Talk:Effectiveness of sex offender registration policies in the United States
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Anti-forking screed[edit]
note: this lacked a title so I'm giving it oneOblivy (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Of course, User:ViperFace is at it yet again, clearly demonstrating that his primary purpose on Wikipedia is to advocate against sex offender registries. This sorry piece of garbage of an article is a one sided advocacy platform. It probably can't qualify for deletion but should probably be merged back to whatever other advocacy piece ViperFace derived this from.--MONGO 23:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- @MONGO: The article is practically a copy/paste from SMART offices' website summary of the topic. Search for "Sex Offender Registration and Notification" from the site and read it for yourself. Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking is a branch of Office of Justice Programs which in turn is part of United States Department of Justice. It's not my fault your government conducts shitty research you disagree with but in Wikipedia we can't rely on our own intuition and are forced to take government lies as WP:RS. You may contact the SMART office and file your complaints here. ViperFace (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- "Practically a copy/paste"...which parts are copy pasted and which aren't? If all then its in the public domain but that misses the point as evidenced by your comment.--MONGO 00:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- The NPOV issue regards what was copy pasted and what wasn't.--MONGO 00:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Why don't you read and find out yourself? You are not going to believe what I say anyway, but all of the studies cited in "Effectiveness of registration and notification" section are also cited in SMART offices' review. Read it. It would greatly reduce the general problem we have here which is lack of WP:COMPETENCY from your part which somehow justifies you slapping NPOV tags to all of these spinnoffs. As you can see I cited the SMART office which is reference [1] and the actual study they were citing. There's always two citations in that section in a row because I carved the original study for citation as well. ViperFace (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I mean it's absurd that you slapped the NPOV tag assuming some sort of bias without bothering to read the main source. Sources are there for verifiability so that you don't have to assume NPOV problems by default, but may review them and make the decision accordingly. Now you are asking me to re-read the sources for you and give you some kind report of them so that you may determine if this article is NPOV... Like, WTF, really... ViperFace (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Why don't you read and find out yourself? You are not going to believe what I say anyway, but all of the studies cited in "Effectiveness of registration and notification" section are also cited in SMART offices' review. Read it. It would greatly reduce the general problem we have here which is lack of WP:COMPETENCY from your part which somehow justifies you slapping NPOV tags to all of these spinnoffs. As you can see I cited the SMART office which is reference [1] and the actual study they were citing. There's always two citations in that section in a row because I carved the original study for citation as well. ViperFace (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- ViperFace, why did you feel we needed another article about sex offender registration in the United States? We have enough articles on this topic. And Wikipedia is not meant to document every single thing about a topic; it's meant to summarize the literature. So if the articles are too big, partly because of your expansions to them, the solution is likely to significantly cut those articles; not create yet another spin-off. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well, because MONGO asked for content fork himself.[1][2] This is a very broad topic and impossible to be summarized sufficiently enough in the main article without it becoming too long. I don't know if you ever read the NPOV noticeboard but majority of editors commenting there did not like the way WP:RS was being removed[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] and WP:OR/WP:SYNTH was being added[12][13]. There was some edit warring where I was not even involved over the content I had added but eventually the RS was removed.[14][15][16][17][18][19]. Some editors, even I, felt that the article was becoming too long. So, when RS is not allowed to appear on the mainpage regardless of what neutral editors say and/or the article becomes too large, what other options there are than WP:SPINOFF? Each spinnoff topic has their own branch of academic literature and have been covered in secondary news sources as well which is more than a good reason to have their own articles. What do you think about the NPOV tag on this article? Is it OK to add it without checking the sources first and simply WP:ABF? ViperFace (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Granted I am fairly new to Wikipedia. I may be out of line for mentioning my thoughts. However, I advocate for the primary prevention of child sexual abuse, and am well acquainted with the research that has been done on the effectiveness of sex offender registries. After a thorough overview of the Effectiveness article in question, I cannot find anything questionable about the page in terms of neutrality. As housing restrictions are not relevant to registration policy, and would be considered a management technique, I could see removing that section and placing it in one of the pages discussing sex offender laws in the United States. The only citation I have ever come across that has been particularly positive towards SORN policies was on Parents for Megan's Law. Their page links a NY State Research Bulletin. The only relevant information that does not add to the pre-existing information on the Effectiveness page in question is that those arrested with a failure to register citation generally have higher recidivism rates than those not arrested for failure to register. As a prevention advocate, I scour relevant research for policies that work, and SORN is not one of them for the majority of sex offenders. In fact, a statement by the expert R. Karl Hanson indicates that policies need reform. I am hard-pressed to find that the Effectiveness article in question lacks neutrality: The research on the matter points to the fact that SORN policies are ineffective at preventing and addressing sexual crime. The reason I advocate primary prevention is that tertiary prevention methods (like SORN) have been deemed ineffective by experts. Aside from R. Karl Hanson, Elizabeth Letourneau and David Finkelhor have endorsed primary prevention methods above tertiary methods. As the beginning of this neutrality question began with insulting and attacking ViperFace, I question the ongoing need for the neutrality flag one year after this tiff. Thoughts?TNF 13 (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Well, because MONGO asked for content fork himself.[1][2] This is a very broad topic and impossible to be summarized sufficiently enough in the main article without it becoming too long. I don't know if you ever read the NPOV noticeboard but majority of editors commenting there did not like the way WP:RS was being removed[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] and WP:OR/WP:SYNTH was being added[12][13]. There was some edit warring where I was not even involved over the content I had added but eventually the RS was removed.[14][15][16][17][18][19]. Some editors, even I, felt that the article was becoming too long. So, when RS is not allowed to appear on the mainpage regardless of what neutral editors say and/or the article becomes too large, what other options there are than WP:SPINOFF? Each spinnoff topic has their own branch of academic literature and have been covered in secondary news sources as well which is more than a good reason to have their own articles. What do you think about the NPOV tag on this article? Is it OK to add it without checking the sources first and simply WP:ABF? ViperFace (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- ViperFace, why did you feel we needed another article about sex offender registration in the United States? We have enough articles on this topic. And Wikipedia is not meant to document every single thing about a topic; it's meant to summarize the literature. So if the articles are too big, partly because of your expansions to them, the solution is likely to significantly cut those articles; not create yet another spin-off. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
This article is ridiculous[edit]
Completely out of order, NPOV violation after NPOV violation. What a mess. I'm gonna try to clean this up.
Jasper0333 (talk) 06:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
[edit]
Following the no-consensus AfD vote at Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States concerns were raised that there are four articles that deal with the subject of U.S. sex offender registries. They are:
- Sex offender registries in the United States
- Effectiveness of sex offender registration policies in the United States
- Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States
- Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States
I think it's fair to say:
- Keep votes thought there was value to these articles but acknowledged that cleanup was required. Also the AfD nomination, and some recent blanking on these articles were done by apparent (now checkuser-blocked) sockpuppets, and this conduct should not stand. There was not consensus among the keep votes whether this was a "movement".
- Delete votes focused on coatracking arguments, and the idea that there is no "movement". One argument said the decision to split these articles some 7 years ago was a "POV fork". While there was no explicit undue/balance complaints that seemed to be a theme.
Clearly these articles all need cleanup. I think we should look for ways to reduce the article count to 2 or 3. I have made a substantial revision to the constitutionality article. Helping hands would be appreciated. It's time consuming, and not really my area of interest. Perhaps someone with expertise (any pro-registry advocates?) wants to help balance these out. Oblivy (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have made an initial effort to clean up this article. I trimmed the lead a bit, moved some pieces around, tried to cut a bit of POV language. Much more can be done, but it's not easy.
- As a general comment, the organization by type of analysis is not helpful to someone trying to get an introduction to the topic. Far too much study-by-study detail. No headlining or categorization of major findings. It would greatly benefit from some kind of meta-analysis that reviews the research and summarizes it. Oblivy (talk) 05:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)