Talk:John Lott/Archive 2

message: This biffing too and fro isn't getting anywhere.  Talk it out. --Tony Sidaway<;sup>Talk</sup> 17:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You see? If one of the debaters had a gun, this could all be settled easily. Gzuckier 16:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Despite Lambert's question here and Hippocrites notes after his reposts, I and others have specifically noted many, many problems in our posts and the response is to completely ignore these points.  Why is Lott's research viewed so narrowly?   The claim is that he just does deregulation and that it is just "conservative," but go through the papers at SSRN and see that the deregulation is clearly wrong and as to the only conservative assertion I found one paper where he defends large criminal penalties on firms on the environment.  Wow, that is conservative right!!!!!!  Why can't the criticism discussions be in the criticism section?!  I made a very few of the changes that should have been made on this issue and explained it in my note, but it was ignored.  Explain! What peer-reviewed research came to the opposite conclusion of Lott?  Isn't this contradicted by the national academy discussion that is already made here? Some apparently find no effect but that doesn't appear to be the same.  Another person tried: "Making statement discussing Wilson agree with the quote from Wilson."  Or that the Appalachian school case was Lott's best known case, but another poster states "Lott has examples involving public school shootings that have gotten much attention."  Does Lott have a famous oped years ago on public school shooting cases that might have been in the LA Times or the Wall Street Journal.  Where is the proof for the claim that the Appalachian case is his best known.  These are just typical of the bias in this discussion.  But I am just copying these points from what others have recently tried to correct and the people who blindly hate Lott won't respond to other than eliminating them and everything else.  There are more minor points.  Two books are mentioned in one section and then the quotes are only presented from one and one paragraph is not even one that directly uses the survey use to make the claim.  Timewarp 13:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: 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»
:No it is not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section 

message: 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, 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.Timewarp 12:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The NPOV tag should be used to indicate there is a discussion on the talk page about how to improve the article to achieve NPOV.  You can't just slap it on and not discuss the matter in talk.  If you want to help here, pick just one chnage you think should be made and discuss it here.  You will never get agreement if you keep trying to make a huge number of contentious changes all at once.  It is not true that I have been caught "creatively editing evidence".  I refuted this claim further up this page and repeating a baseless charge does not make it true. --TimLambert 00:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is an amazingly bold lie.  All anyone has to do is read the discussions above.  Do you assume that people will read this and not see all the point by point attempts to discuss these issues in the talk sections above?  What does someone have to do on the talk page to indicated to you that there is a disagreement.  Your stategy is obviously to make people spend a lot of time discussing these issues and then pretend that there has been no attempt to discuss them.  I should have realized that AL Lowe has already proven that you don't care about what anyone actually writes here.  If you can't even admit that there is a disagreement here and that multiple people have tried hard to discuss this on the talk page, no one should take anything that you have to say seriously.Timewarp 19:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem with the "multiple people" bit is your apparent use of sock pupptets. Indeed, it seems likely that you are JL. In which case you fall under the "no autobiography" rule, which applies especially in controversial cases. William M. Connolley 09:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Connolley, may I respectfully submit that you should perhaps "remove the log from your own eye", sir. You are not acting in accordance with the "assume good faith" policy, which is of greater weight than the guideline on autobiography. If you have a compelling reason to believe that Timewarp is in fact John Lott, please, by all means, enlighten us. Otherwise, please assume good faith and stick to the facts of the case and the appertaining arguments. Dick Clark 20:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its Dr Connolley to you, old fruit. And you have your policies mixed: they don't override each other: if this is Lott, then the no autobiography applies. If its not, the rule doesn't. I think it probably is Lott, and he has Form, as I'm sure you're aware. William M. Connolley 20:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I suppose I could have checked up a bit before applying the default title, "Mr." "Dr. Connelley" it is. I did not mean to indicate that I felt that the policy rendered the guideline moot. I was simply expressing that violation of "assume good faith" ought not be excused simply because the violation was somehow intended to assist in ferreting out violators of the autobiography guideline. I agree that, given the pitched struggle between some editors here, it would be unseemly for John Lott to edit this article (at least, the sections pertaining to some controversial topic; it seems acceptable for Lott to weigh in with, say, a change in strictly biographical information, i.e. a Date of Birth correction, etc.). Even with this common ground between us sir, I still have not seen any evidence presented that Timewarp is John Lott. Thus, any accusations along such lines must be considered to consist of conclusions drawn from assuming bad faith, unless, of course, you have evidence of your claim. To Timewarp: Please state on this page whether or not you are John Lott. If you say you are not, then we are back to a simple struggle for consensus. If you say you are, I would ask that you state as much on this page, and then limit any edits of yours to strictly factual contributions as described above. Dick Clark 21:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter, but this was asked and answered on this page earlier, and the answer was clearly stated as "no." As to  the other ones such as 66.93.100.155 (Speakeasy, Washington, DC) or ALT37 or for that matter any of the other ones involved with this over the last few weeks (including: 206.165.74.6 (Phoenix, AZ), 128.239.177.196 (William and Mary, williamsburg, Va.), 66.190.73.64 (Charter Communications, Ft. Worth, Texas), 69.141.3.180 (NJ comcast), or one in California), they will have to answer for themselves.Timewarp 23:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete NPOV failure and misrepresented facts

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't think anyone is interested in sockhunting for the purposes of Wikipedia editing. There certainly appear to be enough people who don't believe that the wholesale changes that Timewarp and friends are reverting to are appropriate without discussion that we don't need to be fretting too much about sockpuppetry. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. If the edits had any validity either in content or in the way they were carried out, we'd not be wondering whether they were sockpuppets. As it is, even if they are not sockpuppets, they are still shitty edits, conducted in shitty fashion. Gzuckier 07:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In light of the strong appearance of Alt37 being the same editor as Timewarp, and the participation of that account in revert warring, I've blocked Alt37's account. Wikipedia:Account suspensions#Alt37. Any further discussion of these accounts should best be held there or in a user talk page. Our comments here should focus on the article. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  The reason for saying the other claim should be pursued is that WP does have the facility to perform background checks on users, although inline with the WP IP policy these are conducted only onder severe provacation and with care.  If new JL pupsocks appear, we should use the WP process straight away: it means more judgements of this clandestine activity are out in the open.  Note that no investigation has yet concluded other than on the face of it that there is any connection beyond coordination between Timewarp and Alt37, nor have either yet been conclusively traced back to JL.  The evidence to that end may still some to light. --- Charles Stewart 16:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This is not a [[WP:SOCK]] claim

message: ==== (Problem) ====
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]
: In what way isn't this article NPOV, and what needs to be resolved?  If you feel anything is worded in biased fashion, let me know by writing about it here and I'll take a look at it.  Your personal experience or "looks good to me" are of no relevance whatsoever, especially when "you" are an IP address with edits only of this article. -- Danny Yee 00:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ready made section to discuss a PoV problem. 

message: 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]
: In what way isn't this article NPOV, and what needs to be resolved?  If you feel anything is worded in biased fashion, let me know by writing about it here and I'll take a look at it.  Your personal experience or "looks good to me" are of no relevance whatsoever, especially when "you" are an IP address with edits only of this article. -- Danny Yee 00:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Problem)