Talk:John Lott

message: There were two moves that might have been permissible for an outside editor. Either undo the previous move, which had little support, or implement the consensus after long collaborative discussion on this page. The principle that an editor can parachute in when asked for techincal software assistance and supervote their own opinion in the guise of a "good compromise solution" is categorically against WP process and unacceptable disruptive and destructive. This page needs to go either to the new consensus compromise or back to its longstanding original title. I am prepared to go for enforcement if this abuse of process is not corrected. SPECIFICO talk 16:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Then there should/could have been a call for an uninvolved close. Not a drive-by under false pretexts. And it would have been fine to revert to the longstanding at any time. You said OK, now you see a chance for a second bite at the apple so you change your mind. Well, you can change your mind but you can't change the fact that the recent move was against the then-agreed consensus. SPECIFICO talk 19:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I was pretty clear that the long standing stable version was most preferred and IMO we essentially have that. North8000 (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with SPECIFICO, while john R lott would be preferable in my view, consensus takes priority in this case. DN (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: John R Lott works for me.  Can we accept this as a new consensus?  Springee (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is a joke, I don't get it. DN (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not a joke (not even sure why that was a thought).  If enough people are ok the this vs a name with a descriptor can we just accept this as a new consensus?  It came about in a bit of a backwards way but if we like it why not accept it?  Springee (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. That's like saying a vigilante mob lynched a guy who turned out indeed to be a murderer, therefore kudos to the lynching. Stop the steal anyone?  No. I am going to seek enforcement if this is not reverted either to John Lott or to the consensus as of the time of the supervote move to the current title. SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

text: P.S. : If I had supported 'K' and witnessed my choice been implemented the way did, I'd protest. And I have done this in the past under similar circumstances. I don't care for grand words but I must state I always place the integrity of the project above all personal preferences. So, I do not appreciate at all the applause accorded by supporters of 'K' to wbm1058's legerdemain. -The Gnome (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I too value process.  There are a few ways to look at it which might assuage your concerns.  One is that there was never a real consensus for any changes.  And the closest thing that there was to a consensus was against "activist" title. The "advocate" one at best was much much weaker one, and possibly not one at all. So the "middle initial" version could be seen  as the "temporary" state as stated,  or a revert to pragmatic "close enough" to the long standing stable version.  I'm just saying that this is one way to look at it which you might find helpful, not arguing for it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There was enough consensus for the call to go out to what we thought was a good faith software helper to implement that consensus. There are already enough process failures among editors, but the discussion here was good and collaborative and a constructive compromise was reached.  BTW I am fine with just leaving the status quo and given the light traffic on this article, I don't think it's worth any further worry. SPECIFICO talk 19:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: SPECIFICO, I think your out of process concern is legitimate.  Looking back at the discussion I can see enough editors supporting John R Lott and could see a good faith editor with experience in disambiguation based moves thinking this was the "least" change.  However, you are correct that a consensus had formed around John Lott (gun rights advocate).  As such the correct action would have either been to implement the consensus or pause and make a case why the alternative was, in the view of an editor experienced in these matters, better.  Can we/should we come up with a "way forward" proposal?  Springee (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we really have a problem with John Lott at worst that would mean that the very small number of users looking for a different Lott would click the disambiguation link prominently displayed at the top.  That would be my suggestion. I'm more concerned about trimming the UNDUE gotcha thing about the graduation speech sucker punch hoax, and maybe seeing whether he has any recent noteworthy publications we could add. SPECIFICO talk 20:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with John Lott and I age with your thinking (at least I assume I do). It's really my first choice but my feeling was consensus was change was going to happen and it was just a question of what. Status quo is find by me. Springee (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it's good and best as-is.  North8000 (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move against consensus

message: IMO John R. Lott is close enough to the long standing stable version (John Lott) that but if Sprcifico insists, I'll try to revert to the long standing stable version  or we should get that done. North8000 (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll wait a bit / maybe we should wait a bit to see how the dust settles.North8000 (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The disambiguation page and the American economist article are now back where they used to be (John Lott (disambiguation) and John Lott respectively). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert to long standing stable version

message: , I think the [John_Lott_(political_activist)#2021_"graduation_address"_event] content is UNDUE for inclusion.  You disagree but based on your revert comment do you think the content should have an entire subtopic?  In the article we had only two sources.  Additionally, given this was something done under false pretense I'm not sure we should give the source much comment.  This is especially true since the group both lied about their nature and then deceptively cut the speeches to imply something that was false to the original comments.  If we think this is due, fine, a 1-2 sentence blurb would cover it.  I think this is kind of a reciprocity of weight question.  Just because this might have weight in an article about the group who did the deception doesn't mean it's significant in an article about Lott.  This really tells the readers nothing about Lott or his ideas/etc.  Conversely, it says a lot about how this group uses the same deceptive tactics as a group like Project Veritas to try to discredit an ideological opponent.  Springee (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure at the moment, but it was remarkable he was taken in by the fraud. Lets find some RS commentary on how it plated out beyond the MSNBC universe. SPECIFICO talk 16:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think RECENT should be considered but I also think your suggestion is reasonably prudent. Springee (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

text: I don't think any of us do but we can use judgement to decide if something has a lasting impact (ie the 10 year test) or is something that the news cycle talks about then forgets.  This is particularly important when so much on line media is based around rapidly generating articles for clicks.  I did a web search for "john lott graduation" dated Aug 2021 and later.  The articles that came up were either dated to the time of the event (not sure why they showed up in my search) or they were not relevant.  Basically this is an event that appears to have no lasting significance to Lott himself.  Springee (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a lot of Lott's story is flash in the pan. He certainly has no mainstream stature today, whereas 15 years ago he was taken to be a serious researcher on several subjects.  I wouldn't be too concerned about recentism, but other issues of weight remain to be tested. SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

text: I would agree that this section is a bit much in comparison to the rest of the article. I would support trimming it down and making it a subsection like the others. DN (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it could be trimmed rather than removed. We should concentrate on the RS reports, issues they raise, and relationship to his life's work and published research. SPECIFICO talk 19:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

text: I would also kill the paragraph about using a sock puppet 20 years ago. Does anyone care about anything so trivial? Roger (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that was not trivial. It was at the height of his academic credibility and was a violation of core norms at a time when these deceptions were much less widely understood and recognized. He got more mainstream coverage from that than for all his academic publications. SPECIFICO talk 21:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not trivial? I am posting here under my real name, but most of those here on Wikipedia are using pseudonyms. It is very strange for a WP article to complain about someone using a pseudonym. There is no agreement about those "core norms". Roger (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: What RS that share your view? I have seen Many many RS view this as a serious breach.Half the talk page archives feature Mary Rosh issues. Including this  SPECIFICO talk 01:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

text: While I can understand debating how much weight to give the sock puppet section, I don't think removal is in order.  The false graduation speech was an example of a group lying to someone and then deliberately misrepresenting what a person with honest intent said in order to make their political point.  Even if they are right and Lott is wrong, they are wrong/dishonest for what they did.  Still, that shouldn't reflect on Lott other than suggesting he is perhaps too trusting.  He didn't set out to deceive anyone.  The sock puppet stuff is about Lott's own chosen actions.  Lott might not have thought much of it at the time and we can argue if critics are blowing it up to be bigger (or not as big) than it should be.  Regardless, it is something Lott himself did (or is accused of choosing to do).  That active choice element is the difference in my book.  Well that and the fake graduation thing really didn't get much coverage (a local station and the click bait harvesters at the BuzzFeedNews).  Source that are sympathetic to Lott's general views like Reason talked about the sock puppetry.  Springee (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, Lott used a pseudonym and his enemies mocked him for it. He is responsible for his choices. But who cares? For all we know, his enemies are actively editing his WP article under pseudonyms to say bad things about him. Roger (talk) 06:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "But who cares" is not an argument. Basic rules of wiki are clear, to say what RS says. Please read the article before critisizing it any further, and maybe check some basic guidelines, too. That being said, you need to WP:AGF and remain WP:CIVIL, which means no more poisoning the well. This article is also under discretionary sanctions. Maybe try "zooming out".....DN (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything outside of good faith on Roger's part. Springee (talk) 09:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

text:  The editors here may honestly believe that using a sock puppet is some great moral failing. Maybe even there are some reliable sources that say so, I don't know. To me, it seems trivial and not worthy of an encyclopedia article. Roger (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is using a sock puppet? DN (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article says John Lott used a sock puppet 20 years ago. Roger (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, I wasn't sure what you meant but thank you for clarifying. In any case it is somewhat improper to make such statements as "For all we know, his enemies are actively editing his WP article under pseudonyms to say bad things about him." per WP:AGF. To claim he had enemies is also not clear and seems like POV without RS. According to sources, and his peers, his research is consistently lacking, to put it politely. Let's stick to RS and try not to keep bringing it back to what we think happened or is happening via WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. DN (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was not accusing anyone. I do not have any knowledge of his enemies. It is clear from the article that he has critics, either from controversial positions or those who say, as you put it, his research is lacking. It is useful to have links to scholarly criticism. But there is also the silly criticism, such as using a pseudonym and getting tricked into giving speech. Roger (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I see your point on the speech incident, and I feel that a consensus to trim that down to a more appropriate size is currently in the works. The pseudonym bit, I will take a second look at, but I'm more confident that it is closer to an appropriate length and is properly cited. Whether or not it is "silly" is hard to use as a metric.  DN (talk) 05:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grad speech deception 

message: I thought we were fine with the suggested version...Now SPECIFICO seems to be tweaking on this small subsection after the fact with no mention on the talk page...What gives? DN (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional edits 

message: Is there any reliable source for Julian Sanchez being libertarian? 2601:547:500:4E80:7DA0:5E8F:6EFF:481C (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Julian Sanchez 

message: Change website JohnRLott.com to JohnLott.com. The former address does not exist and the latter one resolves to the expected website. 2601:346:281:9F0:99E4:3D5E:50ED:CEC4 (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Charliehdb (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2024