Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:39, 16 April 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Lott article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Firearms Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Participation in call to pressure Georgia election officials

Lott's participation in Trump's phone call to pressure election officials in Georgia to overturn the 2020 election results clearly belongs in the article. It's reported in RS and gives readers clear indication of his role in the White House. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

It's also absurd that the lead doesn't cover that Lott was an official in the Trump administration. Serving in a presidential administration is clearly noteworthy enough for the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The Politico article only said he was on the call. It doesn't say if he said/did anything. The removal from the lead is reasonable based on weight. We have two (or three) sentences saying he was appointed as an advisor to the DOJ (not Trump's cabinet or something closer to Trump) and was their for just a few months. It may be reasonable to put later in the lead that he was appointed to the DOJ by the Trump admin and served from Oct 2020 to Jan 2021. It doesn't appear there was much notable about his service but I would agree that for people who are not career politicians such an appointment for any length of time is notable. Springee (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that his service in the Trump Administration should be in the lead. As to the call, unless sources describe the significance of it, I would leave it out. It's asking the reader to make an inference about his role. I suspect that by that point, Trump was scraping the bottom of the barrel and that anyone and everyone still left in the White House might find themselves drafted for surprising roles. SPECIFICO talk 15:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Lott actively made false claims of fraud in the 2020 election while serving in the Trump administration, so his participation in the phone call was not random. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I've clarified some of the detail about the voter fraud stuff (feel free to add more, I didn't see this section before I made any edits). Regarding the call, if all we have is a list of names that includes Lott, I mean there's not much we can really say about it. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Using Peter Brimelow as a source for what Milton Friedman said

The editor Springee has edit-warred newly added content sourced to the white supremacist Peter Brimelow who claims that Milton Friedman praised Lott: “John Lott has few equals as a perceptive analyst of controversial public policy issues.” This content should be removed. I find nothing to substantiate that Friedman ever praised Lott in this manner. Content like this needs to be reliably sourced. It should not be sourced to a Brimelow interview with Lott. Lott has a history of making up praise for himself, which creates additional reasons to be wary of poorly sourced praise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that you didn't edit war the material? You removed it twice. Are you claiming Forbes isn't a RS? This is reading like a case of IDONTLIKEIT. Do you have any evidence the quote is false? It seems like a notable thing to include since it was economist to economist. Springee (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Archiving needs to be fixed

If someone can fix it. There are too many decade-old discussions on this page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Feel free to tweak the params. Currently 1 year, keep 6 threads, which is fairly conservative. GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Obscuring "Mary Rosh persona" section within another section

Lott's history of inventing praise for himself does not belong in the 'Disputed survey' section, but rather its own section. The "Mary Rosh" persona did not solely defend Lott's disputed survey, which makes the placement of this content under that section bizarre. To me, it seems like an attempt to make the "Mary Rosh" incident less prominent by lumping it in at the bottom of a tangential section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Why isn't the reverse true? What evidence do you have for trying to make it a separate subsection? Springee (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The content in question is not solely about the disputed survey, so why should it be in that section? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The Mary Rosh gambit was and is a defining feature of Lott's career, and extremely unusual if not unique among would-be distinguished academic experts. Readers would expect to see a header for this content. SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Why would we emphasize that but not include the views of a Nobel laureate in economics, Lott's own field? Springee (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated. A 20 year old opinion vs. a fraud perpetrated by a purported academic expert? SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Both things are about two decades old. Why is the option of one of the most noted economists of all time not significant? Springee (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the Mary Rosh thing is covered in multiple reliable sources, and in each instance the entire article is mainly about that episode. Is the same true of Friedman's praise? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Friedman is a Nobel laureate and the content is being fully removed. No one is removing the Rosh material. Springee (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be elevating Uncle Miltie above his due. I'm sure he had much to say about all kinds of things, but his significance for this encyclopedia -- and for that matter for current economic thought -- is much more limited. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, Nobel, economics. His opinion is certainly notable. Springee (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Friedman's favorite vegetable was the Brussels Sprout -- well sourced common knowledge. But we don't mention that in the BS article. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

I became aware of this due to the COIN listing for this article, but taking a look at the edit history and the overall content of this article, WOW, it has become a mess. I know that there are some VERY WELL MEANING individuals trying to improve it, but over the past several years it has been edited to death -- in what seems to be a tit-for-tat edit war with several COI and POV accounts, as well as several AGF editors. Far more editing and reverting going on compared to the amount of discussion taking place. Going back 5+ years ago and the article seemed like it was in a far better place than it is today. I'm not talking about the specific nuances of "disputed accuracy" (which is also important), but rather the overarching goal of conveying information about a person, important topics, notable issues, etc. It was a far better read and carried better weight in the topics. I think somehow in the process of working towards more technical accuracy we've copy-pasted this article too much and we're reaching closer to becoming accurately meaningless.

May I be so bold as to suggest the following -- the current involved editors take a one week pause -- during the interim, I will work on a sandbox version that works towards a NPOV and BALANCED article. No I don't proclaim myself to be better or smarter or anything special aside from being someone who has zero bias or vested interest in this specific article, but have experience helping rewrite contentious material that all sides can be happy with, and hopefully be more encyclopedic. Admittedly I've been on wikibreak for a while, but I'd be happy to work on this project. But it will certainly take time, and if this article is undergoing edit warring while I'm trying to rework it, it will be counter productive.

The sandbox version will be available before I move it into the mainspace-- so we can call this a BOLD sandbox, instead of a straight up BOLD edit - because, respectfully, WP:BRD isn't working all that well here.

Feelings/thoughts/agreement? TiggerJay (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the current article is a disaster. I normally am not a fan of total rewrites but this one is so bad that that might be the way to handle it. North8000 (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely, rewrites are not good as it breaks down the edit history a lot, but as you said, this might be the best way to handle something like this. TiggerJay (talk)

I would also support at least an attempt at a rewrite. I do understand it's a lot of work. "A lot of work" is why I haven't tried to redo more than a few articles. Still, how could it possibly hurt to give it a shot and present it in draft space for people to review before changing the live article. I'm for it. Springee (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @SPECIFICO and Snooganssnoogans: Want to make sure you're all aware of this proposal as well. TiggerJay (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I think a lot of the text can be made more concise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

These comments are correct and the article seems much too long for this individual. It can and should be condensed considerably. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a list identifying section by section issues would be helpful and would allow major rewrites while avoiding a single whole-article diff and subsequent talk page chaos. SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

My read is the intent is to do the rewrite off line. Yeah, that can be an issue when trying to do a "track changes" sort of review but sometimes articles just need a massive tear up. It certainly can't hurt (other than the effort needed). Even if the rewrite as a whole is rejected it may yield a lot that could be incorporated as changes to the current version. If we were dealing with a BOLD rewrite that just went live in the article space I would absolutely agree with your concerns (which are valid even with a section by section rework). Springee (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Lott's institutions in lead

Snooganssnoogans, can you explain why you feel that an academic's intuitions are not lead worthy? I understand that SPECIFICO wanted to reduce the length of the lead but once North8000 and I restored the material I think we need consensus to remove it. Please make the case for removal. Springee (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Visiting professorships and fellowships are not noteworthy for an academic. Lott is not known for having had a non-tenure track position at Yale for two years, so it's bizarre to list it in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

If your argument was to remove the less significant examples then I would be OK with that. However, he was at U Chicago for 5 years. Even non-tenure track at a school with a name like Yale is significant. Perhaps a half way were we take the two longest intuitions and leave the others out. Remember that you are removing long standing content. Springee (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

No, brief non-tenure track positions at fancy schools are not noteworthy. There are countless fellowships, postdocs, predocs, teaching positions and research positions at universities – tenure-track positions are meaningful. Lott's career is defined by short stints at numerous universities – he is not known for having been at any of them which makes it bizarre to list some or all of them in the lead. I think it's misleading to readers for the lead to present him as a "Yale University academic" or "University of Chicago academic" when he is not known as such in reliable sources or by anyone. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

It's that your opinion or a claim you can back? Springee (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

"Even non-tenure track at a school with a name like Yale is significant." Is that your opinion or a claim you can back? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

That argument (Springee's) is invalid on its face, conceding, as it does, that the Yale mention confers some kind of fame or notability by association. Exactly the kind of content to which we do not give lead spotlight emphasis. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm arguing that we keep the status quo consensus version of the article. The burden to make the case for change isn't on me. Two editors have challenged this removal so it should stay until a new consensus to remove it has been shown. Springee (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

It must hurt a bit to have to resort to that sort of wonkery, rather than acknowledging the hollowness of your earlier point. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, no. We are debating how much weight to give information in the lead. This is to a large extent subjective editor assessment. Our status quo is to stick with what we had. To change it we need to show a consensus to change. We have your argument, in effect, "no it isn't signficant" but you have no evidence to say why your opinion is correct. We have mine and N8K's which is this information is DUE for the lead. I admit my argument isn't really any stronger (yes, I would say spending more than a year at each of these well known universities is significant). However, we also have NOCON, which is wiki policy. It states, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." That means the content should be restored because we don't have consensus for the disputed change. Snarky, personalized comments don't supersede Wiki policy. Springee (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

NOCON -- for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it. SPECIFICO talk 12:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that his academic positions are contentious? If so why are they in the article? Springee (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

From what I see the item, of that large bundle of removals one which is now completely missing from the article is the assessment on the economics side by Milton Friedman. A a prominent economist and Nobel prize winner, and this was a removal from the body of the article. What is going on here? North8000 (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Page Name

The Gnome, would you be opposed to changing the name to John Lott (firearms researcher), (firearms activist) or similar. Lott is really known for for his firearms research and activism, not political activism in general. Springee (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Greetings, Springee. I agree that Lott is mostly known for this particular aspect of his activism, i.e. defending and promoting the institutional freedom of gun ownership and use, but perhaps we should hesitate before changing the title from the general to the specific. Lott, per sources, is a prominent person in American right-wing politics, and, consequently, ready to be active in other issues that are important to the right. We cannot ignore he's already involved, as pointed out in the article, in issues such as abortion, immigration, women's rights, environmental law, and voter fraud claims. Should we perhaps wait some time before we narrow this down? -The Gnome (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I see your point. I'm not sure I'm convinced but I see nothing wrong with taking a wait and see approach. Springee (talk)
    • I agree, IMO it needs to be changed to what he is actually noted for (IMO, an author). Also, if some feel that an author's work is activism, that does not change that they are an author. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

      "Author" and not economist, researcher, activist or gun rights advocate? SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

      I think "researcher" would be a close second, but not economist and the others.North8000 (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

      But not a researcher either, according to what's now in the article. Advocate works better, or his detractors would call him a polemicist, I suppose. SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

      He also self-identifies as an economist, and current mainstream references mostly introduce him as an author or president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. But I think "author" is best for a one word disambig.North8000 (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

      What about firearms author or firearms advocate? I think he is most known for his work related to firearms. I don't like activist because that can come off as just someone who makes noise about a subject but ignores Lott's scholarship in this and other subject areas. I'm OK with things like author though I think someone who see's "author" might think this is a different Lott. Again, since I associate him with firearms topics I would find anything that isn't "firearms..." to make me do a double take. Springee (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

      I think that you're mostly right. But we need to keep in mind that this is basically a 1 or 2 word disambig, not a summary of the person. North8000 (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see political activist being to far off the mark, but what we should be focusing on is what the CONSENSUS OF RELIABLE SOURCES SAY, not what any one of us thinks it should say. DN (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Lott makes the news as an activist whose fields of interest are gun rights (mostly) and assorted other ones of interest to the American right-wing side of the aisle. That's what sources are saying. He's not much known as an economist, while his work in research is almost exclusively in support for his political advocacy. Again, per sources. -The Gnome (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• A literal list of what the best RS call Lott is kinda what I'm hoping for, for transparency's sake. Looking at the article though, and seeing as how he has branched off from his original pro-gun advocacy "research" and currently receives his recent notoriety from a variety of political hot topics, I have a hard time disagreeing with The Gnome at this point. He could be perceived as political advocate from the start, given his research was questionable at times, as it leaned in certain very PREDICTABLE directions. Then there's the Mary Rosh debacle, which hits about as close to home as it gets for Misplaced Pages editors. DN (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• He's known for his firearm related books. If the books are characterized by some or many as advocacy, they are still an author. If not, then we have thousands of author articles to rename. Which is a whimsical way of saying that such is not the norm. North8000 (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The question should be, "which citations say that?", and "How do we weigh older VS current citations in that regard?" Currently, he is more well known for claiming the 2020 election was fraudulent, see . DN (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

That's RECENT and honestly, also your opinion. Springee (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

This old chestnut again? See your talk page. We are not doing this here. DN (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree, his work in the area of firearms, which includes peer reviewed publications, is what he is primarily known for. Activist discounts his scholarship and, in my mind the bigger issue, is fails to say anything about his association with firearms which, I think most would agree, is what he is most known for. I also would be reluctant to base this off just recent sources as well as being careful about using popular media vs more rigorous sources. Honestly, I think it was fine the way it was without a disambiguation. Springee (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

His "research" has been questionable, at best. DN (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Says who? Springee (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Try actually reading the article. If you are still confused and need me to start listing all the citations I will oblige after you have put in some effort. Cheers! DN (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

How many of those are from people who are motivated to discredit his conclusions because they don't like the conclusion? Springee (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This is absolutely the wrong question for you to even ask. Let's avoid Poisoning the well by pretending there's some nefarious force at work to discredit JL. Use the cited reliable sources and stop using WP:OR. DN (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• Based on a page view analysis this is clearly the wp:PRIMARYTOPIC. It was also the original topic. I think the name change should be reversed. Springee (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• I agree. For the reasons above, plus long standing, plus the undicussed new one is very POV ish. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• There's far too much going on that isn't about guns here -- the article itself makes this abundantly clear. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• Things have changed for John Lott over time, however he has a very long and well documented history of political partisanship, so I strongly disagree at this point. DN (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

If someone is known for being an author, opinions on his works do not change that. North8000 (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, cite your sources that say he is "just an author". DN (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I never said "just an author" nor is what I wrote dependent on that. North8000 (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Then please be more clear with what you are saying. Is there a consensus of reliable sources that suggests he is NOT politically oriented, contrary to the current list of reliable sources that suggest he is a political actor? DN (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a new question, and my response is that it not the relevant one to or the standard for the topic at hand. The question at hand is a short disambig (if any) for the title of the article. People are advocating that disparagement of an author's work by his political opponents means that he should be not be called an author. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

How exactly is it a disparagement? Do you and JL speak on the daily, and did he tell you he felt disparaged? I wouldn't consider it a disparagement, just a well documented and reliably sourced fact. DN (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Oh, I thought we were talking about the disambig. Well if he didnt want peers to disparage his work, maybe he should have done his job without all the shortcuts....DN (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC) In any case, reliable sources or no? He is a political actor, and likely has been through most of his career. Reliable sources show that explicitly. DN (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• If there's one attribute whose use to distinguish this Lott (no pun intended) I'd strongly oppose it would be "author." Although authors can be activists and vice versa, and from then on it all depends on each person, our Lott (ditto) is certainly not "mostly known" as an author. That is how he's often denoted when introducing him in texts, interviews, etc, and perhaps how some people see him, but most sources out there clearly show that Lott's a quite energetic, popular, and busy political advocate. Whether we should specify the particular issue of activism he's known for is another discussion, the main one. -The Gnome (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Our objective should be to use the term that best helps readers determine this is the John Lott they are looking for. Springee's term "firearms advocate" seems closest. I would suggest however "gun advocate" as better. I don't think readers will think, "I'm looking for the John Lott who said the election was stolen, not the gun advocate" and give up on finding him. TFD (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Our objective is to say what the consensus of reliable sources say. Read the article. Without cited sources, all of this is pure opinion and conjecture. Anything else at this point kind of feels like a waste of time. Ping me when you find those citations and I'll be happy to continue the conversation here. DN (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I did a Google news search for and . The ratio of stories was 1:3. When limited the range to news before 1 Nov 2020 I found that almost all of those articles that mentioned elections were about gun laws related to elections. He is clearly best known as a gun researcher/advocate. I would be OK with TFD's "gun advocate". Springee (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

As in gun laws, AKA politics? DN (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

A very specific subset of politics. Springee (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

His website description: "John R. Lott Jr. is an American economist with an extensive background and history in politics, economics and gun rights advocacy. Google shows the following numbers in search: (Google Trends showed a low count with most going to his complete name)

• 640k John Lott economist;
• 943k John Lott political activist;
• 1.130 mil John Lott gun control;
• 1.290 mil John Lott gun rights;
• 2.080 mil John Lott author -
• 3.240 mil John Lott politician.

I think (politician) would be misleading since he's an economist not a congressman or the like, and if we're going to use activist (which does not reflect a dispassionate tone, and it's rather dubious) I would support (economist), or (economist, gun rights), or (gun rights activist) which actually is his avocational position. Atsme 💬 📧 13:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. I tried "John Lott advocate" and the first search result is his web page, on which he self-describes as an "advocate". So I would think John Lott (gun rights advocate) is a strong alternative. SPECIFICO talk 14:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

That would be more useful than the current recently added "political activist" which is both pretty worthless from a disambig standpoint and also not a good choice. Although I still think that "author" is best. North8000 (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

North8000, I added the Google search #s. I also noticed that John A. Lott (a lawyer and politician) was recently added to the dab which may cause readers a bit of political confusion. Either way, gun rights advocate or author or maybe "author, gun rights advocate" will cover all the bases. Atsme 💬 📧 16:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Given the entirety of his work and not just his authorship and pro-gun advocacy, we should try to encompass the clearest picture possible. As I understand it, "An activist is a person who makes an intentional action to bring about social or political change while an advocate is one who speaks on behalf of another person or group." His stint at the DOJ, research on the 2000 election, abortion, illegal immigration, women's suffrage, affirmative action, environmental regulations and most recent voter fraud claims all seem to bare at least some weight, if not much at least current trends. While activist and advocate are sometimes interchangeable, I think I would be fine with either at this point with politics being at the root, and in line with current RS. Even perhaps both depending on consensus and or MOS? DN (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• I think that there are two issues with the recent (current) title. One is that it does a weak job on the disambig job that it is supposed to do. The other is that characterizing somebody with such a range of work (authorship etc.) as just "political activist" is somewhat negative POVish. I think that "advocate" solves the latter and helps a little on the former. We should just list the top 3-4 ideas and then everybody who has been involved here here weigh in on every one of them (to avoid math problems) and see if a decision comes out of that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Not to change the subject, but I'm trying to understand why "political activist" is somewhat negative POVish? How is the label a WP:BLP issue? Or is it something else? Honest question, I swear. DN (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Because having the top level description of somebody who engages in a profession simply say "political activist" in lieu of what that noteworthy profession is is IMO somewhat negative POVish. North8000 (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• I obviously disagree with prioritizing a personal opinion over the consensus of RS. His work as a researcher has often been largely skewed or flawed, and as a result, commonly disputed by peers. At least that's what RS seems to say. DN (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• For example, if a John Smith, climate change researcher and author actively advocates for government to mandate carbon reduction, would you title their article John Smith (political activist) because of their activism, or would it be climate change researcher or climate change author or researcher or author? North8000 (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

It would entirely depend on RS. DN (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oh, come on, North8000! "Negative POVish"?! That's truly too much. You actually think that denoting your example's John Smith a political activisty instead of climate-change researcher would somehow denigrates his ideology/work? It may not be accurate or disambiguation-friendly but "negative"? -The Gnome (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Of the suggestions thus far I think John Lott (gun rights advocate) is the best. While I think "author", "economist" etc are all valid, the goal is to help a reader quickly know they are going to the right article. Based on web searches it appears that Lott is most associated with his work in firearms (research/writing/advocacy/etc). I would also note that we are starting from a point of no consensus since the "prior consensus" was just his name. Springee (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It appears to me that you have consensus for that. Does anyone disagree that there's consensus for gun rights advocate? SPECIFICO talk 19:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Not my first choice, but fine with me. North8000 (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Not my first choice either. However, gun rights are a form of politics, so it's slightly closer to the mark, but it seems to ignore everything he's been involved in over the last 10+ years. I think I'm undecided at this point. I realize we take search criteria/results into account, google trends etc (atsme's results are interesting - "*3.240 mil John Lott politician" seems to be the highest but is that the same John R Lott we are discussing?), but how do we prioritize that versus the RS we already have in the article? DN (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

To whimsically make a point on the distinction between coverage of him and a disambig title, I think that "John Lott (human being)" would be most widely supported by sources, but not a good choice for a Misplaced Pages disambig purposes, which is a different question. The question and task is disambig in view of the other John Lott articles on Misplaced Pages, or in view of what the reader is searching for. Nobody is going to he search for "human being" or "political activist" or distinguish him from others based on those terms. North8000 (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

If we don't agree on something pretty soon, somebody will come along and propose John Lott (conspiracy theorist) and then we'll have a real mess on our hands. SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a time limit? The lead currently says "is an American economist, political commentator, and gun rights advocate. 2 out of those three suggest political leanings. What am I missing? DN (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I would also note from WP:DUE "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public." If other editors want to say he is a conspiracy theorist, I doubt they could back it up with RS. DN (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• John R. Lott avoids the problems with trying to ID him with a parenthetical description. In his economics papers such as A Guide to the Pitfalls of Identifying Price Discrimination (1991), which has nothing to do with political activism or firearms, that's the name he uses. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with that if it solves the problem. DN (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I think our readers will not know his middle initial and that we need a disambiguation that relates to the most likely searches for him. Yes he has worked on other issues and published on other subjects, but he stands out as one of the foremost and best-credentialed gun rights advocates. Few accredited academics are to be found among gun rights advocates, and he rose to the forefront by virtue of this approach to the issues. SPECIFICO talk 00:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, what am I missing? Are we supposed to prioritize/concern ourselves with search terms over RS or not? Does everyone else agree that readers will see his middle initial and get confused? Pinging Nomoskedasticity and The Gnome since they haven't weighed in yet. The whimsical point made by North did make some sense, but I was hopeful at the thought of a quick solution by a simple initial. I would also like to whimsically suggest the name Mary Rosh as an alternative (I'm kidding of course). DN (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think his middle initial is particularly confusing, and his name does appear as "John R. Lott" or "John R. Lott Jr." in quite a lot of places. Regarding searches, if you google "John Lott" you will still easily get to this page, as it will appear on google (or the disambiguation page) as "is an American economist, political commentator, and gun rights advocate"; I don't think the middle initial will lead to anyone at all hoping to land on this page becoming unable to out of confusion. Endwise (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I support John R. Lott. He has done a lot of things, so any one occupation will not describe him fully and will leave some editors unhappy. He often quotes his own name as "John R. Lott" or "John R. Lott Jr.", see e.g. his website, his twitter, and the economics paper linked above. He's not the only one, see e.g. his short biography at Fox News, which is titled "John R. Lott". Endwise (talk) 02:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: On the basis of all the above, I believe that John Lott (gun rights advocate) is the consensus choice, and I'd add my John Hancock to it were it on paper. I suppose we can proceed with that. -The Gnome (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• I think that long standing title John Lott is best. Due to the huge difference in degree of prominence (2 of the others even have zero suitable sources and probably wouldn't even survive an AFD), keep the long standing name John Lott and then a disambig line and link to a disambig page for the others. Basically, revert from the undiscussed change to the long standing name and plan. 2nd best would be John Lott (Author) because that provides disambig and also the specific role that he is best known for. Further down the list but also OK would be John Lott (gun rights advocate). The current new title is a very bad idea. It's also fine with me to add his middle initial to any of the above. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think his middle initial would be necessary if it isn't just being used to disambiguate this page with other people named John Lott. For the record though, out of all the John Lott (occupation) proposals I've seen, I think (gun rights advocate) is the best. Endwise (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Since The Gnome is the one that originally added political activist and has now agreed to gun rights advocate, I will also support this decision. DN (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• I see we have a consensus here on gun rights advocate. I check to the raiser and suggest that Springee closes down this discussion and changes the title. -The Gnome (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I sense a trap ( :D /hummor). Given the previous archive issues I don't want to risk messing things up now that I know it has to be done in a special way. wbm1058 can you help with this move? Springee (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

wp -The Gnome (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Recapping a portion of my post, the current title is really bad, and that change would be an improvement which I support doing, even if not my 1st choice.North8000 (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I just moved to John R. Lott. While there is a consensus that he is not primary for the name John Lott, which I confirmed when I found the need to correctly disambiguate the mathematician on Noncommutative standard model and Poincaré conjecture, I'm not seeing enough consensus to settle on a specific parenthetical yet. The {{short description|American economist, political commentator, and gun rights advocate}} and lead sentence lists "gun rights advocate" third behind economist and political commentator so it is not clear from the article that he's primarily known for gun rights. List of economists#L doesn't even mention gun rights. I suppose if the bulk of his political commentary is about matters of either economics or gun rights then "political commentator" may be considered redundant but I think John Lott (economist, gun rights advocate) should be considered. I suggest a followup WP:requested move discussion be started to ensure wide notification and broad participation, if the middle initial isn't sufficient enough for clear identificaiton. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You were asked for technical assistance, not a close or supervote. Please undo the move, and if you are not comfortable with the consensus request, we will ask elsewhere for help. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The process discussion could get pretty complex. But IMO Wbm1058's idea is even better. A middle initial to make it unique, without tackling the problematic task of trying to characterize him in the disambig title. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Rather than view my page move as a "close" or "supervote" I'd prefer it be viewed as a (potentially) intermediary move to (partially) revert the earlier bold move, and a — Relisting. wbm1058 (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You have no standing to put your opinion ahead of the informed talk page consensus. Please undo your action before we have a big problem here. SPECIFICO talk 02:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The reason I noted "The process discussion could get pretty complex" is that the the initial bold change was so complex and entangled that it was practically impossible to revert and go back to the longstanding name. It did not have even discussion much less consensus, and in subsequent discussion it certainly had no consensus. IMO the only clear cut thing that needed doing is a revert of the initial bold move and IMO the move to his name with a middle initial is the practical way to do just that. I know that the strongest support that I expressed was against the bold change and for the long standing title. I clearly said that my OK for the parenthetical title was merely a plan "B" to that, and regarding myself John R. Lott is a practical implementation of what I expressed the strongest support for. In any event, Wbm1058's take on their recent work as basically a revert of the bold move, with discussion of any proposed changes being the next step is I think a good approach. if there are still process questions, then IMO a full revert of everything to the long standing stable version would be the thing to do. North8000 (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This does seem like a reasonable solution. The only reason to have the (descriptor) is because we have two subjects with the same name. If we can avoid the name overlap without using the descriptor so much the better. We use that method for George H. W. Bush vs George W. Bush. It also seems like a reasonable way to avoid debates. After all, we only had this debate because it was felt this article couldn't be the primary topic for the name. Springee (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring an ongoing discussion and attempt at consensus does not "seem reasonable". When The Gnome made the change it at least had the appearance of acting in good faith. We have all been around long enough to know better. This does not look good. DN (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Page move against consensus

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)

IMO there wasn't a consensus, just a sort of "I won't oppose/ lesser of two evils from many". Going back to the long standing version would be fine, but complex. IMO we 99% have the long standing stable version right now, with the only difference being the addition of his middle initial. North8000 (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

John R Lott works for me. Can we accept this as a new consensus? Springee (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If this is a joke, I don't get it. DN (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

What happened to the archive?

I don't see any talk page edits prior to 2021. Did the archive get lost in the transfer? Springee (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It appears the archives got lost in the DAB - The Gnome, can you please recover them? I found Archive 3 Atsme 💬 📧 13:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Fellows, you're mistaking me for someone adept at the technical stuff here. I don't mind putting in the work but I want to be sure I'll not be piling on more damage! Did anyone contact the bot operator as I suggested? -The Gnome (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@The Gnome: When you moved the page, you saw a page that looked similar to this: Move John Lott (political activist). At the bottom, it shows that there are five subpages (the archives).

When moving a page which has talk subpages, administrators and page-movers see a box which is checked by default:

Move subpages of talk page (up to 100)

Unless the box is unchecked, the archives are all automatically moved.

But you did not see this box. If you see that a page you're moving has talk subpages, DO NOT move the page yourself. Ask an admin or a page-mover for help. The best option for you here would have been to start a WP:Requested moves discussion, given that it is not clear that "(political activist)" is the best way to disambiguate this biography. I'm not great at keeping track of my time, but I think I probably spent about an hour sorting out what happened here, and cleaning up after you and a couple others who compounded the problem with their attempts to fix what you started. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Moving a page#Talk subpages. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks so much, wbm1058, for both the advice and the work you put in, which you did not have to and for which I apologize. Lesson learned. -The Gnome (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Grad speech deception

SPECIFICO, I think the 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)

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)

I think RECENT should be considered but I also think your suggestion is reasonably prudent. Springee (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone have a WP:CRYSTALBALL? DN (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have condensed it down, but it should be condensed even further. An article in Buzzfeed and a local TV news station about a stunt involving multiple people does not warrant multiple paragraphs of material in an article about one of the subjects of the stunt. It should at most be a sentence or two, and even then I'm not convinced it should be mentioned at all. Endwise (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Trump admin section UNDUE tags

I agree with SPECIFICO this is not enough for it's own section. This could be easily remedied by moving it to the beginning of the Voter Fraud Claims subsection, which would actually help improve that bit IMO, and does seem to bare some weight. DN (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

That seems ok and we can get rid of the tag. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Conservatism articles
• Low-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• C-Class Firearms articles
• Low-importance Firearms articles
• WikiProject Firearms articles