This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Can anyone explain why the following is in the More Guns, Less Crime section?
I think that this rticle would be better if we consolidated the factual information about Lott and his works, and then consolidated the criticism into respective sections. Dick Clark 21:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay, Hip, I am going to have to contest your interpretation of the NPOV as it applies here. You seem to be making the claim that the NPOV discussion of "Undue weight" would require that the criticism of the book be in the book sectiom, rather than the criticism section. I think that this is clearly wrong. The article is about John Lott, and should, in its intitial sections, enlighten the reader as to who Lott is, and, to a certain extent, what his books claim. The criticism section is perfectly suited for objections to Lott's methodolgy, as well as defenses of it. These are ancillary bits compared to the representation of Lott's views as one can see them via his published works. I am not in any way objecting to the criticism of Lott and his works being included in the article. On the contrary, I think that their inclusion is very important. They are just not of primary importance. The reader should be able to read the article and, in this order, discover who Lott is, the positions that he promotes, and then criticisms of his person and body of work. Inserting the criticisms throughout the article, especially when there is an section called "Criticism," only works against overall clarity. Additionally, the style of the Goertzel quote and its lead-in are non-NPOV.
This quote, while perhaps notable (I will take no position on its notability one way or the other), should not be cited as fact, and should certainly not flow directly out of the introductory language of the article itself in such a way as to unflinchingly uphold the view as unchallenged. This criticism is just that, a criticism, and it should be treated thusly. Dick Clark 15:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I cannot agree to the removal of a description as to what AEI is. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I will happily agree to a reasonable change top the description of what Lott does. Timewarp's version is not gramatical.
Hipocrite -
«Talk»
15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I will never agree to a version that has a sentance fragement along the lines of "Many academics who have studied his data."
Hipocrite -
«Talk»
15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I will not agree to include a quote twice in the piece. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
218 stories as opposed to 28 reporters is deceptive. The vast majority of "stories" are word-for-word duplicates of the AP reporters work. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I will not agree to strengthening the NAS conclusions. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I will not agree to the removal of the paragraph on coding errors and systematic sources of bias.
Hipocrite -
«Talk»
15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Timewarp 16:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I will not agree to describing the number of surveys that did not find 98% to be "2 in 20." That is not accurate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I will not agree to the removal of the paragraph on quoting a destroyed poll from memory Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I will not agree to the disortion of the timeline regarding when Lott redid his survey.
Hipocrite -
«Talk»
15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I will not agree to the bulk deletion of Mary Rosh as a section. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Finally, Timewarp, are you John Lott, a relative or employee of his, or in any way related or employed by an interested party to this debate? I am not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Hip, I found your stances on various aspects of the article to be enlightening, and I think it is great that you are itemizing your objections. That is certainly the most civil way to proceed in an article like this that is ripe for revert wars. Nonetheless, I do not see why the last comment above (inquiring as to Timewarp's identity/affiliations) is germane to this editing process. It looks to be an attempt to halt Timewarp's involvement with this page. There is no reason why Timewarp, if he were John Lott, could not assist in the refining of this article. Certainly the subject of an article is not afforded special privilege with regards to such editing, but he or she should not be ostracized for involvement either. So long as Lott didn't create the article himself, his assistance could easily be a valuable addition, rather than detrimental. Dick Clark 19:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
This biffing too and fro isn't getting anywhere. Talk it out. -- Tony Sidaway <;sup>Talk 17:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Of the reporters who did not mention Bridge's story, Maria Glod of the Washington Post cited "space constraints" for not including it. ( The Bias Against Guns , p.26).
The preliminary hearing had the prosecutor using Gross as his witness and confirmed Tracey Bridges’ version of events. [13] The amazing thing was how few news stories even mentioned anything about the students using guns to stop the attack. " Timewarp 16:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
(Whoever is cutting out my responses and editing what is here stop it!) Here is what I asked before that was cut out. Could you tell me where I expanded this one change into another one? (My other question now removed.) Again here are some short responses: Timewarp 8:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
In addition, with only a few exceptions, the studies cited in Chapter 6, including those by Lott’s critics, do not show that the passage of RTC laws drives the crime rates up (as might be the case if one supposed that newly armed people went about looking for someone to shoot). The direct evidence that such shooting sprees occur is nonexistent. Timewarp 8:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Just an FYI, as much as I would love to contribute to this discussion, a serious financial situation has forced me to take drastic measures. For the next 3 to 5 months, I'll be working as armed security in New Orleans during the rebuilding process. I seriously doubt I'll have much time to access this site, as well, I'll be surprised if I have access to the Internet at all. What I ask though, is that you please try to come to some sort of understanding on this matter. Try to cut through the rhetoric and innuendo, and see if we can get the facts published, not just someone's opinion. Assuming nothing bad happens to me, I should be back in 3-5 months. I would really like to see some changes here for the better.
Al Lowe
22:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Do not include anything but things in the following format in this new section:
Old Passage:
Biased, POV old stuff
New Passage:
Unbiased, NPOV new stuff
Comments
This is a good change. Hipocrite - «Talk»
Old Passage:
New Passage:
Comments:
The following is not to be considered a complete list by me, I haven't even considered the media bias section, this is just stuff that jumped out at me instantly
"Before the controversy arose, Lott had repeated his survey for a book that he had written in 2002" (changed from "Lott resolved to settle the matter by repeating his survey in 2002 before the publication of his most recent book")
"In fact, Lott's 98%/2% figure contradicts the other two surveys over the last twenty years that estimated this rate." (changed from "contradicts all other published studies of the question")
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 |
(lambert's work from years ago, again [16])
"the body of work reviewed by the NAS demonstrates that deregulation of concealed carry does not lead to an increase in violent crime" (changed from "a large increase").
Deleted "Even if Lott actually did the survey, used a novel (or even mistaken) mathematical method to generate the results he quotes, and is the victim of the worst luck ever in losing all records of it, even his colleagues who oppose gun control consider it extremely unprofessional to continue to quote from memory a result for which the raw data are no longer available and the methodology is no longer remembered, particularly when that result is wildly at variance with every other study of the same subject, appears to be mathematically impossible from the design of the survey, and very well could be an error. Nevertheless, the 2% figure for the percentage of defensive gun uses which involve firing the gun has been adopted by the many firearms rights supporters and has become a fixture in their canon of argument, including continuing references by Lott himself.", despite its being a relevant statement of fact supported by a link.
"Besides statements by someone who took the survey and contemporaneous statements by others," unsupported assertion, contradicts all known sources.
Deleted "generally considered to be a right-wing think tank." which is both true and relevant.
Deleted "Why should Lott bother responding to a nothing like Lambert who isn't in the area and who isn't particularly honest? I don't even know why he responded to him once. In any case, if Lambert really cared about the truth he would acknowledge that Lott has dealt extensively with this discussion in his book. All I have done here is parrot what Lott wrote." - In fact, while Lott was posting as Rosh, he would normally decline requests to engage in such Usenet discussions of his work under his own name, stating: - :"I have not participated in the firearms discussion group nor in the apparent online newsgroup discussions" - on the grounds that he was attracting hostile reaction which upset his wife. Yet, despite this statement, the Usenet archives at Google show that Lott did continue to post occasionally under his own name from the various email addresses of the different institutions where he worked throughout the entire period when he was posting as "Mary Rosh", without apparent worry about attracting hostile attention, but avoiding the detailed professional discussions of his work that he left to Rosh. Furthermore, among the replies to these posts, there is no evidence of any hostility to Lott, at least publicly." which is relevant to the section, factual, and supported by citations.
Deleted "Lott's op-eds and other popular works have been found to contain some errors of fact. Lott has tended to blame faulty editing on the part of the media, though the errors are subsequently repeated elsewhere." though supported by the following, which he/she/it also deleted.
Deleted "At one point, Rosh engaged in a lengthy discussion of errors of fact in a newspaper op-ed piece Lott had written (regarding the disarming of the shooter in the school shooting mentioned above), which when corrected would have reduced support for Lott's slogan of "More guns. less crime". After Rosh was finally forced to admit that the original piece did indeed omit some important facts, Lott then published a corrected version in a different newspaper, which Rosh then cited as evidence that the errors in the original piece must have been due to bad editing by the newspaper, rather than Lott's fault. To prove her case, Rosh suggested that her opponent telephone Lott to discuss it; he did so, and, despite Rosh having been discussing it online for over a week, Lott claimed no knowledge of the controversy, and even not to have seen how the original newspaper had edited his work, implying that it was indeed the editors' fault, and that he had not in fact made an error then subsequently corrected it. Two months later, however, Lott published another article on the same subject, again omitting the same crucial facts which would have disproved his position, clearly demonstrating that not only was it not bad editing that was the source of the errors in the first place, but that Lott was willing to knowingly repeat the error to add false support to his argument, using Rosh to give himself the appearance of a "plausible deniability"." which is factual, supported by citations, and supports the above.
Deleted entire section regarding Mary Rosh: "Use of an anonymous posting identity can also be abused to make it appear that there is independent confirmation of one's views, or praise and approval from third parties. In fact, Rosh claimed to be one of Lott's former students, and had many good things to say about him; for instance his teaching style: - :"I had him for a PhD level empirical methods class when he taught at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania back in the early 1990s, well before he gained national attention, and I have to say that he was the best professor that I ever had. You wouldn't know that he was a 'right-wing' ideologue from the class. He argued both sides of different issues. He tore apart empirical work whether you thought that it might be right-wing or left-wing. At least at Wharton for graduate school or Stanford for undergraduate, Lott taught me more about analysis than any other professor that I had and I was not alone. There were a group of us students who would try to take any class that he taught. Lott finally had to tell us that it was best for us to try and take classes from other professors more to be exposed to other ways of teaching graduate material." - While this statement would be considered amusing ego-boost were it posted about oneself, posting it under an assumed name attempts to give it some credibility, while the revelation that it was posted about oneself anonymously makes it appear ludicrously self-serving. Similarly, the Rosh identity was also used to post several five star reviews of his books on Amazon.com, in violation of Amazon.com's clear policy, and at Barnes and Noble.com, as well as bad reviews of books by his rivals; Lott states that his son and wife wrote them. Rosh also urged people to download copies of Lott's papers: - :"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) - Again, this would be amusing if one posted it about one's own work, but trying to push one's own work under an assumed name is considered academically unethical and unprofessional. - Lott's critics maintain that the whole 'Mary Rosh' incident, together with the questions about his unsupported survey, call into question Lott's trustworthiness, and therefore cast doubt on his entire body of work, even where no evidence of deception is found. His defenders reject such claims as ad hominem attacks, and point out that in Lott's main body of work, where all the data, reasoning, and mathematical analysis are quite properly completely presented, there is no apparent room for dissembling, as proved by the fact that others have indeed reworked the same data to come to different conclusions and identified where Lott had made errors (as described above). "
Good try moving the ball and pretending like the earlier discussions never took place.
Timewarp
22:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
TL claimed that 66.93.100.155, Alt37 and Timewarp are all sockpuppets belonging to Lott. This seems quite plausible: Lotts use of scokpuppets elsewhere is documented. But Timewarp then muddied the waters with Kindly provide ANY real evidence that Alt37, Watchdog, 66.93.100.155, 66.190.73.64, 128.239.177.196, Al Lowe, or 206.165.74.6 are sockpuppets. Is TW proposing that Al Lowe is a sockpuppet? Who is Watchdog? William M. Connolley 12:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC).
Alt37 claims there are unanswered questions here... for someone with so few edits, all reverts here (apart from the POV tag), she appears very sure of things. And is pretty obviously someones sockpuppet. Err, and which way is she reverting? Seems fairly clear. William M. Connolley 18:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC).
Also: I now see that Alt37 added the POV tag. Socks shouldn't do that. I'm not sure who wants it, so I'm removing it. Then we can see who does want it. William M. Connolley 18:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC).
Alt37 only has edits to this page. His very first edit was to add a POV header. This is sock behaviour.
William M. Connolley
09:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC).
I am but the sockpuppet of The Lord. Gzuckier 15:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I make that Timewarps 4th rv (or 5th...?). Anyway, I'm off to report him. Ah... TL has beat me to it. Jolly good. William M. Connolley 12:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC).
Repeatin things over and over despite evidence that would lead most people to not be repeating it, at least without some changes..... Gzuckier 15:19, 28 October 2005 (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)
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.
-- 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.
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 |
This is apparently difficult for many to understand:
Articles should be written without bias, representing all views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy. The policy is easily misunderstood: It doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct. Crucially, a great merit of Wikipedia is that Wikipedians work together to make articles unbiased.
As Al Lowe noted above: "The article on John Lott clearly fails the NPOV test." Lambert, Pierremenard, and Connolley seem determined to remove any warning that there are disagreements. Without defending the version that they insist on putting up, [27] [28] [29] [30] it is bizarre that they won't even recognize that people disagree with them. It is enough that Lambert has been repeatedly caught creatively editing evidence to create false impressions. [31] [32] Timewarp 12:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
-- TimLambert 06:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
AnoPseudonymous editing is perfectly acceptable here on WP. The claim that Timewarp and Alt37 are operated by the same person is the claim you should be pursuing, if you want your allegation to be investigated. ---
Charles Stewart
17:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
There have been a variety of new accounts used to revert the page to Timewarp's favoured version. All of these accounts have basically just been used to revert the page, so are mostly likely the same person as Timewarp. I'm listing them here for convenience:
Purtilo,
Sniper1,
Serinity,
Henry1776 --
TimLambert
11:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, this is getting ridiculous. More sock accounts: Stotts Gordinier -- TimLambert 02:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I can't prove that any of these accounts that keep reverting the page belong to John Lott. One thing is clear: there is a SINGLE person who keeps creating accounts whose entire contribution to wikipedia is the reversion of this page to a pro-Lott version. This seems to be done in order to create the appearance that more than a few people are dissatisfied with the current version. But, of course, no one is fooled. -- Pieremenard
For those who, like me, were accused of being a fake person less than two hours after they first joined the discussion by Tim Lambert, this reading pertains very much to the discussions and accusations here put upon anyone who attempts to post a more balanced article.
http://www.fumento.com/weblog/archives/2005/12/tim_lamberts_ve.html http://www.fumento.com/weblog/archives/2005/12/update_on_ips_a.html
Like I've been saying - the entire effort here by Lott detractors is clearly focused on wrapping people interested in fairness up in endless debate on proving their identities until they finally give up fighting the trolls and leave. Detractors have now been put on notice - it is THEIR legitimacy that also deserves to be questioned here. They do not have any more right to claim to be the "wikipedia community" as a defense for their rejections of attempts at posting a slightly more balanced article. -- Cbaus - December 6, 2005 11:23 a.m. EDST USA
Earlier in this discussion, Hipocrite asserted that the several dominating Lott detractors here do not deserve to be suspected as sockpuppets of Tim Lambert because "Tim Lambert does not have a history of dishonesty." Ahem.
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/ethical_academic/
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/mr_popularity/
Maybe there needs to be a new section on his wiki page to discuss Lambert's own ethical controversies, and every one of you who comes there to try and strike a balance can be accused of being his puppets...-- Cbaus - December 8, 2005 12:20 p.m. EDST USA
Well isn't this interesting. Two hours after my very first post here Lambert edited my profile saying he had "evidence" I was a Lott sockpuppet. And now I'm elevated to random troll. Is this what you consider an apology Tim?
This might give some hope to the many other people who have come here with an honest hope that they could provide more balance to this article, only to have been vilified as socks, had their work erased by one or more domineering people who are obsessed with a man who lives on the other side of the world from him/them. -- Cbaus - December 9, 2005 9:15 p.m. EDST USA
Lambert's behavior as above is entertaining at some level: When I tried to get involved in the 'wikipedia way', every one of my edits was knee-jerk blasted over by Lambert, with an immediate assertion that I am some sort of "sock puppet" for Lott. (Feel free to check the history of Purtilo for details.) While normally I would appreciate being confused for someone of Lott's caliber, I consider it defamation for someone to assert that as a professor at this university don't perform my own research before speaking for myself. And now to find out that Lambert is the one playing this game of which he falsely accuses others? Now that's rich! -- Purtilo - December 20, 2005 4:20 p.m. EDST USA
You people make me sick. I come here as a legitimate contributor, concerned about what was immediately obvious to me is a hack-job designed to hurt John Lott. Within two hours of my arrival, I was accused of not being a real person by Tim Lambert. Any suggestion I make to create a more balanced, encyclopedia-style article is stymied by what is clearly a Lambert cartel who ar enot interested at all in balance or fairness. And when I pointed out that there is as much reason to suspect the members of this cartel of being sockpuppets for Tim Lambert as there is of me not being me, my comments get deleted entirely. What's the matter, folks, medicine a little bit bitter in your own mouth?
Your tactic of bullying people until they leave is well established:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Purtilo&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Stotts&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Cbaus&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sniper1
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Gordinier&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Henry1776&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Serinity&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alt37
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Timewarp&action=history
Look at what a guy named AlLowe wrote last summer about this:
You people are making a mockery of wikipedia.--- Cbaus - December 21, 2005 4:01 p.m. EDST USA
Why can't this article be written from a neutral POV? I've seen somebody use a gun to save lives, and I've seen other case where private citizens with guns prevented crimes (all without firing the gun, Lott's 98%), so my view is probably more pro-gun than some. Lott's methods look good to me, but he does reach the conclusion that agrees with (my) reality, so I might not be looking as hard as most. All of the sock-puppetry claims can be discussed (or not), but they don't serve to show anything wrong with his actual work.If you have points that you disagree on, list them, but leave the POV flag until it's resolved. And don't just claim I'm a "sock puppet" and remove the tag! [unsigned comment by 137.216.209.23]
Lott has used so many sock puppets to push his POV that edits by anons are suspect. It is not clear that anyone other than Lott dislikes this page. 137.216.209.23 only has edits here to her name. If you (137.216.209.23) want to be taken seriously, get an account, demonstrate good faith by making some useful edits, and come back here to the discussion. William M. Connolley 15:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC).
(So new I don't even know how to add my user name, which is cbaus)
I stumbled across this website for the first time a week or so ago via search engine when checking out Ramsey Clark, who had just made news for joining Saddam's defense team.
It took me a while (and a search of a few other controversial names) before I realized what is being represented here as an encyclopedia is really a giant unauthorized biography machine. That's fine, I suppose, but to a casual visitor like me it comes off as very misleading to have a group of partisans trying to record someone's history this way. Maybe that's not what the designers had in mind, but in the case of John Lott, it is certainly what has transpired.
So last night I attempted to change the article on Lott back to one more recent that seemed at least a little bit more balanced (although still focused far too heavily on the controvery over his research, IMO). Having not much time and this being my first time, I decided to make a few small changes to that one, and made my very first post to this website.
Less than an hour later, the article was changed back to the heavily biased one. Less than two hours later, I was accused of not being me! Up to today, I didn't even know what the term "sockpuppet" was referring to, so I started looking around...
I've gone back and read the history, read the discussion on this page, etc. I have a few questions for the gang (mainly Tim Lambert and his other Aussie buddy Danny Yee) who have been dominating any attempts here to make this article the least bit balanced:
1) How do people like you have the time to focus solely on one American academic, and more importantly, why the heck do you care? Are you getting paid to do it or something? Because outside of that, I can't even begin to imagine a motive for your obsession.
2) Is it really so impossible for you to believe that there are people in this world who would care enough to stand up for fairness over this hack job you all have been trying to shove down everyone's throat? Can you seriously believe that every person who speaks up here, perhaps for the very first time, is John Lott using a pseudonym? I mean, if you all are nuts enough to spend this much time hating a man who lives on the other side of the world from you, certainly it would stand to reason that there would be others in the world who would think he is worth speaking out on behalf of.
3) Why has there been no question of how many of the users here are Tim Lambert or Danny Yee sock puppets? It seems awfully suspect that whenever a more balanced article is offered, it usually takes less than an hour before one of the haters to respond. Yet the Lott haters are never swarmed by skeptics, libelously labeled as a sockpuppet, asked to prove their identities, ridiculed as posers, and forced finally to quit the discussion with people who are behaving like a bunch of trolls.
What you (especially the out-of-country) guys seem not to realize is that regardless of your attempts to destroy the reputation of any one person who makes the observation that American crime is going down since more Americans can carry guns for self-defense, or that the American media ignores self-defense stories and plays up nut with a gun stories, we're all over here living it. We don't need someone to make the observation for it to be real.
So let the inevitable firestorm being - accuse me of not being me, ignore the questions and points I make because I'm just a gun nut. In a way, it'll make me happy - while you're doing that you'll have less time to spending trying to ruin someone else in the name of your anti-gun religion.
This article is not about what gun laws should be, or what each one of us thinks of the media. It is about John Lott, and it is about John Lott's research into these topics. Some of us edit this page repeatedly because we think it is important that wikipedia present an accurate, unbiased, assesement of John Lott.
John Lott has repeatedly used socks to make updates to this page. For this reason, accounts like yours - little or no history of wikipedia editorship, seem to be created for the only purpose of reverting this page to a version preferred by Lott and his supporters - are automatically suspect.
You won't win any fans by making wholesale changes to a different version. If you feel this article is not NPOV, make one change, and put the reason for it on the talk page. Once consensus on that item has been achieved, make another change, and so on.-- Pierremenard
I'm really not trying to "win any fans". But why should I have to go back and start from scratch if others have done good work that I agree with?
As I pointed out in my comments earlier, my presence here should be no more suspect that all of those detractors here who seem to be dedicated to something far and way from "an accurrate, unbiased assesment [sic] of John Lott." As I said, I just found this website last week. I was only prompted to get involved when I saw what a job was being done on Lott here. My guess would be that others have done same - only gotten motivated to get involved after seeing the detractors pile on. No one who is truly objective can say that event the reverted it back to is even CLOSE to balanced - it still spends far more time on controversy than on his research. Yet the detractor(s) swarm in to make it even MORE unbalanced less than an hour later. There has been NO effort on their part to create "an accurrate, unbiased assesment [sic] of John Lott", and I find THAT highly suspect. -- Cbaus
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 contrafactual 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. --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. In fact, Lott's 98%/2% figure contradicts the other two surveys over the last twenty years that estimated this rate. 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) 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 the 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? The fact remains that his 98%/2% statement "if national surveys are correct" is false, based even on only the two surveys which you deign to accept. The allegation 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? Switching sides on the debate? 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)
in wikipedia. You are quite right that its not an appropriate thing to put in the article, which is why there has been no attempt to put it there.
first place: I was responding to a claim that Lott is a researcher, therefore the article should talk more about the research than the controversy. I was pointing out that this is a non-starter. -- Pierremenard
contribution to the writing of this article was the correction of spelling mistakes, and reverts of repeated attempts to convert this article into one which is plainly not NPOV.
It is a fact that Lott had written lies under the Mary Rosh pen name (for example, see here; it is a fact that the NAS concluded that Lott's conclusions don't follow from the data; it is a fact that on the 2% problem, as this article states,
"Lott was unable to provide any evidence for his survey. He stated that the data, methodology, and intermediate work and results were all lost in a computer crash; no paper records were kept, the work was done by volunteer students who were recruited personally and paid in cash out of his pocket, so no advertisements, pay records or cancelled checks exist. There are similarly no records of his having claimed any of this as a business expense or of the institutional Committee on Human Experimentation having reviewed the study, as required by law. Lott cannot reconstruct how he generated the sample of telephone numbers to be surveyed or the methodology used to calculate the final results from the raw data (which is particularly unfortunate, given the apparent mathematical impossibility of achieving these results from a sample of that size, as detailed above)."
which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that such a survey was never performed (is it possible for such a survey to be performed and all the records to be lost? all the people who worked on it to vanish?). Anyway, even if Lotts version is true, as this very paragraph concludes, this would mean that Lott broke the law.
In short, after three publicized scandals, can it reasonably be claimed that the debate is on progress? If so, what criterion are you using to make this determination?
Note that it is not enough to say that some people disagree. Wikipedia evolution articles do not include the viewpoint of intelligent design critics and the ones on the solar system do not include the point of flat-earthers. -- Pierremenard
Original Text: (From the section entitled "Criticism") "Some aspects of his model of the causes of violent crime appear counter-intuitive to some; for instance, his model shows a large dependency of the crime rate on the number of middle-aged African-American women, and very little dependency on the number of young African-American men, which goes against well-defined reliable statistics on both perpetrators and victims of violent crime."
Original Text: (Also from the "Criticism" section) "Similarly, critics argue that his model requires that the percentage of crimes in which the criminal is convicted remains constant, no matter what the crime rate, which is not actually the case. If this number is allowed to vary, then the deterrent effect of deregulated concealed carry of weapons does not disappear, but instead becomes unbelievably huge. Most tellingly, when the scale of the deterrent effect is allowed to vary from place to place instead of being a single overall factor, the model shows that deregulation of concealed weapons carrying in Florida was followed by a very large drop in violent crime, but in other locations was followed by only small changes in the crime rate, sometimes an increase and sometimes a decrease. Therefore his critics argue that he has merely shown that the data can be interpreted as suggesting 'More guns, less crime', but that this is by no means the best interpretation, and that some other factors are probably at work specific to Florida in the time period covered."
The remainder of the "Criticism" section (up until the "2% Problem" subsection) seems well-sourced, although IMHO the text could be cleaned up a bit for style/clarity. Now... back to the ole grindstone for my paying job. Dick Clark 19:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2003_01_19_archive.html#87785579
The Lott (John Lott) Controversy Has Been Resolved The 1997 survey on defensive gun use that some people have been saying was a fraud, and never took place? The matter has been resolved. Someone (an attorney) came forward who was surveyed in the right period of time, with the right sort of questions. Professor James Lindgren, who had clearly become very skeptical of Dr. Lott's claims that the survey did happen, and a hard disk crash destroyed all his data, has interviewed the attorney who was surveyed, and Professor Lindgren finds him credible. Best of all, even Tim Lambert, a gun control advocate who has been Dr. Lott's chief inquisitor on this matter, seems to have accepted the validity of this evidence. I've seen the email on this from the attorney in question--a former assistant district attorney who was fired for defending himself from a criminal attack using a gun. (No charges were filed; his employer, I guess, figured it was better for him to be dead than alive.) I am very happy to hear that this is resolved; Dr. Lott and I have been talking almost nightly about this matter for the last week, and I doubt that it has been good for his blood pressure. posted by Clayton at 8:28 AM
I stumbled across the above while looking at one of the sources cited in the article. This seems to render obsolete the claims about possible fabrication by Lott (with regards to the survey in question). TimLambert, what say you? I didn't read your essay for which the above blogger provides a link. Dick Clark 20:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
For those who, like me, were accused of being a fake person less than two hours after they first joined the discussion by Tim Lambert, this reading pertains very much to the discussions and accusations here put upon anyone who attempts to post a more balanced article.
http://www.fumento.com/weblog/archives/2005/12/tim_lamberts_ve.html http://www.fumento.com/weblog/archives/2005/12/update_on_ips_a.html
Like I've been saying - the entire effort here by Lott detractors is clearly focused on wrapping people interested in fairness up in endless debate on proving their identities until they finally give up fighting the trolls and leave. Detractors have now been put on notice - it is THEIR legitimacy that also deserves to be questioned here. They do not have any more right to claim to be the "wikipedia community" as a defense for their rejections of attempts at posting a slightly more balanced article. -- Cbaus - December 6, 2005 11:23 a.m. EDST USA
Earlier in this discussion, Hipocrite asserted that the several dominating Lott detractors here do not deserve to be suspected as sockpuppets of Tim Lambert because "Tim Lambert does not have a history of dishonesty." Ahem.
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/ethical_academic/
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/mr_popularity/
Maybe there needs to be a new section on his wiki page to discuss Lambert's own ethical controversies, and every one of you who comes there to try and strike a balance can be accused of being his puppets...-- Cbaus - December 8, 2005 12:20 p.m. EDST USA
Well isn't this interesting. Two hours after my very first post here Lambert edited my profile saying he had "evidence" I was a Lott sockpuppet. And now I'm elevated to random troll. Is this what you consider an apology Tim?
This might give some hope to the many other people who have come here with an honest hope that they could provide more balance to this article, only to have been vilified as socks, had their work erased by one or more domineering people who are obsessed with a man who lives on the other side of the world from him/them. -- Cbaus - December 9, 2005 9:15 p.m. EDST USA
Lambert's behavior as above is entertaining at some level: When I tried to get involved in the 'wikipedia way', every one of my edits was knee-jerk blasted over by Lambert, with an immediate assertion that I am some sort of "sock puppet" for Lott. (Feel free to check the history of Purtilo for details.) While normally I would appreciate being confused for someone of Lott's caliber, I consider it defamation for someone to assert that as a professor at this university don't perform my own research before speaking for myself. And now to find out that Lambert is the one playing this game of which he falsely accuses others? Now that's rich! -- Purtilo - December 20, 2005 4:20 p.m. EDST USA
You people make me sick. I come here as a legitimate contributor, concerned about what was immediately obvious to me is a hack-job designed to hurt John Lott. Within two hours of my arrival, I was accused of not being a real person by Tim Lambert. Any suggestion I make to create a more balanced, encyclopedia-style article is stymied by what is clearly a Lambert cartel who ar enot interested at all in balance or fairness. And when I pointed out that there is as much reason to suspect the members of this cartel of being sockpuppets for Tim Lambert as there is of me not being me, my comments get deleted entirely. What's the matter, folks, medicine a little bit bitter in your own mouth?
Your tactic of bullying people until they leave is well established:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Purtilo&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Stotts&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Cbaus&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sniper1 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Gordinier&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Henry1776&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Serinity&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alt37 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Timewarp&action=history
Look at what a guy named AlLowe wrote last summer about this:
You people are making a mockery of wikipedia.--- Cbaus - December 21, 2005 4:01 p.m. EDST USA
Since it is clearly noted that Lott believes he did the 2% survey and lost the data, and since everyone seems to agree that this plays "only a minor role in his work and being very possibly just a trivial error of memory" I see no reason to include the below section listing how many times he refers to his 2% survey. OF COURSE he's going to refer to it if he believes he is right.
It has been noted by other firearms rights advocates [http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/files/duncan3.html] that this particular figure never really mattered in the gun law debate until 'Lott made it matter'. In addition to both editions of ''[[More Guns, Less Crime]]'', searches of print and online media have found Lott himself to have referred to this 98% / 2% result at least 25 times, citing various sources. (''Does Allowing Law-Abiding Citizens to Carry Concealed Handguns Save Lives?'', Valparaiso University Law Review, 31(2): 355-63, Spring, 1997; ''Gun-Lock Proposal Bound to Misfire'', Chicago Tribune, August 6, 1998; ''Hardball'', CNBC, August 18, 1999; ''Gun Locks: Bound to Misfire'', online publication of the Independence Institute, Feb. 9, 2000; reply to Otis Duncan's article, The Criminologist, vol. 25, no. 5, September/October 2000, page 6 [http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lottduncan.html]; ''Others Fear Being Placed at the Mercy of Criminals'' Los Angeles Times, March 30, 2001) In addition to both editions of ''[[More Guns, Less Crime]]'', searches of print and online media have found Lott himself to have referred to this 98%/2% result at least 25 times (though many of these are the same publications being republished). (''Does Allowing Law-Abiding Citizens to Carry Concealed Handguns Save Lives?'', Valparaiso University Law Review, 31(2): 355-63, Spring, 1997; ''Gun-Lock Proposal Bound to Misfire'', Chicago Tribune, August 6, 1998; ''Hardball'', CNBC, August 18, 1999; ''Gun Locks: Bound to Misfire'', online publication of the Independence Institute, Feb. 9, 2000; reply to Otis Duncan's article, The Criminologist, vol. 25, no. 5, September/October 2000, page 6; ''Others Fear Being Placed at the Mercy of Criminals'' Los Angeles Times, March 30, 2001)
And just ahead of this, in two separate places, this subject is cited as "minor", and neither is in the context of a reference to an opinion by any one side.
Either your writing is that poor, and no one else has bothered to correct you, or more likely you meant it as it is written - it IS a "minor" issue. If we can all stil agree that it is, then I maintain that is a starting point for determining how much space the "controversy" deserves verses his research/ books/ etc., which ARE what he is principly know for, and which is so poorly under-represented.-- Cbaus - December 7, 2005 5:35 p.m. EDST USA
DickClark wrote "Since it is clearly noted that Lott believes he did the 2% survey and lost the data, and since everyone seems to agree that this plays "only a minor role in his work and being very possibly just a trivial error of memory"
What is the source for your statement that everyone agrees with this? I do not agree with it. If you want to argue that the 2% bit is blown out of proportion in the article, then we can discuss that; but you should not assume agreement here. -- Pierremenard
We must share a "great interest" in research regarding the sociological effects of gun laws, or you wouldn't be here every day making sure that one of the most-well-known researchers who have proven that putting guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens doesn't result in anarchy has a biased article that no one is allowed to try and balance. I notice your interest in holding researchers accountable hasn't brought you to create a John Donohue page to highlight all the problems with his research.
Even your contention that the work was "fabricated" is biased in an of itself. Evidence has been given to support Lott's claim that the work was lost, but it is clear that some of you are so dedicated to the belief that Lott is dishonest that no amount of evidence or testimony from fellow researchers will be enough for you.
All of the recent versions of article from you detractors contain the phrase that the 2% problem plays "only a minor role in his work and being very possibly just a trivial error of memory". If you were capable of being intellectually honest on this subject, you'd have to admit that it is no surprise that a person would continue to quote a study one knows one did, even if he was not able to prove to his detractors' satisfaction that he had done so. Yet your own "great interest" in research regarding the sociological effects of gun laws dictates that you steadfastly refuse to allow the content noted above be removed so that the article remains heavily imbalanced on what a dispute about what plays "only a minor role in his work".
Oh, and no, I am not aware of another researcher on Wiki that has at least one person with such large amounts of time to dedicate to nothing but attempting to question another man's every move in life.--- Cbaus - December 11, 2005 5:34 p.m. EDST USA
I move for striking the phrase that the 2% debacle is " very possibly just a trivial error of memory"
from the article. Reasons: the very paragraph where this phrase is used contradicts it. Lott has cited doing that survey so
many times. And conducting a survey of this type is not something one can forget about: there are lots of people to be hired,
money to be obtained, and phone calls to be made. So unless Lott is insane, I don't see how it can be an error of memory.
It seems to me that DickClark was right in pointing out that this phrase conflicts with the rest of the paragraph in which it
is located. But the
right solution is to remove this phrase, which suggests the impossible, rather than deleting the rest of the paragraph. --
Pierremenard
Never mind - I was basing this comment on an outdated version. I note that the new version merely says that some have suggested this, which sounds just about what a wikipedia article should be saying. -- Pierremenard
Gee, I don't recall the "wiki community" agreeing to this change.
I see how it works with you. I make a valid point about content that you all have had no problem with up to now (that the 2% "problem" plays "only a minor role in his work and being very possibly just a trivial error of memory", and instead of rearranging the article to reflect the truth of the comment, you just delete the comment. And in doing so, provide even more evidence that you are not interested in a balanced article, but in protecting your biased one.--- Cbaus - December 15, 2005 6:04 p.m. EDST USA
So you detractors want me to start at the top and discuss changes. Fine.
Since it is very clear from this discussion page that the neutrality of this article is disputed, can we get the anti-Lott mafia here to at least agree that a header saying same would be more appropriate than the one you all keep posting?-- Cbaus - December 7, 2005 1:12 p.m. EDST USA
So does this mean you're not even willing to allow a neutrality/ dispute message to appear at the top of the article that is otherwise exactly as you want it posted? However can we hope to debate over more substantial issues if you refuse to agree to something as simple and substantiable as that statement? -- Cbaus - December 7, 2005 5:22 p.m. EDST USA
The end all be all of this debate is that anti-gunners can't dispute that while gun ownership has increased in the United States gun crime and gun accidents have decreased so they try to bog us down in the minutia of what might, possibly, maybe turn out to be an oversight in Lott's theories. Gval
Congrats Gval - at least they didn't accuse you of not being you after your very first post.
Gzuckier - you're still dodging the question - are you not willing to allow a neutrality/ dispute message to appear at the top of the article that is otherwise exactly as you want it posted? -- Cbaus - December 9, 2005 5:22 p.m. EDST USA
Gzuckier 22:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
You can be sarcastic to your heart’s content. Fact is, you simply can’t explain how as concealed-carry laws have proliferated gun violence and gun accidents have dropped or how Chicago and Washington D.C. have so much gun violence despite their current condition as a disarmed utopia.
Although your sarcasm is telling, because you didn’t, and can’t, answer my original question - Gval
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Can anyone explain why the following is in the More Guns, Less Crime section?
I think that this rticle would be better if we consolidated the factual information about Lott and his works, and then consolidated the criticism into respective sections. Dick Clark 21:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay, Hip, I am going to have to contest your interpretation of the NPOV as it applies here. You seem to be making the claim that the NPOV discussion of "Undue weight" would require that the criticism of the book be in the book sectiom, rather than the criticism section. I think that this is clearly wrong. The article is about John Lott, and should, in its intitial sections, enlighten the reader as to who Lott is, and, to a certain extent, what his books claim. The criticism section is perfectly suited for objections to Lott's methodolgy, as well as defenses of it. These are ancillary bits compared to the representation of Lott's views as one can see them via his published works. I am not in any way objecting to the criticism of Lott and his works being included in the article. On the contrary, I think that their inclusion is very important. They are just not of primary importance. The reader should be able to read the article and, in this order, discover who Lott is, the positions that he promotes, and then criticisms of his person and body of work. Inserting the criticisms throughout the article, especially when there is an section called "Criticism," only works against overall clarity. Additionally, the style of the Goertzel quote and its lead-in are non-NPOV.
This quote, while perhaps notable (I will take no position on its notability one way or the other), should not be cited as fact, and should certainly not flow directly out of the introductory language of the article itself in such a way as to unflinchingly uphold the view as unchallenged. This criticism is just that, a criticism, and it should be treated thusly. Dick Clark 15:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I cannot agree to the removal of a description as to what AEI is. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I will happily agree to a reasonable change top the description of what Lott does. Timewarp's version is not gramatical.
Hipocrite -
«Talk»
15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I will never agree to a version that has a sentance fragement along the lines of "Many academics who have studied his data."
Hipocrite -
«Talk»
15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I will not agree to include a quote twice in the piece. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
218 stories as opposed to 28 reporters is deceptive. The vast majority of "stories" are word-for-word duplicates of the AP reporters work. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I will not agree to strengthening the NAS conclusions. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I will not agree to the removal of the paragraph on coding errors and systematic sources of bias.
Hipocrite -
«Talk»
15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Timewarp 16:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I will not agree to describing the number of surveys that did not find 98% to be "2 in 20." That is not accurate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I will not agree to the removal of the paragraph on quoting a destroyed poll from memory Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I will not agree to the disortion of the timeline regarding when Lott redid his survey.
Hipocrite -
«Talk»
15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I will not agree to the bulk deletion of Mary Rosh as a section. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Finally, Timewarp, are you John Lott, a relative or employee of his, or in any way related or employed by an interested party to this debate? I am not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Hip, I found your stances on various aspects of the article to be enlightening, and I think it is great that you are itemizing your objections. That is certainly the most civil way to proceed in an article like this that is ripe for revert wars. Nonetheless, I do not see why the last comment above (inquiring as to Timewarp's identity/affiliations) is germane to this editing process. It looks to be an attempt to halt Timewarp's involvement with this page. There is no reason why Timewarp, if he were John Lott, could not assist in the refining of this article. Certainly the subject of an article is not afforded special privilege with regards to such editing, but he or she should not be ostracized for involvement either. So long as Lott didn't create the article himself, his assistance could easily be a valuable addition, rather than detrimental. Dick Clark 19:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
This biffing too and fro isn't getting anywhere. Talk it out. -- Tony Sidaway <;sup>Talk 17:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Of the reporters who did not mention Bridge's story, Maria Glod of the Washington Post cited "space constraints" for not including it. ( The Bias Against Guns , p.26).
The preliminary hearing had the prosecutor using Gross as his witness and confirmed Tracey Bridges’ version of events. [13] The amazing thing was how few news stories even mentioned anything about the students using guns to stop the attack. " Timewarp 16:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
(Whoever is cutting out my responses and editing what is here stop it!) Here is what I asked before that was cut out. Could you tell me where I expanded this one change into another one? (My other question now removed.) Again here are some short responses: Timewarp 8:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
In addition, with only a few exceptions, the studies cited in Chapter 6, including those by Lott’s critics, do not show that the passage of RTC laws drives the crime rates up (as might be the case if one supposed that newly armed people went about looking for someone to shoot). The direct evidence that such shooting sprees occur is nonexistent. Timewarp 8:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Just an FYI, as much as I would love to contribute to this discussion, a serious financial situation has forced me to take drastic measures. For the next 3 to 5 months, I'll be working as armed security in New Orleans during the rebuilding process. I seriously doubt I'll have much time to access this site, as well, I'll be surprised if I have access to the Internet at all. What I ask though, is that you please try to come to some sort of understanding on this matter. Try to cut through the rhetoric and innuendo, and see if we can get the facts published, not just someone's opinion. Assuming nothing bad happens to me, I should be back in 3-5 months. I would really like to see some changes here for the better.
Al Lowe
22:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Do not include anything but things in the following format in this new section:
Old Passage:
Biased, POV old stuff
New Passage:
Unbiased, NPOV new stuff
Comments
This is a good change. Hipocrite - «Talk»
Old Passage:
New Passage:
Comments:
The following is not to be considered a complete list by me, I haven't even considered the media bias section, this is just stuff that jumped out at me instantly
"Before the controversy arose, Lott had repeated his survey for a book that he had written in 2002" (changed from "Lott resolved to settle the matter by repeating his survey in 2002 before the publication of his most recent book")
"In fact, Lott's 98%/2% figure contradicts the other two surveys over the last twenty years that estimated this rate." (changed from "contradicts all other published studies of the question")
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 |
(lambert's work from years ago, again [16])
"the body of work reviewed by the NAS demonstrates that deregulation of concealed carry does not lead to an increase in violent crime" (changed from "a large increase").
Deleted "Even if Lott actually did the survey, used a novel (or even mistaken) mathematical method to generate the results he quotes, and is the victim of the worst luck ever in losing all records of it, even his colleagues who oppose gun control consider it extremely unprofessional to continue to quote from memory a result for which the raw data are no longer available and the methodology is no longer remembered, particularly when that result is wildly at variance with every other study of the same subject, appears to be mathematically impossible from the design of the survey, and very well could be an error. Nevertheless, the 2% figure for the percentage of defensive gun uses which involve firing the gun has been adopted by the many firearms rights supporters and has become a fixture in their canon of argument, including continuing references by Lott himself.", despite its being a relevant statement of fact supported by a link.
"Besides statements by someone who took the survey and contemporaneous statements by others," unsupported assertion, contradicts all known sources.
Deleted "generally considered to be a right-wing think tank." which is both true and relevant.
Deleted "Why should Lott bother responding to a nothing like Lambert who isn't in the area and who isn't particularly honest? I don't even know why he responded to him once. In any case, if Lambert really cared about the truth he would acknowledge that Lott has dealt extensively with this discussion in his book. All I have done here is parrot what Lott wrote." - In fact, while Lott was posting as Rosh, he would normally decline requests to engage in such Usenet discussions of his work under his own name, stating: - :"I have not participated in the firearms discussion group nor in the apparent online newsgroup discussions" - on the grounds that he was attracting hostile reaction which upset his wife. Yet, despite this statement, the Usenet archives at Google show that Lott did continue to post occasionally under his own name from the various email addresses of the different institutions where he worked throughout the entire period when he was posting as "Mary Rosh", without apparent worry about attracting hostile attention, but avoiding the detailed professional discussions of his work that he left to Rosh. Furthermore, among the replies to these posts, there is no evidence of any hostility to Lott, at least publicly." which is relevant to the section, factual, and supported by citations.
Deleted "Lott's op-eds and other popular works have been found to contain some errors of fact. Lott has tended to blame faulty editing on the part of the media, though the errors are subsequently repeated elsewhere." though supported by the following, which he/she/it also deleted.
Deleted "At one point, Rosh engaged in a lengthy discussion of errors of fact in a newspaper op-ed piece Lott had written (regarding the disarming of the shooter in the school shooting mentioned above), which when corrected would have reduced support for Lott's slogan of "More guns. less crime". After Rosh was finally forced to admit that the original piece did indeed omit some important facts, Lott then published a corrected version in a different newspaper, which Rosh then cited as evidence that the errors in the original piece must have been due to bad editing by the newspaper, rather than Lott's fault. To prove her case, Rosh suggested that her opponent telephone Lott to discuss it; he did so, and, despite Rosh having been discussing it online for over a week, Lott claimed no knowledge of the controversy, and even not to have seen how the original newspaper had edited his work, implying that it was indeed the editors' fault, and that he had not in fact made an error then subsequently corrected it. Two months later, however, Lott published another article on the same subject, again omitting the same crucial facts which would have disproved his position, clearly demonstrating that not only was it not bad editing that was the source of the errors in the first place, but that Lott was willing to knowingly repeat the error to add false support to his argument, using Rosh to give himself the appearance of a "plausible deniability"." which is factual, supported by citations, and supports the above.
Deleted entire section regarding Mary Rosh: "Use of an anonymous posting identity can also be abused to make it appear that there is independent confirmation of one's views, or praise and approval from third parties. In fact, Rosh claimed to be one of Lott's former students, and had many good things to say about him; for instance his teaching style: - :"I had him for a PhD level empirical methods class when he taught at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania back in the early 1990s, well before he gained national attention, and I have to say that he was the best professor that I ever had. You wouldn't know that he was a 'right-wing' ideologue from the class. He argued both sides of different issues. He tore apart empirical work whether you thought that it might be right-wing or left-wing. At least at Wharton for graduate school or Stanford for undergraduate, Lott taught me more about analysis than any other professor that I had and I was not alone. There were a group of us students who would try to take any class that he taught. Lott finally had to tell us that it was best for us to try and take classes from other professors more to be exposed to other ways of teaching graduate material." - While this statement would be considered amusing ego-boost were it posted about oneself, posting it under an assumed name attempts to give it some credibility, while the revelation that it was posted about oneself anonymously makes it appear ludicrously self-serving. Similarly, the Rosh identity was also used to post several five star reviews of his books on Amazon.com, in violation of Amazon.com's clear policy, and at Barnes and Noble.com, as well as bad reviews of books by his rivals; Lott states that his son and wife wrote them. Rosh also urged people to download copies of Lott's papers: - :"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) - Again, this would be amusing if one posted it about one's own work, but trying to push one's own work under an assumed name is considered academically unethical and unprofessional. - Lott's critics maintain that the whole 'Mary Rosh' incident, together with the questions about his unsupported survey, call into question Lott's trustworthiness, and therefore cast doubt on his entire body of work, even where no evidence of deception is found. His defenders reject such claims as ad hominem attacks, and point out that in Lott's main body of work, where all the data, reasoning, and mathematical analysis are quite properly completely presented, there is no apparent room for dissembling, as proved by the fact that others have indeed reworked the same data to come to different conclusions and identified where Lott had made errors (as described above). "
Good try moving the ball and pretending like the earlier discussions never took place.
Timewarp
22:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
TL claimed that 66.93.100.155, Alt37 and Timewarp are all sockpuppets belonging to Lott. This seems quite plausible: Lotts use of scokpuppets elsewhere is documented. But Timewarp then muddied the waters with Kindly provide ANY real evidence that Alt37, Watchdog, 66.93.100.155, 66.190.73.64, 128.239.177.196, Al Lowe, or 206.165.74.6 are sockpuppets. Is TW proposing that Al Lowe is a sockpuppet? Who is Watchdog? William M. Connolley 12:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC).
Alt37 claims there are unanswered questions here... for someone with so few edits, all reverts here (apart from the POV tag), she appears very sure of things. And is pretty obviously someones sockpuppet. Err, and which way is she reverting? Seems fairly clear. William M. Connolley 18:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC).
Also: I now see that Alt37 added the POV tag. Socks shouldn't do that. I'm not sure who wants it, so I'm removing it. Then we can see who does want it. William M. Connolley 18:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC).
Alt37 only has edits to this page. His very first edit was to add a POV header. This is sock behaviour.
William M. Connolley
09:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC).
I am but the sockpuppet of The Lord. Gzuckier 15:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I make that Timewarps 4th rv (or 5th...?). Anyway, I'm off to report him. Ah... TL has beat me to it. Jolly good. William M. Connolley 12:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC).
Repeatin things over and over despite evidence that would lead most people to not be repeating it, at least without some changes..... Gzuckier 15:19, 28 October 2005 (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)
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.
-- 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.
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 |
This is apparently difficult for many to understand:
Articles should be written without bias, representing all views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy. The policy is easily misunderstood: It doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct. Crucially, a great merit of Wikipedia is that Wikipedians work together to make articles unbiased.
As Al Lowe noted above: "The article on John Lott clearly fails the NPOV test." Lambert, Pierremenard, and Connolley seem determined to remove any warning that there are disagreements. Without defending the version that they insist on putting up, [27] [28] [29] [30] it is bizarre that they won't even recognize that people disagree with them. It is enough that Lambert has been repeatedly caught creatively editing evidence to create false impressions. [31] [32] Timewarp 12:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
-- TimLambert 06:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
AnoPseudonymous editing is perfectly acceptable here on WP. The claim that Timewarp and Alt37 are operated by the same person is the claim you should be pursuing, if you want your allegation to be investigated. ---
Charles Stewart
17:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
There have been a variety of new accounts used to revert the page to Timewarp's favoured version. All of these accounts have basically just been used to revert the page, so are mostly likely the same person as Timewarp. I'm listing them here for convenience:
Purtilo,
Sniper1,
Serinity,
Henry1776 --
TimLambert
11:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, this is getting ridiculous. More sock accounts: Stotts Gordinier -- TimLambert 02:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I can't prove that any of these accounts that keep reverting the page belong to John Lott. One thing is clear: there is a SINGLE person who keeps creating accounts whose entire contribution to wikipedia is the reversion of this page to a pro-Lott version. This seems to be done in order to create the appearance that more than a few people are dissatisfied with the current version. But, of course, no one is fooled. -- Pieremenard
For those who, like me, were accused of being a fake person less than two hours after they first joined the discussion by Tim Lambert, this reading pertains very much to the discussions and accusations here put upon anyone who attempts to post a more balanced article.
http://www.fumento.com/weblog/archives/2005/12/tim_lamberts_ve.html http://www.fumento.com/weblog/archives/2005/12/update_on_ips_a.html
Like I've been saying - the entire effort here by Lott detractors is clearly focused on wrapping people interested in fairness up in endless debate on proving their identities until they finally give up fighting the trolls and leave. Detractors have now been put on notice - it is THEIR legitimacy that also deserves to be questioned here. They do not have any more right to claim to be the "wikipedia community" as a defense for their rejections of attempts at posting a slightly more balanced article. -- Cbaus - December 6, 2005 11:23 a.m. EDST USA
Earlier in this discussion, Hipocrite asserted that the several dominating Lott detractors here do not deserve to be suspected as sockpuppets of Tim Lambert because "Tim Lambert does not have a history of dishonesty." Ahem.
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/ethical_academic/
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/mr_popularity/
Maybe there needs to be a new section on his wiki page to discuss Lambert's own ethical controversies, and every one of you who comes there to try and strike a balance can be accused of being his puppets...-- Cbaus - December 8, 2005 12:20 p.m. EDST USA
Well isn't this interesting. Two hours after my very first post here Lambert edited my profile saying he had "evidence" I was a Lott sockpuppet. And now I'm elevated to random troll. Is this what you consider an apology Tim?
This might give some hope to the many other people who have come here with an honest hope that they could provide more balance to this article, only to have been vilified as socks, had their work erased by one or more domineering people who are obsessed with a man who lives on the other side of the world from him/them. -- Cbaus - December 9, 2005 9:15 p.m. EDST USA
Lambert's behavior as above is entertaining at some level: When I tried to get involved in the 'wikipedia way', every one of my edits was knee-jerk blasted over by Lambert, with an immediate assertion that I am some sort of "sock puppet" for Lott. (Feel free to check the history of Purtilo for details.) While normally I would appreciate being confused for someone of Lott's caliber, I consider it defamation for someone to assert that as a professor at this university don't perform my own research before speaking for myself. And now to find out that Lambert is the one playing this game of which he falsely accuses others? Now that's rich! -- Purtilo - December 20, 2005 4:20 p.m. EDST USA
You people make me sick. I come here as a legitimate contributor, concerned about what was immediately obvious to me is a hack-job designed to hurt John Lott. Within two hours of my arrival, I was accused of not being a real person by Tim Lambert. Any suggestion I make to create a more balanced, encyclopedia-style article is stymied by what is clearly a Lambert cartel who ar enot interested at all in balance or fairness. And when I pointed out that there is as much reason to suspect the members of this cartel of being sockpuppets for Tim Lambert as there is of me not being me, my comments get deleted entirely. What's the matter, folks, medicine a little bit bitter in your own mouth?
Your tactic of bullying people until they leave is well established:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Purtilo&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Stotts&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Cbaus&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sniper1
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Gordinier&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Henry1776&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Serinity&action=history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alt37
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Timewarp&action=history
Look at what a guy named AlLowe wrote last summer about this:
You people are making a mockery of wikipedia.--- Cbaus - December 21, 2005 4:01 p.m. EDST USA
Why can't this article be written from a neutral POV? I've seen somebody use a gun to save lives, and I've seen other case where private citizens with guns prevented crimes (all without firing the gun, Lott's 98%), so my view is probably more pro-gun than some. Lott's methods look good to me, but he does reach the conclusion that agrees with (my) reality, so I might not be looking as hard as most. All of the sock-puppetry claims can be discussed (or not), but they don't serve to show anything wrong with his actual work.If you have points that you disagree on, list them, but leave the POV flag until it's resolved. And don't just claim I'm a "sock puppet" and remove the tag! [unsigned comment by 137.216.209.23]
Lott has used so many sock puppets to push his POV that edits by anons are suspect. It is not clear that anyone other than Lott dislikes this page. 137.216.209.23 only has edits here to her name. If you (137.216.209.23) want to be taken seriously, get an account, demonstrate good faith by making some useful edits, and come back here to the discussion. William M. Connolley 15:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC).
(So new I don't even know how to add my user name, which is cbaus)
I stumbled across this website for the first time a week or so ago via search engine when checking out Ramsey Clark, who had just made news for joining Saddam's defense team.
It took me a while (and a search of a few other controversial names) before I realized what is being represented here as an encyclopedia is really a giant unauthorized biography machine. That's fine, I suppose, but to a casual visitor like me it comes off as very misleading to have a group of partisans trying to record someone's history this way. Maybe that's not what the designers had in mind, but in the case of John Lott, it is certainly what has transpired.
So last night I attempted to change the article on Lott back to one more recent that seemed at least a little bit more balanced (although still focused far too heavily on the controvery over his research, IMO). Having not much time and this being my first time, I decided to make a few small changes to that one, and made my very first post to this website.
Less than an hour later, the article was changed back to the heavily biased one. Less than two hours later, I was accused of not being me! Up to today, I didn't even know what the term "sockpuppet" was referring to, so I started looking around...
I've gone back and read the history, read the discussion on this page, etc. I have a few questions for the gang (mainly Tim Lambert and his other Aussie buddy Danny Yee) who have been dominating any attempts here to make this article the least bit balanced:
1) How do people like you have the time to focus solely on one American academic, and more importantly, why the heck do you care? Are you getting paid to do it or something? Because outside of that, I can't even begin to imagine a motive for your obsession.
2) Is it really so impossible for you to believe that there are people in this world who would care enough to stand up for fairness over this hack job you all have been trying to shove down everyone's throat? Can you seriously believe that every person who speaks up here, perhaps for the very first time, is John Lott using a pseudonym? I mean, if you all are nuts enough to spend this much time hating a man who lives on the other side of the world from you, certainly it would stand to reason that there would be others in the world who would think he is worth speaking out on behalf of.
3) Why has there been no question of how many of the users here are Tim Lambert or Danny Yee sock puppets? It seems awfully suspect that whenever a more balanced article is offered, it usually takes less than an hour before one of the haters to respond. Yet the Lott haters are never swarmed by skeptics, libelously labeled as a sockpuppet, asked to prove their identities, ridiculed as posers, and forced finally to quit the discussion with people who are behaving like a bunch of trolls.
What you (especially the out-of-country) guys seem not to realize is that regardless of your attempts to destroy the reputation of any one person who makes the observation that American crime is going down since more Americans can carry guns for self-defense, or that the American media ignores self-defense stories and plays up nut with a gun stories, we're all over here living it. We don't need someone to make the observation for it to be real.
So let the inevitable firestorm being - accuse me of not being me, ignore the questions and points I make because I'm just a gun nut. In a way, it'll make me happy - while you're doing that you'll have less time to spending trying to ruin someone else in the name of your anti-gun religion.
This article is not about what gun laws should be, or what each one of us thinks of the media. It is about John Lott, and it is about John Lott's research into these topics. Some of us edit this page repeatedly because we think it is important that wikipedia present an accurate, unbiased, assesement of John Lott.
John Lott has repeatedly used socks to make updates to this page. For this reason, accounts like yours - little or no history of wikipedia editorship, seem to be created for the only purpose of reverting this page to a version preferred by Lott and his supporters - are automatically suspect.
You won't win any fans by making wholesale changes to a different version. If you feel this article is not NPOV, make one change, and put the reason for it on the talk page. Once consensus on that item has been achieved, make another change, and so on.-- Pierremenard
I'm really not trying to "win any fans". But why should I have to go back and start from scratch if others have done good work that I agree with?
As I pointed out in my comments earlier, my presence here should be no more suspect that all of those detractors here who seem to be dedicated to something far and way from "an accurrate, unbiased assesment [sic] of John Lott." As I said, I just found this website last week. I was only prompted to get involved when I saw what a job was being done on Lott here. My guess would be that others have done same - only gotten motivated to get involved after seeing the detractors pile on. No one who is truly objective can say that event the reverted it back to is even CLOSE to balanced - it still spends far more time on controversy than on his research. Yet the detractor(s) swarm in to make it even MORE unbalanced less than an hour later. There has been NO effort on their part to create "an accurrate, unbiased assesment [sic] of John Lott", and I find THAT highly suspect. -- Cbaus
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 contrafactual 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. --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. In fact, Lott's 98%/2% figure contradicts the other two surveys over the last twenty years that estimated this rate. 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) 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 the 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? The fact remains that his 98%/2% statement "if national surveys are correct" is false, based even on only the two surveys which you deign to accept. The allegation 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? Switching sides on the debate? 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)
in wikipedia. You are quite right that its not an appropriate thing to put in the article, which is why there has been no attempt to put it there.
first place: I was responding to a claim that Lott is a researcher, therefore the article should talk more about the research than the controversy. I was pointing out that this is a non-starter. -- Pierremenard
contribution to the writing of this article was the correction of spelling mistakes, and reverts of repeated attempts to convert this article into one which is plainly not NPOV.
It is a fact that Lott had written lies under the Mary Rosh pen name (for example, see here; it is a fact that the NAS concluded that Lott's conclusions don't follow from the data; it is a fact that on the 2% problem, as this article states,
"Lott was unable to provide any evidence for his survey. He stated that the data, methodology, and intermediate work and results were all lost in a computer crash; no paper records were kept, the work was done by volunteer students who were recruited personally and paid in cash out of his pocket, so no advertisements, pay records or cancelled checks exist. There are similarly no records of his having claimed any of this as a business expense or of the institutional Committee on Human Experimentation having reviewed the study, as required by law. Lott cannot reconstruct how he generated the sample of telephone numbers to be surveyed or the methodology used to calculate the final results from the raw data (which is particularly unfortunate, given the apparent mathematical impossibility of achieving these results from a sample of that size, as detailed above)."
which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that such a survey was never performed (is it possible for such a survey to be performed and all the records to be lost? all the people who worked on it to vanish?). Anyway, even if Lotts version is true, as this very paragraph concludes, this would mean that Lott broke the law.
In short, after three publicized scandals, can it reasonably be claimed that the debate is on progress? If so, what criterion are you using to make this determination?
Note that it is not enough to say that some people disagree. Wikipedia evolution articles do not include the viewpoint of intelligent design critics and the ones on the solar system do not include the point of flat-earthers. -- Pierremenard
Original Text: (From the section entitled "Criticism") "Some aspects of his model of the causes of violent crime appear counter-intuitive to some; for instance, his model shows a large dependency of the crime rate on the number of middle-aged African-American women, and very little dependency on the number of young African-American men, which goes against well-defined reliable statistics on both perpetrators and victims of violent crime."
Original Text: (Also from the "Criticism" section) "Similarly, critics argue that his model requires that the percentage of crimes in which the criminal is convicted remains constant, no matter what the crime rate, which is not actually the case. If this number is allowed to vary, then the deterrent effect of deregulated concealed carry of weapons does not disappear, but instead becomes unbelievably huge. Most tellingly, when the scale of the deterrent effect is allowed to vary from place to place instead of being a single overall factor, the model shows that deregulation of concealed weapons carrying in Florida was followed by a very large drop in violent crime, but in other locations was followed by only small changes in the crime rate, sometimes an increase and sometimes a decrease. Therefore his critics argue that he has merely shown that the data can be interpreted as suggesting 'More guns, less crime', but that this is by no means the best interpretation, and that some other factors are probably at work specific to Florida in the time period covered."
The remainder of the "Criticism" section (up until the "2% Problem" subsection) seems well-sourced, although IMHO the text could be cleaned up a bit for style/clarity. Now... back to the ole grindstone for my paying job. Dick Clark 19:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2003_01_19_archive.html#87785579
The Lott (John Lott) Controversy Has Been Resolved The 1997 survey on defensive gun use that some people have been saying was a fraud, and never took place? The matter has been resolved. Someone (an attorney) came forward who was surveyed in the right period of time, with the right sort of questions. Professor James Lindgren, who had clearly become very skeptical of Dr. Lott's claims that the survey did happen, and a hard disk crash destroyed all his data, has interviewed the attorney who was surveyed, and Professor Lindgren finds him credible. Best of all, even Tim Lambert, a gun control advocate who has been Dr. Lott's chief inquisitor on this matter, seems to have accepted the validity of this evidence. I've seen the email on this from the attorney in question--a former assistant district attorney who was fired for defending himself from a criminal attack using a gun. (No charges were filed; his employer, I guess, figured it was better for him to be dead than alive.) I am very happy to hear that this is resolved; Dr. Lott and I have been talking almost nightly about this matter for the last week, and I doubt that it has been good for his blood pressure. posted by Clayton at 8:28 AM
I stumbled across the above while looking at one of the sources cited in the article. This seems to render obsolete the claims about possible fabrication by Lott (with regards to the survey in question). TimLambert, what say you? I didn't read your essay for which the above blogger provides a link. Dick Clark 20:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
For those who, like me, were accused of being a fake person less than two hours after they first joined the discussion by Tim Lambert, this reading pertains very much to the discussions and accusations here put upon anyone who attempts to post a more balanced article.
http://www.fumento.com/weblog/archives/2005/12/tim_lamberts_ve.html http://www.fumento.com/weblog/archives/2005/12/update_on_ips_a.html
Like I've been saying - the entire effort here by Lott detractors is clearly focused on wrapping people interested in fairness up in endless debate on proving their identities until they finally give up fighting the trolls and leave. Detractors have now been put on notice - it is THEIR legitimacy that also deserves to be questioned here. They do not have any more right to claim to be the "wikipedia community" as a defense for their rejections of attempts at posting a slightly more balanced article. -- Cbaus - December 6, 2005 11:23 a.m. EDST USA
Earlier in this discussion, Hipocrite asserted that the several dominating Lott detractors here do not deserve to be suspected as sockpuppets of Tim Lambert because "Tim Lambert does not have a history of dishonesty." Ahem.
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/ethical_academic/
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/mr_popularity/
Maybe there needs to be a new section on his wiki page to discuss Lambert's own ethical controversies, and every one of you who comes there to try and strike a balance can be accused of being his puppets...-- Cbaus - December 8, 2005 12:20 p.m. EDST USA
Well isn't this interesting. Two hours after my very first post here Lambert edited my profile saying he had "evidence" I was a Lott sockpuppet. And now I'm elevated to random troll. Is this what you consider an apology Tim?
This might give some hope to the many other people who have come here with an honest hope that they could provide more balance to this article, only to have been vilified as socks, had their work erased by one or more domineering people who are obsessed with a man who lives on the other side of the world from him/them. -- Cbaus - December 9, 2005 9:15 p.m. EDST USA
Lambert's behavior as above is entertaining at some level: When I tried to get involved in the 'wikipedia way', every one of my edits was knee-jerk blasted over by Lambert, with an immediate assertion that I am some sort of "sock puppet" for Lott. (Feel free to check the history of Purtilo for details.) While normally I would appreciate being confused for someone of Lott's caliber, I consider it defamation for someone to assert that as a professor at this university don't perform my own research before speaking for myself. And now to find out that Lambert is the one playing this game of which he falsely accuses others? Now that's rich! -- Purtilo - December 20, 2005 4:20 p.m. EDST USA
You people make me sick. I come here as a legitimate contributor, concerned about what was immediately obvious to me is a hack-job designed to hurt John Lott. Within two hours of my arrival, I was accused of not being a real person by Tim Lambert. Any suggestion I make to create a more balanced, encyclopedia-style article is stymied by what is clearly a Lambert cartel who ar enot interested at all in balance or fairness. And when I pointed out that there is as much reason to suspect the members of this cartel of being sockpuppets for Tim Lambert as there is of me not being me, my comments get deleted entirely. What's the matter, folks, medicine a little bit bitter in your own mouth?
Your tactic of bullying people until they leave is well established:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Purtilo&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Stotts&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Cbaus&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sniper1 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Gordinier&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Henry1776&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Serinity&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alt37 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Timewarp&action=history
Look at what a guy named AlLowe wrote last summer about this:
You people are making a mockery of wikipedia.--- Cbaus - December 21, 2005 4:01 p.m. EDST USA
Since it is clearly noted that Lott believes he did the 2% survey and lost the data, and since everyone seems to agree that this plays "only a minor role in his work and being very possibly just a trivial error of memory" I see no reason to include the below section listing how many times he refers to his 2% survey. OF COURSE he's going to refer to it if he believes he is right.
It has been noted by other firearms rights advocates [http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/files/duncan3.html] that this particular figure never really mattered in the gun law debate until 'Lott made it matter'. In addition to both editions of ''[[More Guns, Less Crime]]'', searches of print and online media have found Lott himself to have referred to this 98% / 2% result at least 25 times, citing various sources. (''Does Allowing Law-Abiding Citizens to Carry Concealed Handguns Save Lives?'', Valparaiso University Law Review, 31(2): 355-63, Spring, 1997; ''Gun-Lock Proposal Bound to Misfire'', Chicago Tribune, August 6, 1998; ''Hardball'', CNBC, August 18, 1999; ''Gun Locks: Bound to Misfire'', online publication of the Independence Institute, Feb. 9, 2000; reply to Otis Duncan's article, The Criminologist, vol. 25, no. 5, September/October 2000, page 6 [http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lottduncan.html]; ''Others Fear Being Placed at the Mercy of Criminals'' Los Angeles Times, March 30, 2001) In addition to both editions of ''[[More Guns, Less Crime]]'', searches of print and online media have found Lott himself to have referred to this 98%/2% result at least 25 times (though many of these are the same publications being republished). (''Does Allowing Law-Abiding Citizens to Carry Concealed Handguns Save Lives?'', Valparaiso University Law Review, 31(2): 355-63, Spring, 1997; ''Gun-Lock Proposal Bound to Misfire'', Chicago Tribune, August 6, 1998; ''Hardball'', CNBC, August 18, 1999; ''Gun Locks: Bound to Misfire'', online publication of the Independence Institute, Feb. 9, 2000; reply to Otis Duncan's article, The Criminologist, vol. 25, no. 5, September/October 2000, page 6; ''Others Fear Being Placed at the Mercy of Criminals'' Los Angeles Times, March 30, 2001)
And just ahead of this, in two separate places, this subject is cited as "minor", and neither is in the context of a reference to an opinion by any one side.
Either your writing is that poor, and no one else has bothered to correct you, or more likely you meant it as it is written - it IS a "minor" issue. If we can all stil agree that it is, then I maintain that is a starting point for determining how much space the "controversy" deserves verses his research/ books/ etc., which ARE what he is principly know for, and which is so poorly under-represented.-- Cbaus - December 7, 2005 5:35 p.m. EDST USA
DickClark wrote "Since it is clearly noted that Lott believes he did the 2% survey and lost the data, and since everyone seems to agree that this plays "only a minor role in his work and being very possibly just a trivial error of memory"
What is the source for your statement that everyone agrees with this? I do not agree with it. If you want to argue that the 2% bit is blown out of proportion in the article, then we can discuss that; but you should not assume agreement here. -- Pierremenard
We must share a "great interest" in research regarding the sociological effects of gun laws, or you wouldn't be here every day making sure that one of the most-well-known researchers who have proven that putting guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens doesn't result in anarchy has a biased article that no one is allowed to try and balance. I notice your interest in holding researchers accountable hasn't brought you to create a John Donohue page to highlight all the problems with his research.
Even your contention that the work was "fabricated" is biased in an of itself. Evidence has been given to support Lott's claim that the work was lost, but it is clear that some of you are so dedicated to the belief that Lott is dishonest that no amount of evidence or testimony from fellow researchers will be enough for you.
All of the recent versions of article from you detractors contain the phrase that the 2% problem plays "only a minor role in his work and being very possibly just a trivial error of memory". If you were capable of being intellectually honest on this subject, you'd have to admit that it is no surprise that a person would continue to quote a study one knows one did, even if he was not able to prove to his detractors' satisfaction that he had done so. Yet your own "great interest" in research regarding the sociological effects of gun laws dictates that you steadfastly refuse to allow the content noted above be removed so that the article remains heavily imbalanced on what a dispute about what plays "only a minor role in his work".
Oh, and no, I am not aware of another researcher on Wiki that has at least one person with such large amounts of time to dedicate to nothing but attempting to question another man's every move in life.--- Cbaus - December 11, 2005 5:34 p.m. EDST USA
I move for striking the phrase that the 2% debacle is " very possibly just a trivial error of memory"
from the article. Reasons: the very paragraph where this phrase is used contradicts it. Lott has cited doing that survey so
many times. And conducting a survey of this type is not something one can forget about: there are lots of people to be hired,
money to be obtained, and phone calls to be made. So unless Lott is insane, I don't see how it can be an error of memory.
It seems to me that DickClark was right in pointing out that this phrase conflicts with the rest of the paragraph in which it
is located. But the
right solution is to remove this phrase, which suggests the impossible, rather than deleting the rest of the paragraph. --
Pierremenard
Never mind - I was basing this comment on an outdated version. I note that the new version merely says that some have suggested this, which sounds just about what a wikipedia article should be saying. -- Pierremenard
Gee, I don't recall the "wiki community" agreeing to this change.
I see how it works with you. I make a valid point about content that you all have had no problem with up to now (that the 2% "problem" plays "only a minor role in his work and being very possibly just a trivial error of memory", and instead of rearranging the article to reflect the truth of the comment, you just delete the comment. And in doing so, provide even more evidence that you are not interested in a balanced article, but in protecting your biased one.--- Cbaus - December 15, 2005 6:04 p.m. EDST USA
So you detractors want me to start at the top and discuss changes. Fine.
Since it is very clear from this discussion page that the neutrality of this article is disputed, can we get the anti-Lott mafia here to at least agree that a header saying same would be more appropriate than the one you all keep posting?-- Cbaus - December 7, 2005 1:12 p.m. EDST USA
So does this mean you're not even willing to allow a neutrality/ dispute message to appear at the top of the article that is otherwise exactly as you want it posted? However can we hope to debate over more substantial issues if you refuse to agree to something as simple and substantiable as that statement? -- Cbaus - December 7, 2005 5:22 p.m. EDST USA
The end all be all of this debate is that anti-gunners can't dispute that while gun ownership has increased in the United States gun crime and gun accidents have decreased so they try to bog us down in the minutia of what might, possibly, maybe turn out to be an oversight in Lott's theories. Gval
Congrats Gval - at least they didn't accuse you of not being you after your very first post.
Gzuckier - you're still dodging the question - are you not willing to allow a neutrality/ dispute message to appear at the top of the article that is otherwise exactly as you want it posted? -- Cbaus - December 9, 2005 5:22 p.m. EDST USA
Gzuckier 22:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
You can be sarcastic to your heart’s content. Fact is, you simply can’t explain how as concealed-carry laws have proliferated gun violence and gun accidents have dropped or how Chicago and Washington D.C. have so much gun violence despite their current condition as a disarmed utopia.
Although your sarcasm is telling, because you didn’t, and can’t, answer my original question - Gval