ings on crime rate notably abortion though I doubt hes say he was the first I could go through his papers and the refrences which Ill get crackalacking on now   Speaking of Milton Friedman he had the following to say about John Lott This sophisticated analysis yields a well established conclusion that supports the wisdom of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution rather than of those who would limit the right of lawabiding citizens to own and carry guns    Lott has done us all a service by his thorough thoughtful scholarly approach to a highly controversial issue  My opinion Ok Hipocrite what you revised is NOT neutral Lott supporters believe that this shows Lott has added significantly to our understanding of the causes of crime while his detractors allege that the substandard quality of his data and analysis have clouded what is already a cloudy picture This is so biased its not even funny  If I were John Lott Id just erase the whole page and ask Wikipedia to not let it be put back on  And if they didnt Id create webpages all over proclaiming how biased this article is against him  How his detractors consistently delete anything positive and praise all the negative and just do not maintain any semblance of NPOV  If I were John Lott that is  From my perspective the ONLY way to return this to NPOV status is to list his date and place of birth his education and where hes worked the books hes written perhaps his op eds  List his site and an equal number of pro and con sites  without any commentary pro or con  Any thing else should be in the discussion page and not on the article its self  But thats just my opinion   Why not work with us above to help us make the page better rather than taking toys and heading home Lotts conduct was embarassing and thats why the page is embarassing  because its accurate The sentace you dislike sucks I know but its better than the old sentance which I wanted out Im trying to find middle ground with you  a person who I am growing to believe is using wikipedia as a soapbox That you think that wikipedia on John Lott should be a repository of links on John Lott is telling    Actually its already a repository of links mostly on sites that are heavily critical of him  My suggestion was that we at least BALANCE the links  Or better yet delete all the opinion links and be done with it    Not a soapbox but accurate in whos opinion  In any event lets take the last edit  Lott supporters believe that this shows Lott has added significantly to our understanding of the causes of crime while his detractors allege that the substandard quality of his data and analysis have clouded what is already a cloudy picture  If we really want this to be NPOV it should read something like this Some people believe that Lotts work this field is ground breaking and that it has added significantly to our understanding of the causes of crime  On the other hand some people believe that his work is shoddy and substandard in quality  That his data and analysis have clouded an already cloudy picture  I think the stuff about supporters and detractorscritics should be left out as some of his critics actually do think his work is ground breaking  Also by replacing supporters and detractors with some people makes it more NPOV in my opinion    Aside from the fragment in your description thats reasonable but now Ill have to ask for evidence that anyone knowledgable believes that Lotts work is groundbreaking I believe that the entire paragraph is groundless excess now that I understand what hes done thats groundbreaking is apply economics to crime which Gary Becker was awarded a Nobel for long before Lott started  Dont you mean that Gary Becker was awarded Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel which if I read correctly is not a Nobel prize  Regardless is there anyone knowledgable who thinks his work ISNT ground breaking  See youre gotchya at the top would be great if the article you linked to didnt contain the phrase commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics This is a wonderful example of your standards of scholarship  weak and designed to win rather than discove