchers to check whether his findings are robust. Nevertheless, DESPITE these obstacles, other researchers did eventually find that Lotts work is not robust, and hence his conclusion are not valid. A fuller quote would communicate this criticism better. --Pierremenard 16:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Protection

I don't see any agreements but I do have a request to unprotect the page. Any objections? --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I object. The other side of the dispute refuses to do anything to settle it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I object. Unprotection will lead to another endless game of whackamole with the "I'm not a sock puppet, but I play one on Wikipedia" faction who have been attempting to revert to the same, identical, biased, mass rewrite of the whole article (previously hammered out with difficulty as a compromise and slowly evolving due to rational criticisms) with no attempt to justify the lists of objections to their edits posted on the discussion page, other than a vague "that's been discussed already I see no need to discuss it further", a lot of personal invective, a self-righteous seminar on the immorality of laws regulating gun ownership, and an ongoing snit about being mistakenly identified as yet another of a formerly identified set of sock puppets. I believe none of that will lead to the progress of Wikipedia. Gzuckier 17:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

What a surprise? These are the two main people who are engaging in the shameful practices I've mentioned in my requests for help - accusing seven or more people of not being real people so that they do not have to address the NPOV problems with the article they keep forcing, and which they've now succeeded in getting locked in place. --Cbaus 05:19, 27 December 2005 (EDST-USA)

I don't recall accusing anybody of being a sock puppet, but I guess that's just my point of view, and yours should be represented too. Weren't you accusing Tim Lambert a while ago? He doesn't get to be one of the two main people? Too bad.

PS The article has been edited quite a bit interspersed with your (plural) attempts to return it to the boiler plate rewrite you guys keep trying to purport here; if you weren't so busy trying to revert that one single point of view over everything else, maybe you could find something to contribute. Gzuckier 03:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the shameful practices to which I am including you go beyond accusations of sockpuppetry. Maybe had these discussions not been intentionally censored, and then hidden in the archive, your memory would be better on this.

Willmcw - the guy who "protected" the biased article, has accused at least one person of being a sockpuppet. Hipocrite has done so of me and others. You have only indirectly done so (about me at least, I haven't read the entire history), I'll give you that. But all told, at least seven people here have had their proposals for editing the article cast aside without discussion simply because they are immediately accused of being sockpuppets.

Don't forget I was accused of being a puppet within my first two hours here. I didn't even know what one was at the time. And you forget my point in raising Lambert's own history with sockpuppetry was to challenge the idea that those who are endorsing a (slightly) more balanced view of Lott's article (vs. the biased anti-Lott POV article you support) deserve to be suspected of being Lott's puppet, but that you deserve no lack of respect or suspicion of being Lambert's.

I HAVE tried to contribute - and my first suggestion was insulted by you as something requiring a medical examination of Lott, before you eventually you took it upon yourself to go change it to a way that kept all your content in but which you thought would protect you from the basis of my arguments in suggesting the change (without discussion here first, I might add). My second suggestion was more simple - to get the article that is in every other way YOUR way to have a "neutrality is disputed" warning at the top. You even refused to allow this. You have been every bit as guilty about not considering these people's proposals as the others who simply make puppet allegations.

The bottom line here is a history of is a deliberate effort to drag down anyone who tries to devote some time to balancing this article with research vs. controvery into a debate proving their identity until they get tired of fighting the trolls and move on. Why would anyone contribute large amounts of time trying to argue for a more balanced approach to the article when this history is so clearly established? The problem of the tactics outlined here need to be addressed first, or else it is painfully clear more neutral edit suggestions will get no where. --Cbaus 03:53, 29 December 2005 (EDST-USA)

(MULTIPLE FIXES, SORRY) I am a newbee here, but anyone who spends some time looking through the archives will see that Hipocrite, Gzuckier, Willmcw, and Lambert are trying some type of rope-a-dope strategy and trying to wear out anyone else who wants to fix things. Just reading what they haven't yet archived shows that they have no desire to get things right.[1] Can Woohookitty tell why this page is frozen on what Hipocrite, Gzuckier, Willmcw, and Lambert want? Why these guys won't even allow a warning put at the beginning of the article? Just try to explain the sense in the NPOV section at the beginning of this talk (CHoward 01:20, 30 December 2005 PDST)

And now we have an anoymous poster faking a signature so they appear at first glance to be a named editor... -- Danny Yee 12:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The warning is misplaced because you are unwilling to tell us what to do to fix the article except for make it innacurate ("lott's reasearch is hard to tag as conservative or liberal", "three studies"). Propose a concrete change to the article (provide a before, after and reason) and we'll discuss that. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry guys. My post must have violated some rules. Just couldn't figure out how things worked here. Couldn't even get the post set up right. This is not my fight, however I still feel that the postings were correct and this whole thing has a "twilight zone" feel to it. (CHoward 14:19, 30 December 2005 PDST)

The way wikipedia works is that editors propose/make concrete changes, which are then edited by other editors, and so on. This is how the current version of the article came into being. If you are unwilling to propose conrete changes, then pointing out that you dont like the article or that you dont like the people who edited it is pointless. The talk page is here not to provide a forum for pepole to express theirs opinions about John Lott or about other editors; its here for a discussion on how to improve the article. --Pierremenard 06:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it is this. Articles on Wikipedia are SUPPOSED to be from the NEUTRAL point of view. This article, even in it's current protected state is far from fitting the profile of NPOV. I tried for a time to balance the negative with some positive. I was continously fought on every article change I posted. NEVER MIND that I did not remove anyone else's work. The work I posted was repeatedly altered or removed, based on someone else's opinions or viewpoints. When I first started I was called "sockpuppet." Then I was told I was "ruining Wikipedia," or that I was vandalizing it. I was not the one changing things. I was ADDING information that some refuse to believe exists. CHoward, the one rule you've apparently violated here is, you've appeared to come out in support of John Lott. That is apparently one rule that will get you textually beat up in this particular place. All I can say for now is, good luck.Al Lowe 20:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

---

It seems like there is a lot of whining on this talk page of the form "My edits got change, my edits got changed!" Welcome to wikipedia, where articles are collectively edited.

There is also a lot of whining over sockpuppet inquires. When you have an article is being edited by a large number of accounts, none of which has a single edit to wikipedia outside the John Lott page, it is quite natural to suspect some of them of being sockpuppets. Especially given that John Lott has been known to use sockpuppets on multiple occasions in the past.

I hope others will join me in continuing to ignore these repeated instances of whining. The only concern I have is that the article be written from a neutral point of view. It must contain information about Lott's research, about the conclusion scientists have come to about Lotts work (I mean the NAS report and the like), and about the ethical controversies Lott has found himself in. If someone along the way gets his feelings hurt because of a reverted edit, then thats how it must be. --Pierremenard 00:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If you can find some unbiased scientists who can give a fair review of Dr. Lott's work, then we might have something. But I seriously doubt the NAS is unbiased. As for my contributions, I've done quite a bit more than just post to the article on John Lott. And if you prefer to call my expression of my opinion on this article, that is certainly your right. You'll pardon me if I prefer to continue as before.Al Lowe 08:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You should not presume that I meant you. To back up my claim, I'll note that as of writing this, Cbaus, Alt37, Henry1776 have not edited a single page unrelated to the John Lott issue. Timewarp has made exactly 1 edit unrelated to John Lott, out of roughly 40-50 edits.

Your personal opinions about whether the NAS is biased are not arent of much use. Evidence, please. As far as I can tell, the only person who is making the claim that the NAS was biased against Lott is Lott himself, and it doesn't add up --Pierremenard 09:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Like all the others who have tried to balance the POV, I was accused of being a sockpuppet, and for many, they felt the title fit me. It did not. If I jumped the gun, by assuming you lumped me in with the others, then I apologize. Its just that typically, I usually am lumped in with everyone else, whether I realize it or not.Al Lowe 23:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

As for my personal opinions on the NAS they come from World Net Daily, This article first posted on the Los Angeles Times, of course now it will be considered "tainted" because the only readable copy I know of, is on John Lott's site. Tough. And then there's a forum discussion at keepandbeararms.com. Oops, sorry, that's pro-gun site.Al Lowe 23:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

To summarize, your opinions on the NAS come from John Lott, John Lott and John Lott? Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, indeed. You have cited a bunch of sources that do not qualify as reputable sources under WP:RS.

I won't waste space explaining why a posting on an online forum does not qualify as a reputable source - I'm sure you know why and I'm surprised you even brought it up. You should also realize that a claim by John Lott is not an authoritative source - at most it can be used as a source for a statement of the sort "John Lott has claimed that the panel was biased against him..." As for WorldNetDaily, you only need to look at its wikipedia page to see that it cannot qualify as a reputable source.

Generally speaking, any time a neutral, unbiased body makes some sort of finding of fact, lots of people who do not like that finding of fact will claim that there was bias involved. If you want the NAS evidence to be discounted as biased, you have to find examples of people whose agenda was not affected by the NAS report saying so. --Pierremenard 00:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You know what, I don't give a rat's behind. You have your sources that you trust, for whatever reason. But I just have a hard time with the National Academy of "Junk" Science.NRO ActionPA.org The above are just a couple examples. It has been shown that of those on the panel that John Lott addressed, all but the one who desented in his opinion have known ANTI-gun leanings. That panel was NOT neutral. Al Lowe

Its not a question of who I or anyone else trusts. Its question of basing this article on reputable sources, as explained in WP:RS. Advocacy groups, John Lott's op-eds, and bulletin boards are not reputable sources.

"It has been shown that of those on the panel that John Lott addressed, all but the one who desented in his opinion have known ANTI-gun leanings.." Shown by who? Either you have evidence from a reputable source, which I have yet to see, or these are just your personal convictions which, for obvious reasons, have no place in the article. --Pierremenard 07:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You have your "reputable sources, I have mine, and I trust mine. And FYI, we're in the discussion page, not the article.Al Lowe

And wikipedia has its own standard for reputable sources. Whether you or I trust is a source is irrelevant. WP:RS sets some firm standards for reputable sources, which are not met by WorldNetDaily or a gun forum discussion posting. --Pierremenard

The hits just don't stop! Flouride is giving us cancer! Get out the tinfoil hats, folks! Hipocrite - «Talk» 08:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you finally see the light! I've got a tinfoil hat ready and waiting for you. ;) Al Lowe

Well I've gone ahead and unprotected it anyway - protection is supposed to be temporary. Please do not resort to revert wars. Izehar 16:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was nice while it lasted. Welcome to Revert Wars II. (I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it.) Al Lowe 20:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Im afraid that after lookng over this article I am going to have to add an NPOV tag anmd am disputing the neutrality of this article This artcile is very loppsided and unblanaced in favor of criticism gainst the subject more than I have ever seen.

I think the only real alternative is to cut out alot of the info that is in the Criticism section in order to even things out, but do not know where to begin as I am not an expert on this topic. I'm afraid that if I did it now without mor input from the community that I would jsut get reverted and I would be like a bull in a china shop.

As the article stands now, it's just a hit piece. I think we need to take out approximately half of the criticism section or, in some other way, narrow the criticism down to clearer more discrete points instead of just going on and on about how everybody seems to hate this guy.

Sorry. I hate these tags, but this is not a good article in the least.Gator (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the folks who are "unbalanced in favor of criticism" are the ones who have the most knowledge about the subject while the ones who want to "even things out" seem to not be able to provide facts to support their edits or admit not knowing much about the subject is relevant, seems to me. Gzuckier 17:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

PLease don;t disregard my opinion on NPOV just ebcause I freely admit I'm nto an expert o this subject. No one has to be to bea ble to judge NPOV. I don;t ahve to be an expert to know that this artcile is lopsided and needs to be evened out. I'm sorry you don't agree, but that's OK. The fact is I am disputing neutrality in good faith and am oputting forth my reasons adn ways to fix it. I'm sure I'm not alone here. Sorry. How about we talk abotu ways to fix this article insterad of ways to undermine my opinions and trying to jsut ignore them. We can work together. Ia m more than willing.Gator (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Please suggest a concrete isolated change or concrete isolated problem in the article that you believe makes it POV. "It says attributed bad things about the subject, lots of them" is not a pov problem. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, one change at a time, preferably with a reason for it spelled out, if it doesn't fit in the summary box, then on the talk page; big changes with support of the quality of "well it's clear Lott believes he did the survey, so why is it such a fuss?" would just be more of the same old poopoo. Baby steps. Gzuckier 19:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the intelocutors that always bothered me in the lead in to the Lott-rosh-dueling-usenet quotes. It always seemed a bit over the top to me. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

mary rosh "not notable"

Google: "Results 1 - 100 of about 17,500 for "mary rosh"." Nuff said? Gzuckier 17:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. I'm willing to compromise. The section doesn';t need to be sooo long. And you removed my npov tag...please tell me that was accidental, because I am disputing neutrality here adn have put forth my reasons...so there's no reason to do that. I'm willing to work with people here. Wholesale reversions aren't the way to go, I think.Gator (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you cut out too much, so I put it back. There is a lot there that speaks to Lotts honesty: refusing to debate, claiming not to have debated, whilst debating via MR. Perhaps it could be summarised though. William M. Connolley 17:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

Well, you've stepped into a mine field in a war zone, I'm afraid. Much as the Middle East, the situation badly needs a reasonable outsider to broker peace, but he/she will have to run the risk of being blown up now and again. I speak only for myself, but I'd be happy to accept editing that trims down some of the redundancy without losing major content points. I've done that occasionally myself.

If I may be allowed to "brief" you on my POV on the situation and the history, what appears to be a simple conflict of vews is less symmetric than that. Re what appears to be wholesale reversion from version A to version B and back again which led to protection, if you look back through the history (an odious task, but if you don't trust my word you'll have to) you'll see that the current impasse began a month or two back when overnight a huge mass of edits claiming to be removal of bias but in fact constituing a major rewrite emasculating all criticism and instituting a strong pro-Lott POV was posted without any support, explanation, or discussion on the talk page by a figure of mystery; and this same mass revision has become some sort of shibboleth among a group of newly arrived editors (including what does appear by IP address to be sock puppets, causing the apparently highly traumatic misidentification of another individual in that group as a sock puppet) and keeps being reverted back essentially word for word, despite requests to please deal with suggested changes one at a time with room for discussion and support for contested matters of fact. Just for example (now on the archives of this talk page), early on I myself posted on the talk page a large paragraph of disagreements of fact with just the rewrite of the "2%" section alone, which was ignored and the entire section, along with the rest of the article, reverted to the mass rewrite. I then tried to discuss my disagreements with just that section one at a time starting with the first two, and got a couple of half-assed unsatisfactory brush-offs, my disagreements with which were then ignored and meanwhile, again, the mass rewrite reposted again and again.

The situation is not symmetrical; the version which the <sarcasm> "Enemies of Lott" </sarcasm> such as myself revert back to is the version hammered out painstakingly with input from various sides over a long period of time, point by point, with arguments about whether Lott's research should be described with the word "groundbreaking" or not. In the lulls between the mass rewrite attacks, the evolution of the article proceeds, with edits which might loosely be termed pro and anti Lott being made back and forth. The impasse leading to the protection was the direct response to this recent invasion by this group who largely have no other Wikipedia-related contributions other than repeatedly reverting this one article to this one, single, highly disputable, rewrite without addressing the frequently posted concerns on the talk page; I consider it relevant that their "support" tends to include a lot of personal invective, ranting about a small group who are conspiring to push their anti-gun agenda, lectures on the right to bear arms, and reminiscences about their painful experiences being mistakenly labeled as a sock puppet a month ago, while simultaneously repeatedly accusing one of the Lott debunkers of being a sock puppet on the basis of no evidence other than a baseless accusation in somebody's blog, no less, rather than any factual evidence for their edits on a point by point basis. For my money, that behavior tends to look more like a biased cabal pushing a fringe POV, but as you can imagine, this has only hardened positions more than desirable and fossilized the evolution of the article so that now the long-time editors of this article are very touchy, and tired of spending so much time playing whack a mole when we do have other interests.

So, we do need a break in the ice, new blood being welcome, but I ask/suggest beginning with smaller edits such as removal of redundancies, rather than removal of whole topics like Mary Rosh which will re-irritate the POV wounds again, until you have gained the trust of at least some of the traumatized vets here. Gzuckier 17:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I am actually aware of the history and have been watching this article for some time. I really think it's time for a fresh start here and don't care to hash old issues with editors and really just want to proceed. Wholesale reversions and lack of compromise seem to be the order of the day here. Instead of just reverting everything and leaving nothing, try and compromise adn revert some or change things. Wholesale reversons help no one and just breed contempt.

William stated it nicely, thsi article needs to be summarized. If the crticism section can be summarized as to bring more balance to the article then I would be happy re: neutrality and would drop my challenge/tag. It's just hat, right now, this artcile is 20% fact about the guy an then it's just a hit list from then on...not good. He's nt Hitler, I mean there doesn;t sem to be a good reason to go on andon and on about how unethical and inaccurate and baised thgis guy is. I'm willing to work here though, please just don't revert every compromise attempt I make. Not helpful and is just the same old thing that's been going on here. Time to move forward.Gator (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Of all people, why would *YOU* try to repair an article of which *I* was a major contributor? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Uhoh... Gzuckier 19:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No no I'm not going to respond to that kind of stuff, it's not worth it and I encourage everyone to AGF here (and not to call me a "hack"...wow) Well I'm not sure what you define as "concrete" enough but I have stated that I dispute the neutrality of this artcile largely because the critcism section is WAY to long and broad and makes an unbalanced article that is not POV. I now you think it's NPVO but that's why the tag says it's "disputed" becuase there is disagreement. Please don;t unilaterally remove the tag and let's talk this through. There is agenuine good faith dispute over the neutrality and I know I'm not alone in the regard.

Ok, as a measure in good faith I will make small changes one at a time (in addition to putting back the tag, please PLEASE don't remove it, it's not worth an edit war over somethign SO small) and I am willing to copmpromkise adn see if we can't move forward and cut this artcile down to a NPOV size that everyone can be comfortable with. Thanks! :)Gator (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No, really. Why would you come parachuting in like the bastion of NPOV and try to "fix" this article with a hacksaw? Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

AGF.Gator (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I spent too much time correcting your bad acts in the past. You'll have to prove it to me. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

I see there has been some dispute over whether a POV tag is required. I would like to ask you, if someone adds one, to keep it there. When that tag is there, it adds the page to a category of pages to be checked for their neutrality, in effect, acting as a form of dispute resolution (an RfC). If someone would like the article to be checked and adds the tag, I think common courtesy requires everyone else to not remove it. Because of WP:AGF, we are required to assume that whoever adds one adds it in good faith and only if there is evidence to the contrary can it be removed. Izehar 21:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith does not mean Ignore Bad Acts. NPOV dispute has 1510 articles in it. 1510. If there was something that could be RFCed in the article, the neverending stream of sockpuppet accounts with no edits but this article would have RFCed something. That Gator1, defender of all conservative on wikipedia User:BigDaddy777 thinks there's an NPOV dispute (but can't be bothered to explain what it is, except that THERE'S LOTS OF BAD STUFF ABOUT HIM HERE), can't be bothered to use the talk page of an article with a big fat contravercial tag up top that just came off protection, and took a hacksaw to all the unflattering stuff as soon as he showed up got met with his precious tag (still no discussion in talk about any real NPOV dispute, by the way) reverted is expected. That he got a friend of his to try to tell a core of people who have been defending this article from POV warriors for the better part of a year (and we would have improved it, if we didn't have to constantly get rid of garbage edits) that THEY need to leave his tag up (which has been left up as soon as he got reasonable and stopped hacksawing "stuff he didn't like = POV") is just ignorable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hip, we're working well togetehr on the artcile space, let's just focus on that instead of jsut bringing up old stuff (where BOTH of us acted wrongly by the way, don;t try and act like th innocent victim, no one's buying) I'm not going to try and prove something to you that needs to be assumed. Sorry. If you think it's wise and good Wiki etiquette to remove the tag, then feel free, but I will put it back unless I am the only one who feels that this article has a serious NPOV problem (and I know this is not the first time someone has said that about this artcile).

Tell you what, if no one else comes forward in the next 48 hours and agrees that the tag shoudl remain then I won;t fight its removal. I'm willing to do that. If I'm the only one that's fine. Let this be the ned of it for the next 48 hours. Please, now let's get back to work, enough of all of this ugliness. I';m ready to get to work on another paragraph if you are.Gator (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your last edit by the way. Well done. We've made a good start, let's keep going.Gator (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the tag SHOULD remain. Of course, that's just my opinion. With regard to the survey, is there absolute proof that John Lott did NOT conduct the survey? I didn't think so.Al Lowe 08:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The article does not say that John Lott did not conduct a survey. Since you were solicited to come forward [2], I don't think this meets the incredibly low bar Gator1 set for himself. A number of other people would also meet the incredibly low bar -> any of the various reverters to the Serenety "version," anyone with no substantial edit history outside of this article, anyone who is solicited to come here. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

At this point in the game, I think it's best just to focus on editing andf workign togetehr there. We seem to do much better as colleagues when we're editing then when we're talking about these side issues. Things jsut tne dt get ugly hre, while, so far, things tend to get done on the article page. Just my thoughts. P.S. I only asked for his comments as he was a major contributor who had not yet weighed in, I had no clue what he might actually say on this discrete issue. Anyway, let's just move on.Gator (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Besides, if you felt that I set the bar too low you should ahve said somethign then instead of waiting until the tag gets support and then looking for ways to disregard others' opinions. At this point, it looks like more than one editor suppoprts the tag and disputes neutrality so it should remain until this is resolved (see admins (Izehar) opinion). We are making good progress and working well together, so I am confident that this can be worked through and then I will support removing the tag. Until then it's good that it's there as it will draw otehr people to this page and help out.Gator (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know you were going to go out and solicit people to support you after you pretend that the 48 hour thing was some kind of test. If you'd like, I can go get a whole heaping load of people who think the article is just fine thanks to show up and start removing it, but that would be acting in bad faith - and I consider that your territory, not mine. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to that, Hip. We're working well together on the article, let's just focus on that, OK?Gator (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Please please please please please don;t remove the tag until we've discussed issues. I've made concrete challenges and am working slowly, becuase I was askled to take baby steps and then wait for responses,s o that's what I'm doing. There's ALOT more that I apln on doing to try andf edit down the criticism section so that this article is NPOV. There's been support for the tag...so please just leave it alone. I't snot hurting anyhting and helps bring in more opinions here. It was th weekend adn I don;t edit on the weekends, so maybe that's where the confusion came from. Ok that's fine. Happy Monday everyone, let's get back to work...Gator (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I waited 48 hours without a single comment or edit from you. The article remained in your last edited state. In the event that another 48 hours pass without edit from any reputable editor on the other "side" of this assine contravercy, I will remove the NPOV tag, and will revert any attempts to reinsert it unless such is accompanied by an edit or discussion on talk page that does not read "I want my tag back." (which, by the way, is how I characterize your paragraph above.) There is currently no dispute on the talk page (except for that from non-reputable "editor" Serenity, who does not have standing). As such, the tag is innacurate unless you are in the process of finding something to discuss on the talk page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I totally diasgree (it was the weekend and I explained that and I'm till challenging NPOV...so....the tag is totaly justifie) but am not going to go to war over something so trivial, so I'm giving up on this. Let's just focus on the editing.Gator (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't give two shits what you are "challenging." The tag reads as follows "Please see discussion on the talk page." If there is no discussion on the talk page, and there is no editing going on to the article, you should feel free to put the {{sofixit}} tag on it, which you can make to read "Some user dosen't like this article, but isn't doing anything to improve it or solve his concerns." Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Watch the language, I'm givng up remember? You win. I jsut came here to say that I agree with your last edit. Well done. Then I saw above....I could go ona ll day with responses, but no comment. Let's just move on.Gator (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free not to comment. You have not brought a single concern you have had to this talk page. Not one. Everyone here is sitting on pins and needles waiting to find out what this elusive POV concern you have (so far, you've just been cutting down paragraphs in a way that no one appears to have a problem with). Size concerns are not POV concerns, especially not size concerns that NO ONE IS DISPUTING (no dispute = no dispute). As you might know, what you should be looking for is Wikipedia backing up one side in a dispute. IE - "John Lott is a fraud" vs. "Hipocrite says John Lott is a fraud." Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

OK OK, you're right I'm wrong, I'm not doing anything and had no basis whatsoever for a NPOV dispute and am not making any real changes....happy? Good, let's get back to work, We're arguing about a non-issue. PLEASE stop. I'm trying my best to AGF and work with you. None of this is necessary or interesting. Let's just edit and move on.

Now, I support your last edit, was there anything else or can I move on to another paragraph? Just let me know.Gator (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving on to 2% paragraph....ideas?

Wow, I didn't know where to begin in tryign to narrow downa dn sumamrize this paragraph....any suggestions? I didn't want ot start hacksawing through this without some input, but it's very very long and that lends to the overall NPOV problem with this article Thoughts? If nonet hen I'll just have a stab at it, but I wanted to get ideas from others first.Gator (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

How about you propose a concrete change right here on this talk page, paying SPECIFIC ATTENTION to the amount of press that the 2% problem recieved in the academic world from Lindgren and others. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh I'd be happy to, I'm just interested in what others would have to say first. There's quite a bit there and I have been advised to take baby steps so that's what I'm doing. Good edit by the way.Gator (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The section is fine as it now stands, if not bending over ass-backwards to be Lott-POV. Paying specific attention to the section titled "Undue weight," there is exactly 1 scientist who believes that Lott did a study that showed 98/2, and the entire scientific community that believes that he misunderstood what Klerk said and continued the "stonewall" policy of never admitting error. The belief that lott did a survey that showed 98/2 is a flat-earth theory, and should be treated as such. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, you think that no changes at all need to be made. I respectfully disagree. it relaly needs ot be cut down. No problem, though, we can disagree and not go to war lol. As long as you cosider my edits adn not blndly revert (which I am assuming you would never do) there shouldn;t be a problem. We can continue to work well together.Gator (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Like the big giant tag at the top says, please discuss major changes on the talk page before making them. Major changes, like removing all mention of a national survey. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Allright if that was too "major" for you, I'll be more careful. I didn't think it was a big deal, but I'm aiming to please here. I apologize.Gator (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

OK cool, it looks like we're making progress here Hip and I'm glad. I gotta get going though so I'm done for the night. Gotta get home, balance the checkbook and then shovel the driveway, then eat dinner go to ebd adn start all over....yay...See yah!Gator (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

And Serinity weighs in

Well, if you can recycle your old garbage here, what the hell, eh? So without further ado, back to just the 2% section, for now, my first two objections, which you may be familiar with by now:

Gzuckier, do you think that simply by reposting what you have below you can pretend that this wasn't already responded to by CHoward on this very page. Before making people read again what you keep on reposting, I thought that people should see that this has already been answered. What is below is his response that he already posted. At the end of your post below you write others "cannot even come up with some reason why my objections to these two of your (plural) mass edits are invalid." Ignoring the responses seems to be your only way of saying that there is no response. Serinity 22:57, January 7, 2006 EDST)

This response involved some reading of the archives to write up. Several points are necessary to what is reprinted below from the archives by Gzuckier. The first part of Gzuckier reprinting of past archived material relies solely on allegations by Lambert. There are not other sources for these private email exchanges, and the archived material also states Lambert's history of doctoring documents thus leaving at least some question here.[3] Isn’t there also some rule that the facts in these articles has to be able to be independently confirmable by others? Let us be direct on this. Has anyone, including Lambert, interviewed anyone who worked on this survey to see when everything was set in motion? Rather than trying to get into someone's mind and worry about the alternative interpretations for Lambert’s evidence, wouldn't this solve the question and you wouldn't have to rely on Lott. Just ask was the survey being worked on prior to the very end of Sept. As has been pointed out in the archived sections, the time claimed to get everything together seems like an awfully short time to hire people and get everything set up. Finally, who cares? As Al Lowe pointed out multiple times, the survey was redone and the numbers used made it difficult to claim that the media was biased against guns, Lott used numbers that made his claim more difficult. There doesn't seem to be a question that this was redone and all the numbers are similar. Heck do you expect two surveys done in different years to get exactly the same results? Even if we concede all the mindreading is on target, why do we care? However, if you think that it is important, get some direct evidence.

Of course I haven't doctored any evidence -- the accusation is ridiculous. It is nottrue that the only source was "allegations from Lambert" The email came from Lindgren's report. If you seriously doubt that there was a mailing list discussion on the survey starting in September 2002 you could check with some of the other participants, like, oh, Jimmy Wales. And for those keeping track, CHoward is almost certainly another Lott sock puppet.TimLambert

WARNING STOP CUTTING OUT MY DISCUSSIONS FROM THE TALK SECTION. YOU ALL CAN DISH OUT DISTORTIONS, BUT CAN NOT TAKE EVIDENCE YOU FIND INCONVIENENT. EVIDENCE THAT CAN"T BE VERIFIED BY ANYONE MEANS THAT WE HAVE TO EVALUATE THE PERSON WHOSE WORD THAT WE ARE TAKING FOR THE CLAIM. FROM MY POST THAT YOU CUT: On just one post, several people provide multiple examples they say of Lambert "lying". What is the response to examples of doctored evidence. CBaus put together quite a number of people who you have accused of being sockpuppets including him (he also had other links to people discussing Lambert). This shows the list. Start with Purtilo, who you have accused of being a sockpuppet more than anyone else. Shucks, I forgot, you think CBaus is a sockpuppet! Serinity 22:57, January 7, 2006 EDST)

Ah Serinity, the master of the Write Only Browser. Whether you deliberately ignore my original replies to the comments you feel were not replied to, or you honestly can't see them for some reason; either way, it makes you tough to have a discussion with. So once again, a trip into the recent past, where Serinity had left us:

Next up, my statements re the time at which the controversy began have nothing to do with Lambert's email, that's his addition. My statements come from a simple google search of usenet. I did not receive any email from Dr. Lott, but since I was in on the discussion on usenet at the time, I am also in a position to verify the dates involved, and google gives a public record of those dates. ... As for allegations of Lambert sockpuppets, the site involved gives no evidence whatsoever of same and is simple, baseless character assassination. If you are so upset about being baselessly accused yourself, where there was circumstantial evidence including actual sockpuppets whose position you were repeating, I'd think you'd be a bit more sensitive about repeating groundless slander. Similarly, the evidence for Lambert falsifying evidence is lacking, other than the sayso of somebody trying to defend their own actions. But those are mainly for Lambert to speak to, I merely bring it up since it seems to be part of the alleged support for the set of mass rewrites you wish to introduce. Finally, let me apologize from the bottom of my heart for the false accusation of socketry puppetry, even if I had nothing to do with it, which has scarred you so deeply. However, as I mentioned previously, this does not constitute support for falsehoods masquerading as NPOV. Now happy frigging new year and don't fire your guns up into the air to celebrate Gzuckier 02:06, 31 December 2005

On the survey results being unlike those of others, why isn't it relevant that all but two of the conflicting surveys are separated by over twenty years? The earlier archived sections of the Talk here also mention how the sets of surveys did not ask the exact same questions. Lott's asked about the last year. All the others apparently inquired about the last five years. Why doesn't this supply the reason for the differences? CHoward 00:57, 30 December 2005 PDT) (Sorry, minor fix on user ID) Since you just reprint what you have below, I have just reprinted what choward has already put together. Serinity 22:57, January 7, 2006 EDST)

And again:

similarly, the 9 surveys which mysteriously equal two in your (plural) suggested mass revision have nothing to do with any private archive of Lambert, but are freely countable in the scientific literature. You say: There doesn't seem to be a question that this was redone and all the numbers are similar.; in fact, the results of his own second survey indicate a less than .05 chance of getting the results claimed for the first survey, which fits the generally accepted scientific definition of "proved false". Regarding the question of Cbaus' first edit, you were taking the position that whether or not he did the survey he claimed to have done is irrelevant because he clearly believes he did it??? In the first place, that's a pretty bad example of getting into somebody else's mind, and in the second place, that's about the most biased point of view thing I have seen in quite a while. I stand by my original position, that since the vast preponderance of the evidence proves that he did not do the survey except for one person who believes (but can't be certain) he might have been part of the surveyed population, the statement that Lott believes he did it is indeed tantamount to stating that he is insane. Which I would not feel comfortable placing in this article, even if you believe it would remove the "point of view" regarding his lapse of professional ethics. Gzuckier 02:06, 31 December 2005

That response is wholey inbadequate. There were more than two surveys over the time period. This is a true statement. The surveys in the period are cited. We know when the new survey was started because it was so well documented. We know when the contravercy started because there are all kinds of public record questions about the 2% number. Stop talking about how evil tim lambert is. The statement that the surveys are separated by 20 years is garbage. Look at the dates. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's go one at a time. You claim the second book was written before the controversy over the existence of the first survey. The controversy had already started in 1998. The book was written in 2002. Kindly give us some evidence the book was written before 1998, or that 1998 is after 2002. Gzuckier 02:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You aren't trying to be serious, and you obviously didn't read the discussion above, or at least didn't care. Out of all the points raised above you raise one and do so incorrectly. My understanding is that this discussion got serious in the beginning of 2003 and that to set up a survey and get all the people to participate in doing it probably took some time before the survey was even done. That probably puts us in the middle of 2002.Timewarp 19:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Your various attempts to cast aspersions on my motives, competency, or level of effort in no way alleviate you from the need to justify your counterfactual mass of edits, which you appear to believe represent one single large and lumpy fact. What part of "OK, let's go one at a time." confuses you? Who are we to believe, your understanding or the record of Usenet debate as freely searchable? Would you prefer it to read "the second book was written after the debate on the survey, but before the date which Timewarp says he understands to be when the debate got serious"? Gzuckier 16:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

As for when the discussion got serious, does this email from John Lott on Sep 21,2002, ring a bell?

I am extremely busy so please save up what you want to send me for a week or so, but this sounds like an excellent test. If they do any type of search, Nexis/Lexis or google or check the transcripts of my testimony, I am willing to bet that I don't start mentioning this figure until the spring of 1997. If I use it before I said that I did the survey, I will say that they nailed me. But if I only started using it about the time that I said that I did the survey, I think that it would be strong evidence the other way. Let's see what they find. (John Lott)

--TimLambert 17:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Since Timewarp seem eager to move on on multiple fronts, let's go to point two, in my limited list. This in no way is to be construed that the debate over the assertions regarding his personal hunch as to when the debate over survey #1 got serious are convincing regarding when the debate over the survey actually began.

[your suggested edit]In fact, Lott's 98%/2% figure contradicts the other two surveys over the last twenty years that estimated this rate. (changed from all the other surveys)

Actual list of surveys, (more than two)

Survey Percent firing Source

Kleck 24 Kleck 1995

NSPOF 27 Duncan 2000

NCVS 1987-1990 28 Duncan 2000

NCVS 1987-1992 38 Rand 1994

NCVS 1992-2001 21 NCVS online analysis system

Field 34 Kleck 1995

Cambridge Reports 67 Kleck 1995

DMIa 40 Kleck 1995

Ohio 40 Kleck 1995

AS you know and even if you did not it was pointed out in the previous discussion, these data here are when these surveys were cited, not when they took place. It is just an example of the misediting that people such as XRLQ have pointed to [26] Timewarp 22:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, the date of these surveys is irrelevant to the fact that Lott's estimate is wildly divergent from any and all of them, in terms of the question of whether his survey was done at all. Or are you suggesting that he can only be expected to tailor the reported results of his survey to match the data known at the time, and cannot be faulted for not matching results which only came in later? Secondly, in any event, the fact remains that his 98%/2% statement "if national surveys are correct" is false, based even on only whichever two surveys of the 9 which you deign to accept. Thirdly, the statement that the dates in the table reflect the publication date of the surveys, not when they were done, is not any sort of support for your assertion that there were only two surveys over the previous twenty years, given that six of the surveys have publication dates in 1994 and 1995. Or are you assuming that they were published before they were done? Turn the tables, if people accuse Lott of making up a survey result, maybe you can accuse everybody else of making up their surveys?

If you don't mind, I'll hold up on points 3, 4, 5, 6, ..... N until the community has reached some sort of consensus with these two, as the constant vague references to this all having been discussed previously keep things from making any progress.Gzuckier 17:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

If you don't have good answers to these objections, perhaps you should not be reposting the objectionable material as a part of a wholesale overhaul, under the guise of "being nonpartisan". Gzuckier 01:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I reiterate yet again: if you cannot even come up with some reason why my objections to these two of your (plural) mass edits are invalid, I don't see how we can honestly include them in the article. That being the case, I don't see how we can honestly use your (plural) communally accepted mass rewrite/frequent revert en masse. If you wish to deal honestly with these objections, then we can go on to the long list of other, similar objections I have to the other, similar, illogical, unsupported, counterfactual, and otherwise unacceptable edits, several of which I have taken the time and effort to list (now resident in the archives) without response (thus my starting off with only these two). And all the personal insults and self-righteous self-pity you guys continue to post here has no relevance as to whether these objections should be ignored. Even if everything you have stated about "our" treatment of your poor suffering truth seekers is true, you still have to answer to the general satisfaction of the community the valid questions about why your (plural) apparently irreducible set of edits do not appear to make any sense before you can expect said edits to remain as "counterbalance to a biased point of view". And I've seen enough of the unsubstantive weaselly "responses" here (see the section on "if the 2% question is so minor, then why...") to know that I need to restate again: these two objections are not the totality of my objections to your (plural) mass rewrite; see the archive for my list of just the objections to your (plural) rewrite of the bogus survey section; if that's too much trouble for you, I'll be glad to repost them here. And those are not the only objections to the entire rewrite you (plural) propose; that's just the one section. So, even if you blow off these two edits you propose, I can't honestly accept the rest of the misinformation you attempt to post until we resolve all those questions. Gzuckier 04:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

PS if there is any doubt, every other thing Severity has inserted into the 2% part is equally objectionable, I just don't see the need to waste even more time. And I feel fairly safe in assuming that every other piece of the Serinity edit is as reliable. Gzuckier 02:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Person who claims to partcipated in survey

I took a look at the link in question and the web page does not say hal;f the tigns about that guy as our rtcile did. All of this talk about him being an activist or that he later believed that the survey was for Lott is simply not in that cite. This stuff may be true (still has NPOV problems as characerizing someone as an activist can be POV unless they clasim it themself or its exceedingly obvious) but the cite doesnt support any of that, so it should not be there until thise assertions can be. The artcile just says he was a attorney who claimed that he was apart of the survey. That's it. Al tis other stuff is entirely unspported and needs to be if it should be a part of the article Can anyone find something on that? Thanks.Gator (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

David Gross

Further, other than one Second Amendment activist who recalls being surveyed about guns in that period of time and now believes it to have been the Lott survey, [4] no one has come forward to report that they were associated with survey. ]

vs.

However, at least one person[5] has come forward to report that they were associated with survey.

1. There is no evidence that anyone else has come forward. "At least one," while it includes "one," is not as accurate as "one."

2. The individual that came forward was David Goss, [6], [7], [8], [9], who is best described as a "Second-Amendment Activist"

3. If you were fully engaged in the issue, you would be aware of Lindgren's interview with Gross that said, in part "As I delved into the other studies being done in the 1996-97 period, I found that Gross’s description of the questions that he was asked fit a 1996 Harvard study by Hemenway & Azrael better than Lott’s account of his study questions." If you'd like to bulk up that section, I would be glad to do so. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

PS 4. The same interview with Lindren also included : "When I asked him if he remembered anything about who called, he said that he “was beginning to think” that the call came from students in Chicago, perhaps at Northwestern or the University of Chicago, but he was very uncertain about whether the call came from a Chicago area source. In his public statement issued after he talked with me more than once, however, Gross’s very uncertain memory became a bit more certain, suggesting that the call probably came from the University of Chicago. That and the timing (which he was also not certain about) were the only things that pointed to him having been called by Lott as opposed to another survey organization." Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not being "fully engaged" so feel free to cite the "fact" that he is an activist and that he is the only one. Unless there is SOME kind of support for those assertions, they just can't be made, that's crazy! You can;t jsut assume he's the only one because he's the only one that you or I know of LOL! Go ahead and cite away and we'll take a look at it from that point, thanks, have a good one.Gator (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there another person that has come forward? No one seems to know of one - Lott only alleges one came forward. Lott's detractors allege only one came forward. Is there someone else who alleges someone else came forward? LOL! Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, thats the point. You can;t jsut assume that w/o some kind of cite lol. You said Lott only alleges one came forward. Ok, cite that and that's fine, but it clearly can;t stand on its own without SOME proof, come on lol.

You can't prove a negative. He's the only one Lott has shown coming forward. If you can find someone else coming forward, then we'll include them also. LOLOLOLOLOL. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all: jus relax, it's not a big deal, Second: then what basis does anyone have to say that he's the ONLY one??? If it's only becuase he's the only one that you know of...then that's not good enough. If you have an actual cite that says he's the only only one I'd probably trust that or a cite that has Lott saying he's the only one...that'd be even better, but it's just OR without SOMETHING to back it up....of course! I'm not demadning hard core proof, just SOMETHIGN that says that he was the ONLY one. The blog just seems to imply that he was the first...not the only one. Thanks for the cites, it's fine and much better cited, thanks!Gator (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

He's not the only one I know of, he's the only one that's been reported anywhere. He's the only one Lott talks about at www.johnlott.com. He's the only one the critics talk about at their various cites. He's the only one who issued a press release. There is no other person that has come forward. No one reports "No one other than this chumly has come forward," they report the news "chumly has come forward." If you could find a news source that said "In addition to chumly, chump has come forward," please do so. With regards to "relax," I'm not the one fat-fingering keys and honestly inserting "lol" at the end of everything I write - that's you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Lott himself can't come up with anyone else who was surveyed other than Gross [10] so I really don't feel it would be NPOV for us to assert that there were more than one. PS it's probably good for Gator to "keep us honest" by asking for robust support for our position; I await with some trepidation the riposte from the "other side". Gzuckier 04:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, now that I think of it, before the "other side" reports Lott's self-justifications as truth, I'll preemptively prepuncture what's in Lott's survey defense page linked to above; Lott presents his documentary "proof" here(zipped pdf) and here for the following assertions:

1)Lott states 1)Professor David Mustard confirms that I discussed doing the survey together with him many times during 1996; Lott's supplied documents, however, have Mustard saying precisely:

Do I have direct first-hand evidence about John Lott’s survey?

I did not co-author the work on the survey with John, I did not work for John as a paid employee, and I do not know anyone who worked with John on the survey. I have not seen any survey instruments or primary data from the original survey.

Mustard tries to soften the blow to his friend by confirming the existence of Lott's disk crash without reference to the survey, and that Lott had thought about doing a survey, and that he can't remember when Lott first mentioned the survey but he thinks it highly probable that it was in November 1998 (2 years after Lott had been discussing the 2% figure in public and print):

Did John specifically mention that he lost his survey data in his computer crash?

John told me that he had lost all his data in the crash. He specifically told me that he lost all data related to our paper, which I later restored to the best of my ability. He also mentioned how he lost many things related to his book, which set him back in completing the book and forced him to eliminate some things he intended to include in the book.

Was their [sic] evidence of Lott’s intending to do a survey?

As we worked on the concealed carry paper, John talked about pursuing other projects to extend our work on concealed carry and guns. We talked extensively about self-defensive uses of guns and how we knew how frequently guns were used for self-defense and in what contexts they were used. John articulated a desire to learn more about self-defensive uses through a survey

...

When do I first remember talking with John Lott about the survey?

I do not remember the first time John Lott and I talked about the survey. At the time there was nothing exceptional about the survey for me to associate with it and help me remember when I first learned about it.

I believe it likely that John informed me of the completed survey in 1997.

I think it highly probable that John told me he had completed the survey at the time of my talk at the Academics for the Second Amendment conference in Washington, DC in November 1998.

I know beyond a reasonable doubt that John and I talked about the completed survey before I testified to the Maryland House of Delegates Judiciary Committee on 20 October 1999

Mustard goes on to confirm the existence of Lott's 2002 survey and his disk crash, neither of which are in any doubt. In fact, many witnesses can testify to the loss of Lott's main body of work in the crash; yet none of those presented by Lott as witnesses can attest to the loss of this survey under question. It's as if a kid who claims the dog ate his homework attempts to prove it by producing a picture of his dog. Gzuckier 05:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Lott then cites 2)A statement by John Whitley, who at the time was a graduate student at the University of Chicago and is now at Adelaide University in Australia, saying that he believes that he met the students that conducted the survey. He also confirms my hard disk crash.

In fact, Lott's provided documents have Whitley saying precisely:

Unfortunately, I can't directly corroborate the survey, but I do have one memory which may be related. I remember stopping by John's office one time I think during my first year and there were some undergraduates in the office. John was finishing up with them and my recollection is that he introduced me to them and then they left. I think he introduced their names (which I don't remember) and said that they had recently worked for him (although I don't remember if he said on what), they then left and I met with John to talk about working as an RA for him. I am pretty sure they were undergraduates because I seem to recall them being impressed when I said I was an econ graduate student (anything that inflates your ego during the first year of graduate school at the University of Chicago is a big deal at the time).

In that situation, what I really remember most is the scene and not the words. I don't know when exactly it was, but I can remember the room. It was in John's old office, when he was in the middle of the back wall of the Chicago Law School library (before he moved over near the stairwell to the smaller office). I can remember him sitting at his desk and the students (I am pretty sure there were two students, but not 100% positive) were standing between me at the door and John at his desk against the far wall. I think one was taller than me (I am 5'6") and had lighter hair while the other was shorter and had darker hair (the heights I am pretty sure of, the hair color I am less sure of). The taller one was closer to me and seemed to be more of the leader. For some reason, that image sticks in my head.

Unfortunately it is possible that I am mixing this scene up in my head with other events, but it is fairly clear in my head so I am at least reasonably confident in it. If my recollection is correct, it is entirely possible (very likely, in fact) that these were some of the students who had worked on the survey (I do have some vague recollection that they had coordinated something and that others may have been involved). Unfortunately that is all I can really remember on that one right now, sorry I can't be more specific.

Of course, Whitely goes on to recollect that there was a disk crash, although without any recollection that a survey was involved. Gzuckier 05:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

3) David Gross, a former assistant city prosecutor from Minneapolis, provides evidence that he was interviewed in my survey in 1997. There were only two other defensive gun surveys after 1995 and neither was done in 1997. Both those other surveys were done by Hemenway and were extremely different from the survey that I gave.

As described above, when Gross told Lott he thought he remembered being in the DGU survey, Lott did not reply that that was his survey; that came later.

4) Geoff Huck, the editor at the University of Chicago Press who handled More Guns, Less Crime, remembers that I lost the computer file for my book in the computer crash and that part of the book was permanently lost, though it has been six years and he can't remember what part that was. While he no longer works for the Press and does not have his work e-mails, he does have one e-mail on his home computer from the end of July 1997 that helps verify the loss of material for my book.

Yes. There was a crash. Once again, Lott lost the main piece of his book; he told everybody that at the time; nobody questions it. He told nobody he lost the survey until the existence of the survey was questioned.

5) Multiple academics also confirm my hard disk crash. Many of these academics were involved in co-authoring research with me and themselves suffered from this loss because it affected our joint research. They don't remember all the other data that was lost, but they can confirm that the hard disk crash was catastrophic and that I lost all the data that I had. All these statements are backed up by memos in the attached file. Eight academics wrote letters to the Post, but I could have gotten many others

Yes. There was a crash. Once again, Lott lost the main piece of his book; he told everybody that at the time; nobody questions it. He told nobody he lost the survey until the existence of the survey was questioned.

If that's the best defense Lott himself can provide for the existence of the survey, I don't feel too comfortable taking the unsupported word of the Lottophiles that there is other evidence that Lott apparently doesn't know about himself. Gzuckier 05:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Gzuckier and Hip, it's much better cited now, thanks. I refuse to have any hard feelings towards you Hip, no matter how angry you become with me. Real progress is being made on the artcile, so it's hard to understand the level of animosity of the talk page. See AGF. I have no hidden motives here. What you see is what you get. Great edits by the way.Gator (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I protest!

Just kidding, I'm ok with all the edits to my last version as of now. Excelsior! Gzuckier 04:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

References

Oops, I thought that were automatically deleted. My mistake! Thanks!Gator (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

rosheduction

Yeah, I'm OK with the current. Gzuckier 23:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The deleted info is definitely uncited, but I do not see why its vague or fundamentally unsupportable. It seems to me that the best thing would be someone familiar with the Mary Rosh postings to re-insert it, complete with citations for every assertion. ---Pierremenard 00:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Or we could just have Serinity rewrite the whole article for us. Gzuckier 20:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

A great deal of that was uncited and I've been unable to find evidence on those points. can anyone get cites for al those quotes and paraphrasings? If not, then its unsupported. I don't think the whole sockpuppet thing deserves much mention anyway. If it were not for the fact that sockpuppetry is a mortal sin no where but here, it would barely get any mention if at all, but I admit is is notable, but still needs to be cited.Gator (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That alst edit was me, I got signed out for some reason. Please stop putting it back without the proper cites. It's not amatter of preference, all taht nformation jsut needs to be cited and it's not. I looked and cannot find that info, so fel free to have a go, but reverting adn putting in uncited info like that is not the way to go here. Please stop.Gator (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Its not good enough to say that all that stuff has been sourced by TL elsewhere. It needs to be sourced in this article. Every claim in that paragraph needs to be accompanied by a specific citation. --Pierremenard 21:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It'd be helpful if editors could use accurate edit summaries. One editor removed the Mary Rosh quote with the summary:

• Mary Rosh online persona - moved things around to get same point across in a more NPOV fashion.)

Things weren't "moved around", they were deleted. And if the issue is sourcing then say so, rather then saying that the problem is NPOV. It is hard to answer an objections which isn't stated. -Will Beback 21:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if "moved around" wasn't accurate enough for you, but I can see where you're coming from. As far as NPOV, that was my initial objection but when I took a second look at it I did realize how little was atually cited. A lot of quoted so I assumed it must have been cited, so I didn't look coser, but on second glance I saw the problem and provided the appropriate edit summary. My apology for the confusion.Gator (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

If sourcing of the quote was the problem, it only took a few moments to find it. -Will Beback 22:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks for finding that cite I havent checked it yet, but thanks. And not hat was not the onyl problem but was oen of them. The section is still almost entirely unsupported with only a couple cite needed tags in there. While that's a step, the fact remains that thwere is unsupported material in the article. If it isn't supported, how long should it remain that way before it just needs to be removed? As a measure of good faith, I won't remove it and will give it time for someone to source this stuff, but for how long? Thanks.Gator (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC) That section needed alot more cites than just two, it needs several more in order for all thsoe assertions to be properly supported and remain int he article, so I added citation needed tags as appropriate.Gator (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, wehave a problem. If those thigns don;t need to be cited, then come here and explain why, but blidnly reverting and remogint erh ccite needed tags is the wtrong approach. I think all of those thigns need o be cite adn I don;t think I'm "gettign carried away." It looks like alot, becuase, frankly, there is a ton of unsupported claims in this section (I haven;t even looked at other sections yet) and they jut need to be supported if they are going to remain. please stop blibndly reverting and make your arguments here. Thanks.Gator (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I have no idea what happened with those cites. If I did that inadverently I apologize. Deep breaths folks.Gator (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Bad memory or bad faith?

You removed the following content that was in the article before you came here, because you said the article was too long on the rosh stuff:

"After the discovery, Lott stated to the Washington Post:

"I probably shouldn't have done it – I know I shouldn't have done it – but it's hard to think of any big advantage I got except to be able to comment fictitiously." "

Today, you are putting cite needed on "Lott admitted that he had created and used "Mary Rosh" as a fake persona to defend his own works on Usenet."

Either you are acting in bad faith, or you lack the memory required to effectively edit this article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If there is a cite for that quote, then let's use it to replace one of the cite needed tags (The one at the beginning I think). I don't remember there being one or else I would like to think I would have thought twice about removing it. If there is a cite, let's use that at the top. I still don;t think we ened the quote if he admitted it, but we do need a cite right? Thanks. Oh and AGF.Gator (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Hipocrite

Thanks for finding those cites, Hip. That's what we needed.Gator (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Other sockpuppets

OK, I did read Tim's cite for otehr sockpuppets, but it's just a cite to his own blog with the allegations of other sockpuppetry. I didn't think that was nearly good enough and its not palced after the sockpuppet allegation so it's confusing. Now I'm not saying he didn't do it, I personally think he did, but my probelm is with the sourcing. Do other people feel that a cite to his own blog is good enough or should there be something more concrete? Thoughts? I will move/copy the cite to the correct placve so it looks cited.Gator (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't care. Attribute it to Tim Lambert, if you want. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else? Oh and Hip, if I didn't fix the cites correctly, I'm sorry, it's a little beyond me. Please feel free to show me how it's done and I'll do that correctly from now on. Thanks.Gator (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh and the whole "period" thing? What's that accomplishing? Come on.... Check WP:CIVIL. Gator (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Cite

I started to go through some cityea dnt he first one I looked at had a problem.

The article attributes the following quote:

"The papers that get downloaded the most get noticed the most by other academics. It is very important that people download this paper as frequently as possible." (Emphasis in the original) to: ^[11].

However, footnote 26, doesn't include this quote. Anyone know where that may be? Did I just miss it? Thanks.Gator (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Because you fucked up the footnotes - AGAIN - the numbering is off. Check the name of the footnote, not the numbering. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Dude, CHILL. I only touched them ONCE and you corrected and told me never to do it again "period" Remember that? Calm down and watch the language. Just find the right cite and put it there. It's not a big friggin deal. There is no need for a nasty comment from you every time you have to edit. Just stop it. See WP:CIVIL and read it this time.Gator (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

Why don't we use the traditonal citation method of just putting the website in single brackets after the cited sentence. Call me stupid, but this footnoting system seems overly complicated. Is there a real advantage to this system verus the traditonal method? Let's just do it the easy way. Thoughts?Gator (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No. What is currently in place is one generation behind best practice. You want to take it back to two generations back. If you'd like to learn how to do citations right, please review [12] Template:Ref/examples, Wikipedia:Footnotes. We can't put the list of dozens of articles that you insisted I include in the references section as inclines. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand that one os more advanced or newer thant he other, but how exactly is it better? I've reviewed that before and I don't really see how one is generations ahead of the other. Just different. Why can't we put them as inclines? It takes up the same space and people can just click the number and go to the web page instead of having clicking the number and then being brought to the bottom and then having to go back up to remind themself what the footnote number was and then going down again and then clicking on the footnote.

If one is really better than the other that's fine, but I'm just not seeing how it is.Gator (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

How exactly are you going to do note 9, which you insisted I include, as an inline? Why won't you just spend the time to learn how to do footnotes? Then, instead of POV warring across the encyclopedia, you could actually contribute. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Knock it off, I'm being polite and civil here. No one is POV warring here or anywhere else. I could care less about John Lott, it's you is astonishingly emotional about this guy (I don;t know why) so stop trying to prompt irate replies that can then be even further ridiculed, in turn. There's a word for that.

At your invite, I have learned how to do them I just really think they are unnecessarilly complex. I'm not sorry for insisting that things need to be cited but they were (and still are) alot of unsupported allegations. We could just remove them but people want all of them in so they need to be cited.

As far as footnote 9: we could either try and find an electronic version (which is preferable for cite checking anyway) or just cite it paranthetically. That's not as pretty, but those ciotes are in the minority, so I don't think we should adopt such a more cumbersome and complex system for jsut a handful of those kind of cites.

Anyone else have thoughts about the citation system that's been adopted?Gator (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

PoV check

You've had your way with the article for two weeks with basically no disagreement from the standard editors of this page. It's about time for the tag to go. As such, I have modified it to pov_check, and must insist that people that see remaining POV problems with the article to POST THEM BELOW, ON THE TALK PAGE. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the tag. Much good work has been done despite unnecessary animosity. I was thinking of removing today or tomorrow anyway. Thanks.Gator (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous vandal

If the anonymous vandal reintroduces his biased version and is not reverted by Gator1 at some point within the next 24 hours, I will revert to my prefered version of the article. If it is to be anonymous sockpuppets flailing at people trying to fix the article, I might as well make my reverts count. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I go out of town for a little bit and all heck breaks lose. Word to anons and alleged sock puppets...use this page to argue for your version instead of just reverting. it makes you look like nothing other than vandals and will guarantee that your version (nor any part of it) will never be included in the article. Start talking. Stop reverting.Gator (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protect

I've requested that this page be semi-protected to stop anon sock vandals from doing this garbage and Ihave reported the sokcs as vandals in multiple locations.Gator (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I expect that this will not be seen as vandalism as opposed to agressive and poor editing by the sockpuppeteer in question. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Had same thought, but I'm trying anyway. At least a semi-protect, by itself, would help. We'll see what happens.Gator (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh much better. Thanks!Gator (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

An opinion

This page needs to be permanently semi-protected. --Pierremenard 00:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it has been protected from all editing and I don't see the reason. Other than anon vandals, things are going well and there are no major discussions regarding content right now. Please go back to semi-protection.Gator (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection is not designed to keep bad editors who refuse to log in from editing the page, and was innapropriate in this case. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sei-protection keeps anon editors from editing, which is where almost al of the vandalism sock edits were coming from....if you're opposed to semi-protection thats fine, but why do you want to prohibit all editing? There are no discussions going on here that require that and (at least with semi-proection) you can stop most the the anon vandals? What's your rationale?Gator (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

While the anonomyous editors were doing nothing to help the encyclopedia, WP:VAND does not evaluate the quality of the edits, rather the motive behind them. The anonymous editors were not vandalizing the article, they were just editing poorly. As such, semi-protection is not justified. I did not request full protection. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I thought you would want semi-protection to keep them out, but it looks liekw e agree that full protecton is unjustfied. I'd like to know who requested it or why Woohoo felt it was necessary. Let's get rid of it.Gator (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that full protection is unwarranted at the moment. --Pierremenard 15:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Then please come to the request page and say that. I'm done arguing with him about every little thing.Gator (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Just the facts, Ma'am

I suggest that the entire piece be subjected to a meat-cleaver, reducing it down just a bibliography and academic background. There are hundreds (thousands?) of political commentators, and Wiki isn't the place for pro-and-con wrangling over their subject(s) of interest; ....that's what blogs and Amazon.com book reviews are for. See the Robert Spencer entry for an example of truncation (see the history link for the formerly bloated and incessantly-argued version). --Mike18xx 05:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The dishonesty in this case is the subject of articles in the Washington Post, and the academic dispute is the subject of numerous journal articles. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Er...exactly. Which is why chop/hack/thwock/mince/grind/crunch down to bib+aca, otherwise you'll never, ever get away from the endless cycle of people all clamoring to insert their most favoritist puff or slam piece on all earth.--Mike18xx 12:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This would be a betrayal of our duty to write an encyclopedia. Wikipedia does not shrink from controversy; see the George W. Bush article for details. Yes, this article will always be edited often, but I don't see why thats a bad thing. --Pierremenard 15:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The controversy regarding Lott's studies, and concomitant accusations of dishonesty, are very significant factors regarding Lott. An article that omitted these would be incomplete. The challenge is ensuring that this is done in a NPOV manner, and that weight is given appropriately based on the prominence of various criticisms and defenses. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 09:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets and meatpuppets

The section below was added to the article by 152.163.100.10 (an AOL ip, probably Lott). It obviously doesn't belong in the article but it is relevant here in talk. 152.163.100.10 (let's call him 152 for short) asserts that the people in the list below have been accused of being sock puppets and writes:

Purtilo While Purtilo has been accused of being a sockpuppet for Lott over 20 times in different places, Jim Purtilo is actually a computer science professor at the University of Maryland.

Stotts While Stotts has been accused of being a sockpuppet for Lott several times, he is a Professor at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

HenryBowman While HenryBowman has been accused of being a sockpuppet for Lott several times, he is a professor at a small midwestern university. He was accused of being a sockpuppet for just pointing out that this page was contentious.

Cbaus While CBaus has been accused of being a sockpuppet for Lott at least four times in different places, Chad Baus lives in Ohio.

Gordinier While Gordinier has been accused of being a sockpuppet for Lott four times, Michael Gordinier teaches at the Washington University Business School in St. Louis, Missouri .

Henry1776 While Henry1776 has been accused of being a sockpuppet for Lott, he is Henry Schaffer, at NC State.

Sniper1 While Sniper1has been accused of being a sockpuppet for Lott four times, he is Mike Fleisher, a resident of suburban MD.

Serinity Serinity was accused of being a sockpuppet for Lott four times before people stopped claiming that he was a sockpuppet in November, 2005.

66.92.151.249 (Washington, DC,, Speakeasy, Inc.) While 66.92.151.249 has been accused of being a sockpuppet for Lott several times, Jeff Koch lives in the same city as Lott, but he is not John Lott.

Alt37

Timewarp

Even those posting from places where Lott is unlikely to be located are accused of being him.

137.216.209.23 (South Dakota)

66.190.73.64 (Fort Worth, Texas)

128.8.128.182 (Hyattsville, MD)

128.239.177.196 (Williamsburg, Va.), 206.165.74.6 (Phoenix, AZ)

How does 152 know the real names of all these users? None of them identified themselves. The only explanation I can think of is that a call for help went out on some pro-gun mailing list and these users edited the article and reported back to the list (or to Lott) what they had done. That makes them meat puppets. There is also a difference between saying that someone is a suspected sock puppet and accusing them of being Lott. I suspected that Purtilo might be Lott; I accused Timewarp of being Lott. Note that 152 does not deny that Timewarp is Lott. He also includes some users identified by IP address that I never suggested were Lott, but leaves out ones that I did suggest were Lott. I did say that 66.190.73.64 was probably Lott and that is indeed in Fort Worth. Thing is, though. All four edits by 66.190.73.64 were done on the night of October 13 2004 and according to Lott's blog he gave a talk in Austin on the 13th and in Lubbock on the 14th, so it sure seems reasonable that he spent the night of the 13th in Fort Worth. --TimLambert 13:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

My error, I misread the year. There is no evidence that Lott was in Fort Worth when those four edits were made. My thanks to Purtilo for noticing this. --TimLambert 16:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Tim, it's pretty exhausting trying to talk reasonably about this stuff in the forum when the first thing you do is obliterate the points we try to make. Answers to some of the rhetorical questions you raise were already there in earlier material, which you snipped. Oh well. So let's look at just the narrow question of sockpuppets and meatpuppets for the moment. I checked out the names I could find from the histories (fortunately there are other research tools besides WP on the web) and the ones I found are real people, and they're listed accordingly. What motivated them to want to get involved? Beats me, I don't speak for them, but there's no question this discussion has been noticed in many other forums on the web. (I'm cheerfully using it as the basis for disallowing Wikipedia's use as an authoritative source on my campus, for example.) Your antics in talk.politics.guns are well known, and surely there are blogs where someone has observed "there goes Lambert again." But look, your own analysis above isn't even self consistent. I dutifully traversed the links on the pages you cited above, and surprise, the log from Lott that you use to prove Lott was in a town on one date (and supposedly posted here as such) cites a different year than is under discussion. I'm not sure that what Lott did in 2004 has much to do with where he posted from at the relevent 2005 dates, other than those who don't look close might be satisfied - typical of the "I'll see it when I believe it" crowd. Give it a rest. -- Jim Purtilo

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say "I checked out the names I could find from the histories (fortunately there are other research tools besides WP on the web) and the ones I found are real people, and they're listed accordingly." Huh? Listed where? How do you know, for example, that Cbaus is Chad Baus from Ohio, that Gordinier is Michael Gordinier from WUSTL, that Stotts is from UNC-Chapel Hill, that Henry1776 is Henry Schaffer, that Sniper1 is Mike Fleischer? -- Pierremenard 15:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Purtilo, things that are wrong get corrrected as I did above. If you can identify errors in the article about Lott, please do so, so they can be corrected. Calling me names does not prove that the article is wrong. --TimLambert 16:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)