`ings on crime rate (notably abortion), though I doubt he's say he was the first (I could go through his papers and the refrences, which I'll 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 law-abiding 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, it's not even funny.  If I were John Lott, I'd just erase the whole page and ask Wikipedia to not let it be put back on.  And if they didn't, I'd 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 he's worked, the books he's 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 it's self.  But that's just my opinion.   **Why not work with us above to help us make the page better, rather than taking toys and heading home? Lott's conduct was embarassing, and that's why the page is embarassing - because it's accurate. The sentace you dislike sucks, I know, but it's better than the old sentance, which I wanted out. I'm 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, it's 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 who's 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 Lott's 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 detractors/critics 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, that's reasonable, but now I'll have to ask for evidence that anyone knowledgable believes that Lott's work is groundbreaking. I believe that the entire paragraph is groundless excess, now that I understand what he's done that's ``groundbreaking`` is apply economics to crime, which Gary Becker was awarded a Nobel for long before Lott started.  ******Don't 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 ISN'T ground breaking?  *******See, you're gotchya at the top would be great, if the article you linked to didn't 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