Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:39, 1 January 2016

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Sex offender registries in the United States

Sex offender registries in the United States has serious advocacy issues and appears to have been written primarily to provide a soapbox for changes in the law. The editor that started and has been the primary author is an admitted SPA who has made few edits outside this platform. The article needs massive adjustment to conform with NPOV or if that is not possible should be deleted if policy continues to be violated and the article persists in being hopelessly biased.--MONGO 11:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That article contains 178 notes of this writing, most of which are citations of reliable sources which support positions taken in the article. If there are other reliable sources taking issue with those which are cited, then the first step is to cite them and take issue within the article with its allegedly non-neutral positions.

The article also cites (in sidebar, primarily) three national and five state organizations, all of which have WP articles and all of which are calling for changes in sex offender laws.

It is correct that the main editor is a SPA. However he or she is not a U.S. citizen or resident (s/he's Finnish) which makes the case for personal bias harder to demonstrate.

I have removed the NPOV label as I do not see that Mongo has provided meaningful justification for its application. deisenbe (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is a one-sided advocacy piece that was created purely to soapbox on behalf of changes to sex offender legislation. Until sufficient neutral editors chime in to determine if changes are needed, you cannot as one of the editors unilaterally remove an NPOV tag.--MONGO 16:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

These other articles, the three national an five state organizations, have articles because the primary author also wrote those. They themselves might need to be deleted due to a lack of notability. There may need to be a topic ban added should this SPA and his cohorts continue to misuse this website for their promotional POV agenda.--MONGO 16:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This is true. I wrote those, although I only included two most notable in the article as I thought not all of them needed to be included. The rest were added by Deisenbe. I'll go ahead and ping all the editors I know of having shown any interest on these topics in the past (mainly here): ScrapIronIV, DHeyward, Tom harrison, Flyer22, Etamni, Cityside, Kevjonesin, Lucutious,James Cantor, Ivanvector, Herostratus, Epeefleche, FourViolas. Note: MONGO, ScrapIronIV, DHeyward, Tom harrison on one side, and I and James Cantor on the other were involved in dispute related to Adam Walsh Act article as anyone may verify from the link above. It got somewhat personal at times (e.g. , and ). I personally believe hard feelings, rather than legitimate concerns of neutrality, might play major part in this NPOV notification. After all the article cites 44 peer reviewed studies, one book compiling topic specific studies, two reports by Human Rights Watch + handful of studies by government entities. The rest of the refs are news, including few editorials and links to government pages supporting the content. Relevant discussion related to our last dispute can be found from Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_49#Sex_offender_and_Adam_Walsh_Act. I was looking to have this article nominated as Good Article at some point where it would be put under scrutiny. Since I'm not expecting much attention from un-involved editors to this NPOV and possible future AfD, I'm afraid that I and Deisenbe will be railroaded by MONGO and his allies from Adam Walsh Act incidence. That happened in AWA case: me and James Cantor got eventually tired of trying as these four kept pushing their side while numerous un-involved editors merely passed by dropping their opinion (all of them siding with me and James BTW) but never really engaged in the discussion. Hopefully, unlike the last time the discussion revolves more around the content of the article rather than the fact that I'm currently pretty much SPA. ViperFace (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

In other words, at the Adam Walsh page your efforts were rebuked so you created a POV fork as a new place to misuse the website for the purposes of advocacy.--MONGO 21:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No they were not, I just got tired like James Cantor did. Numerous un-involved editors told you and your gang to back down, but you didn't. I have pinged all of them. I and James were chased out from the AWA article by your personal attacks and persistent unwillingness to seek consensus. I have also posted RfC since I want more editors contributing to this article. This far only 4 or so have made good contributions and no NPOV issues has been raised by those editors. You on the other hand, with no editing history on this article just happened to bump into it and wanted to pick a fight immediately. Unless I can't find enough good faith editors to watch this article you and your buddies will attempt to introduce false parity by removing sourced material as you can't block it by reverting anymore as you did in AWA. This article is split from sex offender registry as the U.S. section covered more than half of it. This is how it was after the split. Anyone may compare the first draft and current article and decide for them selves how much I have POV-pushed in any other way than raising the number of peer reviewed citations from 6 to 44 which you so much would like to have excluded of these articles. It's too late now. I am not interested in chatting with you MONGO. I rather wait for others to comment so please do not respond to this post. ViperFace (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

My "gang"...oh you must mean the MONGO-bots...Yeah...that's it. Look, I'm sure from your perspective you're trying to do the right thing, but it seems to me that you have a serious conflict of interest that is interfering with your ability to edit neutrally and dispassionately in this controversial subject matter. The fact that your edits have no other focus also raises alarm bells.--MONGO 02:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

By gang I meant those who I felt were acting counter-consensus back then. Thank you for assuming good faith. You are right, I am trying to make this article as good as possible. Due to my POV other editors are needed to ensure neutrality. This is a controversial subject and we need to get this right. Unfortunately not much interest has been given to this article. Now that the article is there, could you point to some paragraphs that need to be changed to be more neutral and I'll try to take care of it. I already made an attempt to improve the paragraph pointed out by Herostratus. ViperFace (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Well that's a non sequitur. My field of expertise is Misplaced Pages editing so I guess you all can defer to me...

Of course the article is not neutral. The I don't know whether it can be fixed or not, but for goodness sakes don't remove the tag. I don't know if it can be fixed because it's a difficult subject to discuss because what you have is, not so so much people with a fundamental disagreement about a particular law, but about the nature and purpose of laws in a democracy in general -- which is not an easy thing for people to talk about and end up shaking hands on. The question of to what extent "the public strongly supports it" versus "most experts support it" is the best basis for making laws is too complicated to hash out here. Since we can't agree, let's just keep the article short and descriptive and, to the extent reasonable, stick to anodyne facts ("law was passed on such-and-such date") that we can all agree on.

So that's why "While sections of the public strongly support , many experts... characterize them as ineffective and wasteful at best, and counterproductive at worst...", even tho probably true I guess, still does not belong in the lede and let's not do stuff like that, people. That's just one example and there're other instances where the general tenor is "look! these laws suck!" Maybe they do suck -- in fact, I think in their current form that they do suck, but my opinion on that matter has zero do with what I think should be in Misplaced Pages legal articles -- but let's let the reader come to her own conclusions, ok?

The law is a crude instrument. Get used to it, people. Life isn't fair. Many if not most laws suck. Many if not most laws let some offenders slip through while catching up some innocents. Earth is not heaven. Let's just stick to the facts. Herostratus (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree the piece you raised up does not necessarily belong to the lede, maybe it should be in overview in a more neutral tone. This piece was added by Deisenbe, not me (just in case someone wants to accuse me of pushing it to front). How would you change the tone more neutral? What I have tried to do is to describe what sex offender registries in the U.S. are, where they came from, what restrictions comes with registration, how it affects people, how effective the laws are; what general populace, legislators, scholars and other stakeholders think of it; how courts have handled challenges and what law scholars think of that. I think that's what Misplaced Pages editors are expected to do. I'm not trying to introduce my personal opinion on this subject, it comes through the RS and it is hard to balance as there is not much academic RS in support of current registries to balance with. As far as I know there is RS in support how the registries were in early 1990's or how they currently are in 2 or 3 states, but this article is about current laws as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ViperFace (talk • contribs) 13:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - After glancing briefly at this article's content and history, I'm inclined to agree with MONGO's assessment. Sadly, this type of single-purpose account soap boxing behavior is all too common WP. We lack good mechanisms to deal with it. To be frank, I think an immediate topic ban for ViperFace wouldn't be unwarranted here. This article covers a highly sensitive topic, and to have it turned into an advocacy piece really threatens the integrity of WP as a whole. NickCT (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: Steps have already been taken to achieve more neutral tone by me and user DHeyward who was quite heavy handed but I also agree with his removals. MONGO actually thanked me twice for my attempts to seek neutrality. ViperFace (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Continued move towards neutrality gains points.--MONGO 16:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@ViperFace and MONGO: - Ok. Well if Viper is genuinely looking to reform, we should try to aid him in that process. NickCT (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Please do. Like I have said, I have strong personal POV on these matters but I also want to write neutral encyclopedia. Now that I have taken more closer look it seems that this NPOV notice was warranted. ViperFace (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

5 (UTC)

@ViperFace and MONGO: - Ok. Well if Viper is genuinely looking to reform, we should try to aid him in that process. NickCT (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This issue is mainly the article. I'm concerned that trimming may be insufficient. It is clear ViperFace has a POV and critical analysis of existing laws is fine, but as you mentioned, soapboxing is not. A topic ban would essentially be a site ban since this is their primary focus.--MONGO 17:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The whole article? Aren't most of the sections merely describing the reality as it is? At least 6 first sections are merely describing the history and different components of the legislation as they are. I don't know what you think of the "Impact" and sections following it, but that's what peer reviewed RS has to say about these subjects. Critical analysis is hard to balance with positive accounts as I can't find any other than general opinions of registries being "a useful tool". That's honestly all there is. This article can't be in 50%-50% balance with positive and negative accounts. Consensus among scholars is clear, they are critical to current registries. The only positive findings are already included in "Effectiveness". I deliberately put them on front of the section. What is currently missing is the rationale behind this legislation, which originally was keeping tab on sexually violent predators and habitual offenders, of which none of the scholars seem to have nothing to complain about. ViperFace (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The article needs to remove all the commentary throughout the history. Arguments for/against registries is out of place. that debate happens in legislatures. This article isn't the place to discuss how or if they work or whether they are effective. All that advocacy material needs to go. --DHeyward (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. What particular parts of this article you consider as commentary? Where in this article arguments for/against is taking place? Please, give me a copy/paste example and I'll do my best to make it more neutral. At this moment RS supporting current legislation seems to be lacking. I'd be more than happy to include such RS when provided. ViperFace (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There is such a thing as carrying an argument too far. Laws generally take a long time to be enacted, perhaps longer to be amended and even longer if ever to be repealed. Using Misplaced Pages as a platform for the amend and or repeal options is advocacy and is a violation of policy. I'd be more inclined this article could be saved if it previously had a history that was.more neutral...but since its new and this is where its at, even with the most recent alterations, I'm inclined to think the article should not exist. I'd recommend a move back to its original starting point before you split it off. None of these studies conducted indicate that the percentage of inconvenienced registrants that "do not deserve this penalty" can be quantified. The studies cite a few examples but all seem to fail to give us solid percentages, instead only citing small numbers as grounds for saying 'bad law'. Laws supposedly protect the law abiding from the law breakers and inevitably some people will end up being excessively penalized inadvertently.--MONGO 10:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to make the article more neutral. If the quotes must go in order to make it more neutral I'm ok with it (DHeyward probably meant this), altough, at least, the Wetterling critique is kind of notable as she was the person who initiated the first federal legislation. The article does not try to quantify the number of "wrongly" or too "harshly" "punished" (officially registration isn't a punishment). I can't imagine how anyone could even construct such a number objectively as drawing a line after which life-long registration is ok, say, to age difference, would be arbitrary. I'm sure there are estimates of the percentage of sexually violent predators which I guess is somewhere between 5-20%, the rest of the registrants are something else (not saying that all of them should not be registered). You really think that the whole article should be deleted?? Honestly, would you propose this to be deleted had this been written primarily by someone else than me? I do understand that my username is pretty stigmatized, but that should not mean that all of my edits are garbage. To me it sound like ad hominem argument against otherwise relevant subject that warrants its own article. I wish more editors were involved, but not many are willing to touch this subject other than correcting my typos. They don't want to became "that sex offender editor". ViperFace (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty frustrated as not many seem to be interested providing comments. I propose we do this: I'll try to make this article "complete", which would mean (to me) improving "Public notification" -section, checking what was lost after DHeyward pared and adding relevant parts (if there is any) to appropriate sections, and splitting "state court rulings" into their own article page. After this I would nominate the article to be peer reviewed. I propose we do this in honest way, assuming good faith and without unnecessarily poisoning the well or trying to influence the opinion of the reviewers in any other way, maybe even removing NPOV tag for the time of peer review process. After all this should be about the quality of the article, not my editing history or my POV on these matters. I don't believe that any of us are able to be completely neutral. This NPOV notice is already somewhat poisoned as it started the way it started. We need truly neutral editors to determine what should be done. Tell me what you think of this proposal? PS. I have removed all but two of the reform groups from the sidebar template as it gave them way too much weight. I did not add them in the first place, BTW. ViperFace (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't begun to trim. I just removed the blatant violations from a few sections and ViperFace restored some of it. A complete review would eliminate about 70-85% of the article as speculation or POV. --DHeyward (talk) 02:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hence my rationale that until neutrality can be achieved, this is better off not being a stand alone article.--MONGO 04:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward I almost entirely agree with removal you did. Eg. the lede is currently identical to how it was initially written by me. Much of POVish material was added by one or two other editors, although many of the sections written solely by me did, in fact, contain POVish expressions, which I have tried to pare off. The whole article has much more neutral tone now. To my knowledge I have not restored anything you removed other than the image of Zach Anderson. The text under the image is not necessarily neutral. I'll fix it right after this post. ViperFace (talk) 14:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for the late reply here; my current schedule has kept me away from Misplaced Pages more than I would like this past month. When I signed in today, I found that I had been pinged to this conversation way up above someplace, and feel compelled to comment about this situation. This topic has been of interest to me for some time, but I don't normally do more on this subject beyond minor copy editing. (I did suggest a merge with some other articles but there was no consensus and I closed that discussion -- the removal of the merge-templates were probably my most major edits to the article.) In general, I am interested in subjects related to disproportionate treatment of certain populations within the US, especially within the criminal justice system. This includes, but is not limited to, the treatment of those labeled as "sex offenders" by society.

As ViperFace started editing this and other related articles, I was concerned that the sources might not have been legit or balanced, but I've found that with only two exceptions, every link I've checked has gone to sources that meet the definition of WP:RS, and I've been unable to find any counter-examples that are anything other than "opinion pieces" where non-expert commentators basically say that they approve of sex offender registries. On my user page, since well before this discussion started, has been a userbox link to Okrent's law, which states that the pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true. (Imagine if the suggestion that an article cannot contain any POV were applied to the article on The Holocaust.) Seriously, nearly every section of WP:NPOV supports the work that has been done with this article. The suggestion that ViperFace should be topic-banned is ludicrous; we need more editors who will dedicate themselves to improving the articles here. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  08:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess I'm ludicrous then because I think ViperFace, a single purpose account, should be topic banned. If the laws are so bad, why are they not only virtually unchanged but in most cases, they have been strengthened. A few states have contested some federal guidelines but not a single state has ceased using registries.--MONGO 08:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The article makes an attempt to discuss why amendments are not happening, altough I removed the quote of one legislators. If "the Wetterling- critique" was allowed, it would also discuss why the laws are often strenghtened. Sex offenders as a group are frowned upon by the public as they associate the word "sex offender" with rapists and child molesters. Any move to further punish such people gains points to legislators. The problem is: the laws target every offense that has an sexual element and even some that don't. I have not found a single piece of RS arguing that registries should go away entirely, but virtually all RS says they should not target those who are not considered dangerous. This critical view is overwhelming in peer reviewed RS. ViperFace (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There is such as thing as losing the argument because you take the argument too far. The article even with my updates and trimming reads like an apology piece on behalf of sex offenders. Of course there is going to be negative fallout from some laws, but the incidence of recidivism has declined BECAUSE of the registries...prior to their implementation, the recidivism rates were four times those for released prisoners that had been incarcerated for none sex related crimes. You're only telling the story you want to promote...that is a violation of NPOV.--MONGO 01:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"the incidence of recidivism has declined BECAUSE of the registries..." This is nothing more than your personal opinion. Pretty much all RS says that registries do not seem to have noticeable effect on recidivism. A few studies have found some effect, and these studies were included in the article before you removed the whole Effectiveness- section because you don't like what the RS says. Everything you have removed recently was well supported by multiple high end reliable sources. ViperFace (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

By sources, you mean from biased sources. Explain why recurrence is significantly lower now than before the laws and registries were implemented. In the late 80's and early 90s the recividism rate was four times greater than for non sex crime parolees. You apparently did not look at my efforts to bring NPOV to the article. You've been deliberately cherry picking sources to promote your agenda.--MONGO 22:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The source articles have been published in peer revieved scientific journals. Even studies by government entities find similar results. The whole Academia seems to be biased to you. The RS also says that sexual crime trends started to decline well before any registration laws were passed. It declined along with the general crime trend. Talking about cherry picking, you added findings of study by Dr. Gene Abel. This study is a survey on a small sub group of sexual offenders that are known to pose considerably higher risk of recidivism than all sexual offenders as category. It's a survey on sexual predators or preferential child molesters who molested "pre-pubescent boys outside the home". Unlike the sources you removed, it is not a statistical analysis on all those who have been ever convicted of any crime involving any sexual element or even some crimes that don't but still require registration. Although I don't dispute the findings of that study (some scholars do BTW, the methodology can be seen as questionable), you are giving undue weight to a one study that was studying sexual predators (who are the correct target group for these laws) to push a POV that people who piss on the street, take nude selfies, have sex on the beach, "cop a feel" or have consensual teenage sex would pose an equal risk of attacking "young boys outside the home". Sex offender ≠ sexual predator. Furthermore, you cite a paper that is not a peer reviewed study. It is a paper by National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The current president of the said organization, Patty Wetterling, is one of the most vocal critics of current registration laws. She's biased, right? ViperFace (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This Gene Abel?? Ssscienccce (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

So one editor is adding pseudo-science sources, and calling for the opposing editor to be topic banned.

And I see he adds things like: but based on studies regarding recidivism of such crimes which, based on a 1994 report, was four times greater than recidivism for those convicted and sentenced for non-sexual related offenses.

Claiming that recidivism rates for the two groups are compared, while the source compares the sex offenses committed by both groups. Ssscienccce (talk) 08:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

After adding that statement diff, the user removed material that contradicted his claim: diff with edit summary "remove biased falsehhods)" Ssscienccce (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for weighting in. Yes this is the same Gene Abel. I did not know this guy was that controversial, but when writing my last post I did have a fuzzy memory of some scholars having questioned the results of his studies. Now, if I recall right, in this particular study the subjects were participating in a treatment program and they were constantly encouraged to disclose more victims. Failing to disclose more victims would lead into terminating the participation in the program and presumably longer stay in incarceration/civil commitment, pseudo-scientific methodology indeed (I'm not 100% sure, I'll verify this later). I relly hope that MONGO merely did not bother to check the sources, but just added what the NCMEC paper said. ViperFace (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Striking over as this is not the same study I assumed it was, although some problems of this particular study seems to be discussed in Gene Abel That being said, what MONGO wrote in the article is not entirely correct description of what the FBI (or NCMEC) paper actually says. (page 15). Also, I don't think it is appropriate to refer to the victims of child molestation as "partners" in the article, even though FBI downplays the seriousness of those crimes by choosing to use such a word in their paper. ViperFace (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

We can remove Abel but my removals of advocacy POV pushing stands. We have more trimming to do before this article could possibly be a neutral treatise on the subject. ViperFace has used this article as advocacy platform and that is a policy violation.--MONGO 16:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Dead wrong ViperFace...the report is merely the coversheet of an FBI produced report used for training purposes at that time at the FBI training facility in Quantico. To set the groundwork for why these registries were established it's important for NPOV to provide background on the available data at the time. Subsequent studies performed mainly by advocates on behalf of sex offenders also have their place, but interestingly, courts have routinely rejected their arguments because of a lack of empirical evidence. The evidence compiled by such sources as the bureau of prisons as well as probationary and enforcement data better reflects trends in post release than some newspaper or some pro sex offenders advocacy group who cite one or two examples of how the laws have negatively impacted a tiny fraction of persons and then surmise that because this tiny fraction was inconvenienced then the laws are too heavy handed.--MONGO 16:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You say: "Subsequent studies performed mainly by advocates". The RS you removed as "biased falsehoods" includes:

• DUWE, GRANT; DONNAY, WILLIAM (May 2008). "THE IMPACT OF MEGAN'S LAW ON SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM: THE MINNESOTA EXPERIENCE". Criminology 46 (2): 411–446. Criminology has an Impact Factor of 3.098 and has rank of 2/55 (Criminology & Penology)
• Agan, Amanda Y. (February 2011). "Sex Offender Registries: Fear without Function?". Journal of Law and Economics 54 (1): 207–239.
• Prescott, J.J.; Rockoff, Jonah E. (February 2011). "Do Sex Offender Registration and Notification Laws Affect Criminal Behavior?". Journal of Law and Economics 54 (1): 161–206. Journal of Law and Economics: ranking: #16 out of 45 in Economics: Law
• Levenson, Jill S.; Brannon, Yolanda N.; Fortney, Timothy; Baker, Juanita (12 April 2007). "Public Perceptions About Sex Offenders and Community Protection Policies". Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 7 (1): 6. Rank: 30/41 (Social Issues); 58/62 (Psychology Social). According to Google Scholar this paper has been cited 288 times.

You removed content stating that studies find lower recidivism rates than is commonly believed, and is for sex offenders as a broad category, actually second lowest among all offender groups. This was supported by:

• "Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994". U.S. Department of Justice - Office of Justice Programs.
• "Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010" (April 2014). Bureau of Justice Statistics. Office of Justice Programs.
• Harris, Andrew J. R; Hanson, Karl R. Sex Offender Recidivism: A Simple Question. Ottawa: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.

I have not had much problem with the paring you did earlier, but NOTE: There is clearly NOT consensus for ANY further trimming to be made by you without discussing about it on the talk page first as your recent edits were not accepted by Etamni (diff, diff), nor user Ssscienccce, nor Me. When user Etamni asked you to show "any specific statement in the article that "advocates" for change?" you didn't even bother to answer. Further, when Etamni asked the same questions on your talk page, you asked him to go pack to the article talk page, the same page where you did not bother to answer.

JRPG (diff) seemed to approve how the article read before you started deleting supported content. User JRPG also characterized your behavior as possible violation of WP:NPA against me and reminded you of WP:AFG (diff). ViperFace (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep trimming it in hope it can be neutral and not the advocacy piece you would like it to be. If that's not feasible due to your incessant POV pushing and coatracking it will have to be sent to Afd where it will be voted on for deletion, merge or whatever.--MONGO 07:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Firstly WP:AGF is required. Neither ViperFace nor I are US citizens and neither of us have any personal benefit to be gained from the article -which isn't going to change US law. I came here following a RFC request and this is the first and last sexual article I will comment on. The issue has been much debated in the UK where public opinion favours publication. Successive UK governments have rejected this and WP:RS newspapers have highlighted the draconian effects of teenagers being registered for many years for unwanted but non forceful sexual approaches. Nothing that Viperface has written appears to be NPOV and whilst I have full respect for MONGO and his contributions, assuming the sources are WP:RS he is out of order here. FWIW I have had a school governor role and therefore have had training in child protection UK style. JRPG (talk) 08:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

If content supported by WP:RS is further removed without seeking consensus on talk page I will revert on sight and request the article to be fully protected. We do not need another edit war. It is obvious now that most editors have concerns with your behavior MONGO, rather than mine. ViperFace (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

MONGO, looking at this in a dispassionate way, and the terms you use when making edits or describing ViperFace’s motives, I suspect you have reasons for your obviously very strongly held views. I note you’ve contributed very little to this discussion but have simply deleted material from the article as you saw fit. Whilst there is consensus that the article is too long , I don’t think you’re helping. You’ve previously asked your friends to tell you when to shut up and as someone who respects your massive contributions over the years I think you should consider taking a voluntary break from this topic. I propose restoring an earlier version as a base and remove the state by state section to a separate article. JRPG (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but I'll decline your suggestion. The trimmed POV pushing and advocacy that I removed was put in the article by a self admitted single purpose account and I am well aware of his editing history. These things may be fine in an article titled Legal Challenges to American Sex Offender Registries but in the form they currently dominate this article, they are simply bloat and distraction. We still have much to do to get this disaster balanced.--MONGO 17:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You are pretty much only one who sees considerable POV pushing in this article. The article from which this one originates as a split on the other hand seems to be as POVish as they come. I (pretty much single-handily) re-wrote and expanded the whole article according WP:RS. There is not a single revision where citations are from advocacy sites, or advocacy blogs, or studies by advocates (don't really know where you get that from). If there is a POV in this article it originates from the RS per WP:RS as it should. Yes, there was some unnecessary repetition and highlighting of some points which were already removed per the discussion we had here. Only thing I have problem with is the removal of the tiny section about reformists (which could be trimmed more) and the loss of a large part of the "effectiveness"- section. Other than that I consider the current revision as the most stable version this far. Also, having repeatedly reading through WP:SPA I seem to be well within the allowed boundaries. Other editors seem to have acknowledged this. Please, calm down a little and take time to reach consensus on the talk page. ViperFace (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

MONGO WP:NORUSH applies, it can be sorted -don't make yourself ill over this. JRPG (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh I'm not...but there are so many policy violations here it makes me question your ability to understand what neutral point of view is. ViperFace spun this article off and has used it as a platform to espouse his already well exposed POV. These "reliable sources" are mostly inaccurate advocacy opinions. I've already seen your POV posted to ViperFace's talk page, whereby I have previously stated that there is always room for critique of laws, just not room for 90% of an article to be a soapbox for changing the laws. No idea why you or ViperFace would give a hoot since the laws and registries have little to zero impact in your native countries. ViperFace once said in his country they are considering strengtjing their sex offender laws and he was concerned that anyone reading en.wiki articles on American laws might cast a too favorable view to outsiders. I have dealt with SPAs with an agenda before and each time they end up banned.--MONGO 00:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have said that there was a short public discussion about having US style registries here, where professionals were quick to point out the obvious flaws of the US system. That's how I learned about the whole issue and the fact that WP did not have a sufficient article about US registries. You say: "These 'reliable sources' are mostly inaccurate advocacy opinions." I say: You are lying. Please put forward at least one "inaccurate advocacy opinion" as an example. It is pretty much your responsibility after making such a statement. Anyone may go and look previous diffs to verify that 1/3 of the RS was and still is from peer reviewed academic sources or studies by government entities. Rest are news reports used as secondary sources. There were initially a lot more academic RS included but they were removed per WP:Citation overkill, but no "inaccurate advocacy opinions". Someone is lying through his teeth here to gain an upper hand again as initial poisoning the well did not work. ViperFace (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This is how the original article was before the split: diff. The article initially said: "Studies almost always show that residency restrictions increase offender's recidivism rates" and other BS like that. I actually cleaned it up quite a lot and you say I spun it off??? I'm also worried that you might have some WP:COI issues as you seem to be working, or have worked for the Department of Homeland Security and tracking of sex offenders seems to be within their remit. ViperFace (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Ahem...I wouldn't have any idea if the DOHS is involved in overseeing sex offender registries...the legislation is passed at the federal level but its likely enforced by state regulators, parole boards and such. I am also not a liar. Four editors here have questioned the neutrality of this article so it's not just me nor my fault this board gets too few posters. I suppose if trimming the article of its inherent and obnoxious POV and advocacy is going to be so argumentative, it likely needs to be sent to afd to gain a wider audience. It might survive that venue now that it's been trimmed down some but I think it pretty obvious you need to be shown the door sooner rather than later.--MONGO 05:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And four have OK'd the neutrality. There's also one editor who has not commented here but did contribute to the article relatively much (Cityside). Like I have said, the article reads as more neutral after the paring we have done but I and couple of other editors were not happy with some of the most recent deletions. Still, I'm quite confident that it would have stood AfD even before any clean up, although comments of neutrality would have likely been seen. I was considering to send this to AfD myself to just to get this over with. These accusations really piss me off: "These 'reliable sources' are mostly inaccurate advocacy opinions." Either you have not really bothered to check the sources, or you are deliberately saying things that are not true, trusting that your good reputation is enough to sway the opinions of other editors. I really, really, really hope it is the former one. You really need to be able to post some diffs after such accusations. One option would be put this trough peer review process but I'm ok with AfD if you want to do that. ViperFace (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I promise to self impose myself a ban for some time on these topics after we have reached consensus with respect the few controversial deletions you did. ViperFace (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

A note to anyone in this place who still gives a crap: In response to my changing one word that MONGO had previously edited in which mis-characterized the source material (and providing clear reasoning why it was a mischaracterization), MONGO deleted the whole paragraph with a mocking comment of "good point...its POV". When I reverted and asked for reasoning or sources rather than a hand wave, he immediately got the help of a friend (ScrapIronIV) to revert it again in the same fashion ("Per WP:NPOV").
When I challenged ScrapIronIV for reasoning or sources, he responded "Not happening" and began blanking everything that didn't match his and/or MONGO's POV, with only token attempts to pretend his reasoning was any more than an echo of MONGO's "POV" claim. (Now he's all-but admitted they were deliberate POV edits in retribution.) Meanwhile, MONGO is bragging about how this is what happens to people who contradict him and his friends, and accusing me of being a ban evader based on the evidence that... I'm an IP who disagreed with him.
Gee. I wonder why I ever left, this place is a paradise... oh wait, now I remember. It is a paradise... for those who know how to game the system, because the rules make it easy for them to make others waste much more time following the spirit of the rules than they themselves waste by pretending to follow the letter of the rules (well, usually). And for some strange reason, people give up once they realize this. That was why.
So, yeah. Good luck with it, and I'll go back to remembering there's no point in caring about an organization that doesn't mind being used for the ends of small groups with an agenda. (Not to mention an organization that has refused to learn from its own history, or Stephen Colbert's attempts to warn it about Wikiality.) 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I never asked anyone to revert your revert. It's entirely possible that others disagree with you.--MONGO 21:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I was never asked anything by anyone. I came across it patrolling recent changes, which is one of the things I do here. My edits were to remove a slew of predetermined and biased information. Even when something is sourced, it does not necessarily belong. So many small sourced statements were being made that it led WP:UNDUE weight to the information presented. Errata, like a rule in one place where Registered Sex Offenders are not allowed to pass out Halloween candy. Make enough statements like that, and each little item adds a straw to the camel's back - the article was overloaded with loaded - but sourced - statements. I reduced it, and removed clearly biased and argumentative information. The article is about Sex Offender Registries, not about homelessness among sex offenders, or how their rights are being violated (particularly when the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise). Let's keep a clean article about registries, and leave the activism for sex offender rights out of it. Scr★pIron 22:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It was much more believable when you openly admitted they were POV edits ("Any additional cruft to show criminals as victims will be promptly addressed.") and simply refused to provide any rationalizations ("Not happening") when asked for reasoning or sources. 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

A glance at your contributions page shows you were indeed extremely busy making edits on a variety of pages, I'll concede.

So how, pray tell, were you able to read a very large article, fairly determine the weight that should be given to each of multiple POVs based on what the sources actually say, and discern that MONGO was in the right and should be assisted using all of the above rationalizations that you've given... in the space of under a minute?

It certainly couldn't be that you didn't, and simply reverted because you had been asked to. 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I have been involved with a number of these pages. You will find my contributions on at least four registry/law pages on this topic. The third highest of my contributions to talk pages is on one of them. I was quite familiar with the contents of the page long before I saw that pointed addition. Coming to that conclusion should not have taken a full minute, if it did - I'm slipping. Stalk much? Keep this up, and I will open up a thread on YOU here. Scr★pIron 23:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Threatening an editor, IP or not, for revealing the fact that you're being blatantly dishonest isn't particularly becoming. The only "crime" I'm guilty of is taking a look at your contributions, which show you decided to back MONGO up in the space of a minute between edits. If there's a policy that says no one is allowed to look at others' contributions, please cite it.

As to your claim that you already knew MONGO was right by virtue of familiarity with this page, it strains credibility. You weren't on the list of the last 500 edits until you jumped in on MONGO's behalf. 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you ever performed recent change patrolling? By it's very nature, you only see edits performed in the last few seconds. See, identify what looks questionable - or see an article that you are familiar with - follow the link, evaluate; not rocket science. My last 500 edits? I often put in 500 edits in a week. I may not have ever edited that particular article, but have read it, and it's on my watchlist. So, go bark up another tree. Anyone here with actual experience can tell you it's not a big deal. And yes - running to contribute to discussions you have never been involved in because I reverted your edit on Millennials? Yeah. Somebody has a problem, and it ain't me. Makes me feel nostalgic, I'd almost think one of my favorite banned editors is back. (Wink, wink! Nudge, nudge!) Scr★pIron 23:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not wish to add any more fuel to the fire but to me it is hard to overlook the fact that the three editors who have been blanking this article (today and in the past, regardless of the comments left here and the talk page by numerous un-involved editors) are the same editors who were involved in the debate in the Adam Walsh Act article. To me the behavior in both cases resembles remarkably well what is described in Misplaced Pages:Tag_team#Tag_team_characteristics. Before this day the article was being improved step by step, but it looks like the minor edit (a single word) by an IP initiated a response that resulted in wholesale blanking of some 20% of the article with simple WP:JUSTAPOLICY justification. ViperFace (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

This needs special note: If you knew that MONGO was right because you were familiar with the page, why did you claim in your previous comment that you reverted a "pointed addition"?

You should probably go back and read the history before you continue. If you actually knew what was going on and made a considered decision as you pretended, you would have known that I added nothing. I edited one word ("rare" to "some") to match what the sources actually said, MONGO deleted the section in response, I reverted that, and you restored his deletion.

I'm not talking about your edits. I'm saying that you weren't in the last 500 edits on the page - i.e. the last two months - until you jumped in on MONGO's behalf. And what you're saying sounds suspiciously like an admission that you are not making your edits as considered decisions, but as snap judgments. Whether or not they're at others' request is now the only thing in doubt.

On to your new claim - where in the blazes did you come up with the lie that I'm a banned editor? I'm nothing of the sort, and I suspect you already know that but are trying to muddy the waters. Either give some evidence that you're not pulling that out of your tail end, or retract it. 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Getting more and more personal. Hugs and kisses.--MONGO 00:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

ScrapIronIV - Good call getting MONGO to come and muddy the waters again, but it's not "personal" to provide clear evidence that an editor is lying and acting in bad faith. Let's review:

You're lying about knowing MONGO was right because you were familiar with the article. You hadn't seen it in at least two months, during which it went through massive changes. To boot, you didn't even know what you were reverting, as evidenced by the mistaken claim that you were reverting a "pointed addition". You're also making an accusation (that I'm a banned editor) that is demonstrably false, based on no evidence.

So where would you like to start in trying to climb out of the hole the two of you have dug? 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

What hole? That an editor was checking recent changes and since he edited a related article that was also a POV mess and so he decided to jump in and start cleaning this one up too...how is that a hole? That you changed "rare" to "some" and I decided the whole statement was a POV synthesis...so I removed it...how is that a hole.--MONGO 00:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with MONGO about the existing POV bias and think that part of content can be easily deleted, however removing other parts is actually too much. This could be shortened and rephrased, but this is basically a valid and well sourced info on the subject. But whatever. I do not have time for this. My very best wishes (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks...while it will likely be seen as a POV fork, the peripherals on this matter should be on a new page as I mentioned earlier in this discussion.--MONGO 04:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• You suggested above that removed content belongs to "Legal Challenges to American Sex Offender Registries". How come if the content you removed includes the following subtitles: "Registration process", "Public notification", "Additional restrictions", "Effectiveness", "Perceptions", etc.? This is not about any "legal challenges". Look, you made this posting on the noticeboard to have opinions by 3rd uninvolved parties, and here is it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

These sections were supposed to be worked on to make them more neutral. Mongo and NickCT were on to it, but for some reason ScrapIron came in like a Rambo and blew up like half of the article. I really can't see Mongos' reasoning for not allowing these sections to stay on the page and rework them as the original plan was. The accusations of the ip editor do not seem far fetched to me as I have seen this go down on another article related to this subject. 3/4 of the editors who did this in the Adam Walsh Act article are now involved in blanking this article, regardless of multiple opposing opinions of uninvolved editors. Mongo did not have a problem with these sections (at least ostensibly) before ScrapIron removed them, but now he is suddenly edit warring for ScrapIron. This same counter-consensus behavior took place in AWA article. All of the sections are relevant to this article. I have now reinstated them. Just stick to the original plan you and NickCT had, Mongo. ViperFace (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I do not see any reason for these paragraphs (in my last diff) be removed, and I do not even see a reason for them to be significantly reworked. Now, speaking about a similar removal on another page, I too agree that it was unwarranted, because it merely describes and explains the application of Law. Yes, this is a serious offense and must be described as such - with all consequences, per sources. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the history of that page, the revert on the Adam Walsh Act was the same material that he had removed based on COPYVIO. I looked it over as well and felt it was at the very least an extremely close case of paraphrasing material. --MONGO 17:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about this removal? Can you give any link where this came from? This is different from the text removed as alleged copyvio , and according to the edit summary by ViperFace it was taken from another WP page. But this is a peripheral issue. Looking at discussion on article talk page , it appears that idea was indeed to improve the text rather than remove. My very best wishes (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You are correct on the revert issue in that the COPYVIO revert was different and that material was added by an IP, which originates from Helsinki, Finland. Yes, ViperFace, I am sure that must be you...it seems rather implausible that another Fin would be editing these articles on en.wiki. We're not here to discuss a different article. I'll look over ScrapIrons latest revert but it does appear to be very COATRACKish for this article.--MONGO 17:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, please take a look. I think this is personal bias. Texts in question describe real life consequences for people who committed the crime and their families. The consequences might be viewed as "unfairness" of the US law and practices, but that's irrelevant as long as the content is properly sources, and yes, it is about the subject. My personal bias would be different: people have every right to know the results of application of the law in their country, no matter if something was "fair". My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

When you are going to remove the pseudo-science piece of Gene Abel you added, Mongo. Also, inb4 "Boo-hoo! Viper is a SPA!".— Preceding unsigned comment added by ViperFace (talk • contribs)

MONGO is blatantly gaming the rules, and will continue to do so for as long as he is allowed. First he brings in his old ally ScrapIronIV to agree with him... at least until ScrapIronIV slipped badly and revealed that he didn't even know what he was agreeing to, continued to repeatedly (and demonstrably) lie about why he started with that then went on to blank 20% of the articleoldid=689869232] (and demonstrablyand finally upped his bluster to crude threats. Then when a new genuinely-uninvolved editor became involved and explained why he felt both sides had a point, but undid ScrapIronIV's blanking until a compromise could be reached, a "long term articled" editor whose talk page reflects repeated personal and noticeboard support from MONGO just coincidentally happened to stop by and feel very strongly that the blanking should be restored,. This story seems to have been repeated, here and elsewhere.

MONGO repeatedly "jokes" about bringing in his "army" to come agree with him if you make edits he doesn't like. At the very least it's not funny, and it doesn't appear to be a joke either. If I had a great deal more spare time, it would be well worth bringing it to AN/I... well, it would be if (big "if") anyone cares enough about ending routine collusion to address even blatant cases, or the rules that make it easy.

To be fair, I don't like addressing nasty, time-consuming problems either. But sooner or later someone has to, or ArbCom might as well be renamed "Top-Level Dispute Resolution". 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hum...you should log in with your regular account. Anyway, maybe trimming the yet unaddressed issues that have been tagged will finally fix this soapbox article.--MONGO 17:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I love the fact that you and ScrapIronIV are so fond of insinuating/asserting/threatening that I'm a banned editor - without a shred of evidence. For the third (or is it the fourth?) time, I'm not. I left long ago of my own accord when it became obvious that you and people like you will always win unless WP is willing to reform the rules.

It's far too easy for those who (usually) pay lip service to the letter of the rules to bury editors of good will under dozens of hours of work following the spirit of the rules. Your appeal to AGF just now by implying "Who, me? I have no idea what you mean, let's start aaaall over again and now you can beat your head against my 'army' of 'Mongo-bots'‡ to game consensus until you give up in despair" is a perfect case-in-point.
I can read histories just fine, thank you, and I do well enough at creating my own despair. So no, I'm not interested in returning to editing and wasting dozens of hours demonstrating how long you've been doing this, if you can just bat your eyes and say the magic words "But I've changed and I've learned how wrong I was, soIapologizeandnowIdeserveanotherchance (or a dozen)." Nor am I interested in hoping you'll dig your own grave a hundred feet deep by continuing to use allies who make mistakes as obvious as ScrapIronIV's.
No one, except perhaps those who try to pretend that you and your ilk haven't made WP fodder for comedians, is that obstinately blind. If not even an admin is willing to tackle you - even when your group has made it this obvious that you're colluding - there's little point in me alone trying to do so.
‡ - "Why yes I do keep saying it, but I'm only joking, you big silly. Tee hee. Like I said, let's start over again." 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

To imitate ViperFace's wisecrack, "In b4 someone praises MONGO and ScrapIronIV as prolific editors‡, the usual defense of those whose misbehavior is so egregious as to actually get in trouble for it."

‡ - I swear, I have never understood why anyone would consider this a mitigating circumstance. To me it's appalling to know that someone has been getting away with driving other editors away from "their" articles this long. 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

If I thought ScrapIron had made a mistake I wouldn't have reverted. In fact, this article still needs more trimming to maintain focus and achieve NPOV. Aside from that, schreeching about alleged collisions that are unrelated to whether we are closer to neutrality are about as helpful as the average pile of donkey doo.--MONGO 22:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

By "mistake", I'm not referring to the fact he blanked 20% of the article.

I'm referring to his having accidentally admitted that he didn't even know what he was agreeing to, when he reverted on your behalf. He then compounded this mistake by demonstrably,) and repeatedly, inventing false reasons for it.

Would you like to try to justify that, or will you continue trying to bluster your way out of it? 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Mongo said: "Anyway, maybe trimming the yet unaddressed issues that have been tagged will finally fix this soapbox article." If this is the case, why an earth are these three edit warring for deleting this piece ? This well sourced 20% of the page content has one trivial "citation needed" and one "NPOV statement"- tag. The former can be easily cited or deleted. The latter one should go into the "debate" section as originally planned, or to the "effectiveness" section that was deleted earlier in similar manner, and the citation should be changed from NYT op/ed piece to this considerably more reliable US Government publication which says the same thing. Majority of uninvolved editors have now disproved with the latest deletions. Why ask for third opinions if one does not care about third opinions? ViperFace (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm really surprised that this topic hasn't generated more input from uninvolved editors after all this time on this noticeboard. As it stands, the article has been gutted and the original editor has moved on to other topics of interest (possibly disproving the claim that it was an SPA). I'm really disappointed that, as a community, we have apparently decided to ignore the WP:RS and instead go with practically a bare bones de minimus article on the subject. Yes, it's more than a stub, but certainly not the encyclopedic work I was hoping to see when all was done. As it stands now, the article supports beliefs from popular culture (i.e. beliefs supported by television crime dramas and the like) and does nothing to inform the reader, based on RS, the way an encyclopedic article should. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing doesn't end up on WP:LAME! Etamni | ✉ | ✓  12:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

ViperFace is much braver than I am and this is an emotional topic involving reputable editors from different cultural backgrounds. There have been suggestions that the UK follow the US -a view firmly rejected by the UK government who seem to share many of ViperFace's arguments. Important, properly cited material has been deleted but the article was too long. I would support splitting it along lines previously suggested. It should be available. JRPG (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Even this discussion has become a wall of text that many will not read. --sigh-- I'm all in favor of organizational changes that make the article easier to read and understand. My concern is the wholesale deletion of WP:RS from the article that has gone unchallenged by the larger community, even when such deletion supported a particular POV. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  14:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. I believe Mongo is concerned that this article could influence US opinion. Could we build a consensus on a link to a new article Legal Challenges to American Sex Offender Registries containing the wp:RS deleted material? I had thought this was going to happen weeks ago. JRPG (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I think this if anything should be in Legal Challenges to American Sex Offender Registries. This piece was imported from Sex offender registry when I did the split . The rest of the content that has been thrown out, that is, the Effectiveness section and the part that has now been subject to edit warring belongs to this article. Anything else would be WP:POVFORK. I personally think this version covers the subject quite well, but it should be checked for balance and POV expressions by someone else than the deletionists. I get that my version had some balance issues but the ultimate bias the deletionists hold is pretty clear from the Adam Walsh Act case. After all, MONGO said that I and — James Cantor, who happens to be an expert notable enough to have his own Misplaced Pages article James Cantor, are "apologists for deviant behavior and want to misuse the article as a platform for their agenda." We did provide around 50 peer reviewed articles to support our position but these same three editors kept on reverting any mention of them. I have deep mistrust to these editors and I genuinely believe that MONGO's intention was never follow through with NickCT's plan as Nick was not going to remove WP:RS, he was simply going to reword and re-organize the article. Suddenly, wild ScrapIron appeared out of nothing. ViperFace (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Its comical that anyone would assume that since you finally went and edited an unrelated article or two that this now means you aren't a POV pushing sex offender apologist. All laws tend to have more writings that oppose the laws than ones that support them. The key is whether any of that advocacy has led to alterations of any significance to the laws and in this case they haven't. The laws regarding the death penalty in the U.S. have similar advocacy against them....yet in many states in the U.S. the death penalty is still legal. I'm sick and tired of your POV pushing and advocacy and misuse of this website to attack laws in a country that isn't even your own...I don't need to read my wiki resume to you to demonstrate that I've always followed our policies such as BLP, NPOV and SOAP long before some of these were even policies.--MONGO 22:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The key is to follow what WP:RS says, not what your gut feel says. If all of the RS take critical position, that's the position the article takes. Another key policy is to flow with the consensus. It is true that I came here as an WP:Advocate to correct great wrong. My early ways of editing was intercepted by many long term editors. Since then I have tried my best to stand corrected. You and your bots are the only editors who seem to have hard time of acknowledging this. Your wiki history demonstrates the fact that the community is not able to address your violations properly. You are one of those who are able to come up clean after dipping in a pit of greasy doo-doo. Also, I'm striking over your blatant violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPA. ViperFace (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't alter anyone's comments...funny you might do that while at the same time stating that I am "one of those who are able to come up clean after dipping in a pit of greasy doo-doo.", and referring to others who see your POV pushing and sex offender SPA platforming for what it is as "bots". We're done here...I'm going to revert you on sight.--MONGO 07:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who keeps on joking(?) about Mongo bots. The IP brought that up and I happen to agree with his/hers account. You also seem to be able to avoid sanctions even when ArbCom finds you guilty. You and the "others", who are non-neutral editors, have been removing WP:RS which has been objected by majority of neutral editors who have responded here. You posted this here "in hopes of soliciting neutral contributions for balance." The questions of neutral editors still remain unanswered. How about answering them? You also fail miserably in keeping your own promises. ViperFace (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• ViperFace, I can completely understand getting furious at being called a "sex offender apologist". But Misplaced Pages has a policy for the correct way to do everything, including removing blatant personal attacks against you. At least as I understand it, the correct way is to add a template. Big surprise. (-_-)
• MONGO, did you seriously just pretend to be offended that you infuriated someone by calling them a "sex offender apologist"? I guess that means you consider even de minimis alterations of others' comments to be worse than breaking the hell out of NPA. If that's the case, how should the community respond to someone who unabashedly deletes comments they don't like on an article talk page? 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I have reconsidered my position. I think we should try to build consensus around what MONGO and JRPG have proposed above. I try to see this as more of a WP:SPINOFF rather than WP:POVFORK. The problem is this. To save the deleted RS what MONGO considers peripheral for purposes of this article, multiple separate articles are needed. Could we add the debate section, which would have subsections with minimal coverage on each topic which would provide links to the main articles? ViperFace (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I freely admit I am utterly bewildered at the intensity of the emotion shown in this discussion. I suspect it reflects both the European v US backgrounds of the editors + perhaps some victim experience. The UK has considered publication of the register and the RS are therefore useful. A debate section may be the best way of continuing to avoid excessive article length. JRPG (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice to have some sort of response from those who initially removed the debate section and other RS material. It's very frustrating to try to build the section if it gets arbitrarily removed without much of an explanation. ViperFace (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Paul Singer

This post concerns Paul Singer (businessman). I recently copy edited the article rather succinctly due to its NPOV tag. One of the sentences I removed from the lede reinstated by Nomoskedasticity, mainly “His business practices have been described by detractors as having the characteristics of avulture fund, a characterization which Singer rejects.” I claim the use of “vulture” is non-neutral, and as such goes against WP:LEAD. Subsequent attempts at discussion were diluted and fizzled out, e.g. here and here. A related issue, concerning the fact that 67% of the article's Elliott Management section contents relate to distressed debt, was also raised per WP:CRITICISM. Please note this is a BLP. Given nobody commented besides people who are directly involved with the article, I hope anyone unfamiliar with this issue and yet experienced in NPOV matters can provide much needed insight. I appreciate your help and look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to share my feelings on this b/c this conversation is getting silly. I will say that this is the 3rd thread FoCuS has started on this issue (after discussing it here and here), which seemed aimed at overturning an October RfC. I previously suggested to him that repeatedly bringing up this topic in different forums might be considered forum shopping. I'm curious as to whether FoCuS doesn't understand what forum shopping is, doesn't think this is forum shopping or just doesn't care. NickCT (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Great way of not engaging in discussion! My reason for the posts is simple: lack of outside opinions. I know nothing about previous consensus; I didn't edit this article before and the history behind it seems to be long and convoluted - I was bold and copy edited it because of its tag; I didn't expect there would be such a long history of revisions behind an average BLP such as this one. I also know nothing about involved editors beyond the constant names cropping up in its edit history and talk page. The subsequent attempts at discussion were prompted by my copy edit, and concern the simple matters of 1) the lede; 2) the Elliott Management section - all were made in appropriate venues: BLPN, NPOVN and its own talk page. We should all strive for consensus. You can engage or again show apparent resignation and contempt. Clearly the article's content provides material for debate, otherwise there wouldn't be repeated NPOV claims made about it. Let's give fixing it a go; I'd much rather we tackle this for the sake of Misplaced Pages than yet again hide it under the rug. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This is just getting desperate now. There's no way I'm discussing this anymore. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT seems to be the running theme with this article. This is just so absurd now that it's almost descended into parody. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to have a serious discussion about the contents of a BLP. I showed good faith by inviting all dissenting parties to the discussion. I've provided arguments and have always followed dispute resolution processes in hopes of encouraging consensus-building. Instead of engaging, I've seen repeated claims that "consensus has been reached many times before". I haven't found evidence of said consensus, least of all considering, as far as I can tell, the same 2-3 editors have time and again stonewalled any attempts at improving this article's neutrality and overall structure and content. How Misplaced Pages's changed if we can claim consensus has been reached with 3 opinions! I won't go into attributing any of this to underlying ideological pretexts, given I strive to AGF and maintain discussions neutral; however we need to find consensus when there is an obvious neutrality issue at hand.

The fact of the matter is "vulture" remains a pejorative term. There wouldn't be a need for the use of such a term weren't it for its negative connotations. See this as a clear example. Per WP:BLP, the content should be removed immediately yet I did not revert Nomoskedasticity in order not to trigger an edit war. Claiming there is no neutrality issue while claiming there have been previous discussions about it is simply ignoring reality. I am saddened SegataSanshiro1 has withdrawn from future discourse. I invite any uninvolved editors to participate in this discussion so that we can once and for all leave this behind us and improve the article. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I too find it difficult to see how "consensus" was reached with only three editors, all of which have been heavily active on Singer's personal page and talk page. Standards for a BLP are much different than that of other pages, such as a company website. Comparing someone a "vulture", especially in the lead, is incredibly disparaging. Even if it is sourced, I don't understand how users see this as neutral. Meatsgains (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Whether vulture fund is disparaging or not, it exists as a descriptor for funds with a characteristic pattern of behavior - namely, buying distressed debt at a discount and trying to recover full price (or at least more than the purchase price), particularly from sovereign nations. Singer's work fits this to a T. The place to lobby for eliminating this term as being too hurtful would be on the page for the term itself, not Singer's page. 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't need an explanation of what a vulture fund is. You argued that the term describes "funds", so why is it being used to describe an individual on a BLP? Meatsgains (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: - re "being used to describe an individual" - That's shenanigans Meat and you know it. We're not calling anyone a vulture. NickCT (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It is describing his “His business practices..." thus, should be included on the company page, not his BLP. Meatsgains (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

As he is the founding CEO the distinction is slightly artificial, but I have moved the sentence from the lead to the Elliott Management section where it perhaps makes more sense. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a good move. He is known primarily for being the head of a Vulture fund. Now the lede again has undue weight on his charity work. We're treading a dangerous line here where the article is at risk of returning to just being a nice PR puff piece. What he is best known for should certainly be mentioned there, not doing so whould simply be whitewashing. Any chance the Singer page is related to this? I see many of the same names crop up. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It's more complex than that: while I agree that there is a risk of whitewashing there are also genuine issues here. I've now reintroduced the "vulture" characterisation but following the source more closely in noting that opinions vary. If you think I have got this wrong then you should of course feel free to edit it, but the key thing here is, as always, to follow the sources rather than our own personal views. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I think this last one is certainly a good edit. Essentially, if we want to avoid value judgements on Singer himself and separate what are criticisms of him from criticisms of his company, when Elliott Management is mentioned, it should be clarified that this is predominantly known for being a Vulture Fund - especially considering that the lede should reflect the content of the article. In some cases missing content, since there was a lot of controversy surrounding Delphi and Compuware is completely absent from the article - but this is probably for another discussion. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: Thank you for your effort towards breaking the gridlock. I do think we're not quite there yet, however. We have in effect used a single source for a contentious statement in the lede, which in fact is a summary of particular portions of said source. This is not encyclopaedic. Why was just the Washington Post utilised or deemed representative? A similar analysis applies for the EM section with the reinstated comment from the lede. It now reads as if the firm's primary line of business is distressed debt (which in fact is not, per reliable sources); the preceding Financial Times statement also needs revising in light of this (per the source: "Elliott is a multi-strategy fund with $24bn in assets across global markets"). Let us please discuss how to incorporate neutral information from a representative sample of sources first, before editing the article while there is an ongoing discussion. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Easily resolved by using multiple sources citing Eliott as a Vulture fund . We've been through the whole "percentage of business" line of argument, and that in no way concerns us - we must simply show what reliable sources say. It's what the fund is best known for considering these activities are extremely high profile and widely reported. Simply leaving this out of the lede would be akin to leaving out the accusation of murder from the lede of O. J. Simpson's page and focussing instead on his sporting achievements and brief acting career. We all know this, let's not pretend that it's not the case. Any attempt to remove this from the lede is clearly an attempt at whitewashing. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, you and your sources are referring to Elliott Management as a vulture fund. So why are we including it on a BLP? To compare Singer, whose business practices are LEGAL, to the accusations of OJ Simpson's murder is completely out of line. Singer is covered in countless reliable sources on various topics outside of his investments. Meatsgains (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Do a quick Google News search for "Paul Singer" and tell me how far you have to dig to finally come across an article that compares Singer to a vulture. That is not what he, nor his fund, are "best known for". Meatsgains (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not comparing Vulture funds with murder. Clearly analogies aren't your strong point. The first couple of lines of the article are:

Paul Elliott Singer (born August 22, 1944) is an American hedge fund manager, investor, philanthropist and political activist. He is the founder and CEO of hedge fund Elliott Management Corporation, what the New York Times terms an "activist hedge fund", and (via his Paul E. Singer Foundation) a prominent New York based philanthropist.

I'm simply saying to change this description of his company to what it is widely regarded as. I'll ignore the rest of the straw man.

Also, again just as a side point, this sentence highlights the problem which has historically plagued this article - giving equal weight to "activism" and "philanthropy" in an attempt to detract attention from what should be given far greater weight. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I find it astounding how instead of engaging in actual discussion people resort to facile arguments. I am also gobsmacked at the fact that the very content which this post is intended to discuss is being willy-nilly reintroduced into the article without proper process per Misplaced Pages policy. This reeks of agenda-pushing and needs to stop. It looks like we're sadly heading to upper levels of dispute resolution, given the lack of outside participation. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

This topic has already been extensively discussed in many different places. Further forum shopping is not the answer. There's plenty of room to discuss details, but there is an established consensus that the term "vulture fund" is not inherently contentious or derogatory, and that the only relevant policies here are the usual ones about sourcing and weight. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

See, for example, the extensive discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Using "Vulture fund" as a page name. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, this isn't about a page name, and thus your reference is void. This is about the use of a non-neutral term in a BLP's lede and contents. Several policies come into play here. Furthermore, creating a post in the relevant noticeboard before actually editing the article is precisely the opposite of forum shopping. I have solicited nobody's attention. This discussion is open to all parties. Can we discuss the issue at hand now? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Focus, if I can just remind you of the RfC in October entitled Should use of the term "vulture" be added to a BLP?, the consensus was:

There are comments on past RFC's. RFC's findings are not forever, consensus can change, but it is not guaranteed to change. There is consensus to use the term "vulture". The majority argument is that the word is used by reliable sources WP:RS. The minority opinion cites WP:BLP, but BLP is not a policy against inclusion of information found in reliable sources. Its purpose is to make sure those sources exist and are used. The lede of BLP clearly sets this forth.

A similar RfC in August 2014 also gave (weak) consensus to use the term. I'd just like to remind you again that you're not bringing absolutely anything new to the table here, and even more forum shopping is going to weaken your position since it does appear (at least from the outside) like there appears to be an effort to suppress reliable sources be editors who are personally offended by a term due to their ideological positions. This has extended far beyond just this article. Again, I also remind you of the RfC which you were a part of which, as Jonathan A Jones points out, "established consensus that the term "vulture fund" is not inherently contentious or derogatory". SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me remind you that the RfC I participated in discussed a different article altogether. Even more forum shopping? Can you provide evidence of a single instance of forum shopping? I haven't even edited the article while trying to bring about a civil discussion (when several editors here have). I have also never suppressed any sources - which you seem to treat as acceptable practise on Misplaced Pages. I am in fact trying to weigh sources, but am met with constant refusals to do so. I also hold that your constant accusations of ideological persuits are laughable and cannot be held to any degree of seriousness. It's amusing how you're the only one using an ideology card; engaging in discussion (the very definition of neutrality) so far appears to border on the absurd. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

You alluded to two previous RfCs, can you please provide links to those? Are they about Paul Singer? I believe I participated in an RfC in the W2W talk page about a different article a few months ago. If as you say there was weak consensus in August 2014 (about Paul Singer?), then reassessing said positions seems appropriate and even prudent - especially when there is clear contention. I'd also urge editors experienced in the matter to come forward and provide expert opinions, given interpretation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV can be quite daunting - and none of us here appear qualified to provide such interpretation (especially with such entrenched views). The fact of the matter is "vulture" is a derogatory term, as acknowledged by reliable sources, and as such cannot be used in a neutral encyclopaedia. That is a whole different (yet related) issue to the way the article is structured and its contents. We can thoroughly portray the work the subject does, but using neutral language. Politically-charged terms should not have any place on Misplaced Pages, and doing so when the exact same rources used to support its use acknowledge the term is pejorative seems utterly unreal. What place does opinion have in a lede? Imagine I introduced similar text to an actor's article: "the NYT describes Brad Pitt as a 'leftie nutjob' or a 'dramatic' actor" - what good does that sentence bring to the table, regardless of its provenance? I'm tired of saying this but let's keep things in perspective and engage in discussion. Avoiding discussion won't make dissent go away - ask Lenin. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

May I remind you that you started the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive232#Paul Singer (businessman). Starting this discussion shortly afterwards in a clear breach of WP:FORUMSHOP. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

May I remind you I started the second discussion after the first one went stale (nobody outside the article's own talk page has cared to comment in either, by the way) - in turn after the talk page's own discussion went stale; when both policies are at play; and in the appropriate venues to do so. I haven't solicited anybody's participation in other outlets. Have you ever even read WP:FORUMSHOP? In case you haven't: noticeboards are precisely where consensus is sought for, and I have, per the quoted policy itself, provided links to show where else I have raised the question. Now, can we please set these attempts at discrediting serious editors aside and focus on the discussion at hand? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The other RfC on Singer's page was in October and can be found here. As it has been noted multiple times in this discussion and the other two you have started, consensus was established to use the term. I really think you can't accuse anyone here of not engaging in discussion, since It is pretty evident that this has been discussed to death - there have been two on Singer's page, one on W2W and at least one more on Vulture funds. These discussions (along with the other RfC you participated in and another on the Vulture fund page) have found using RS that Vulture fund should be used since it is WP:CommonName. Ignoring this consensus and the other established here whilst repeatedly forum shopping and still continuing to make the exact same claims which all these discussions repeatedly refuted is bordering on WP:CPUSH since it should be fairly obvious by this point that your POV is a minority one. As you have been told repeatedly, you are not bringing anything new to the table and the reason you feel that others are "unwilling to engage" is really just seems like a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and (speaking only for myself here), I don't feel like going through all this again to satisfy the whims of one editor. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Note the use of quotation marks (and that the RfC uses the quotation marks itself) - which is the practice of most reliable sources using the term (NYT generally uses either "so-called" or quotation marks for usage of the term). Collect (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm unnecessarily reopening a can of worms, but I'm not sure I understand: If there's a clear consensus (and it appears there is) that Misplaced Pages policy does not forbid calling a vulture fund a vulture fund any more than it forbids calling a loan shark a loan shark (in both cases the most common term for a particular style of business practice), why does the lede call a vulture fund an "activist hedge fund"? 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, hello there IP whose only mainspace edit is restoring a word in Sex offender registries in the United States! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, hello there person who seems extremely troubled by the term vulture fund being applied to a Paul Singer's vulture fund!

Did you want to answer the question, or were you just being friendly? 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Your appearance here out of all places looks odd, that's all. Now, a few remarks on your post above: 1) we're an encyclopaedia, not a village barbershop - neutrality is paramount to everything we do; 2) there is no clear consensus - 3 editors who've extensively edited the article feel like they own it and have since established a smear campaign on several capitalist enterprises (nothing to do with their declared Communist-Socialist affiliations, of course); 3) as has been previously discussed, "loan shark" doesn't carry the same popular connotations as "vulture fund" - the former practise being in several domains illegal and having such a long history it counts with widespread use, the latter is still in its etymological infancy, if you will, and is treated by sources as pejorative, hence its appeal to mass media markets (see use of quotation marks - it is a legal practise and as such shouldn't be treated any differently; its only appeal is due to the fact sensationalism sells); 4) finally, the lede calls Elliott Management an "activist hedge fund" given the New York Times does so in the reference used for that specific claim. Hope this clears your questions. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree that the vulture fund business model is entirely legal. Indeed I would go further than that: vulture funds are ethical and provide a valuable service by exposing the bankruptcy (not just financial, but in many cases intellectual and moral) of the debtors. As has already been established there is nothing intrinsically pejorative about the term. And so once again we come back to the fundamental principles: follow the sources and apply due weight. We call Elliott Management an "activist hedge fund" because the New York Times does so, and similarly we describe Singer's investment style as 'either "an activist investor" or a "vulture capitalist"' because the Washington Post does so. There's nothing complicated here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Focus, I don't feel like I "own" anything, I have been looking at this page for a few months and the "smear campaign" extends to Vulture fund, and that's it... The editor who feels like they own the page is Meatsgains, who has very clear free market leanings and has been protecting that page for quite some time. I think that now since you're resorting to cherry picking sources based on your own views, there is nothing further do discuss here. What you are trying to do seems overwhelmingly obvious. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@FoCuSandLeArN: - WP:DONTBITE NickCT (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@NickCT: - WP:AGF FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@FoCuSandLeArN: - I'm pretty sure it was you who was not assuming good faith by implying foul play. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@SegataSanshiro1: Foul play? You mean like Maradona? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@FoCuSandLeArN: - I see you have just descended into childishness now that you haven't gotten your way. Judging from your snarky and xenophobic jibes in this discussion and the W2W discussion, I take it you're from the UK. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Can we please focus on the content at hand rather than the behavior of users? Meatsgains (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

(In response to "4) finally, the lede calls Elliott Management an "activist hedge fund" given the New York Times does")

Yes, it does. And I'm sure it's pure coincidence that led you to look up that source and use it to change the wording.

Unfortunately, WP:UNDUE suggests that Googling until you find a source that uses your preferred terminology, then changing the lede itself to pretend that it's the majority viewpoint, is a Very Bad Idea. 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Michael Botticelli is NOT a 'Politician'!

Michael Botticelli is NOT a 'Politician'! He is a PUBLIC SERVANT! He never ran for, or held, an elected position. I cannot edit the banner on this article. I hope you will.

Robert E. Dwyer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwyerlaw (talk • contribs) 17:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the page name is Michael Botticelli (politician) to differentiate the page from the figure skater named Michael Botticelli. Meatsgains (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Why not use "(civil servant)" in this case? Collect (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I was mulling over this the other day. I agree that "civil servant" is the most neutral name, and have moved it. Best, HiDrNick! 15:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Trustpilot

There is a dispute on Trustpilot reguarding the neutrality of the lead paragraph. I would appreciate more opinions on what to do with this. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment at ExxonMobil

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:ExxonMobil#Request for comment: ExxonMobil among most vocal climate change deniers. Issues of neutrality have been raised. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48

Request for comment on History of the Great War

History of the Great War I'm revamping the article; a couple of years ago added material (1917 Part II) that didn't seem as NPOV as it does now, with me being more experienced. I'd like someone with an interest in NPOV to help me identify what certainly can't stay in since it's my OR. The problem I've got is that the paraphrase of Edmonds, Travers and Green is OK but they all get it wrong and that's the bit I couldn't resist adding. Edmonds tucked certain potentially embarrassing facts away in footnotes and appendices and occasionally they contradict the narrative. I'd hoped by now someone would be in print so that I could cite this to them but alas not (Unless there's an adept who knows better?). Everyone who writes on the 3rd battle of Ypres swallows the biggest mistake in the book. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Aloysius Stepinac

Your input is requested at Talk:Aloysius_Stepinac#RfC:_What_honorific-prefixes_should_be_included_in_the_infobox.3F. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Pablo Picasso

I have to say that the article reads more like something generated by a foundation dedicated to promoting his works than a resource for information. It's widely accepted that the quality of his work greatly declined as his fame grew and he reached a point where he produced prints and lazy work simply because they could generate enormous sums of money. Remember, this is a man who would pay for a pack of gum by check because the shopkeeper wouldn't cash the check, he'd sell it. (Gum is an example as I have no idea what he bought, but the rest is true) The article makes it sound as if he was practically churning out innovative work on his deathbed.

I really think someone with a far greater knowledge on the subject than I should review, and likely edit, the page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Pablo_Picasso — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E040:3A00:5137:254B:9AF:C483 (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

what is "skate punk" anyway?

The skate punk article covers way to many other genres of punk music, and sports including but not limiting to BMX and also surfing which also adopted the punk movement at the same time. This article is to generalistic and biased to have any real encyclopedic value at this point in time. This article needs a massive adjustment beyond what I can achieve as an IP editor and perhaps a merger with the Punk rock article. Talk:Skate_punk#What_is_.22skate_punk.22_anyway.3F

--123.211.208.122 (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for article concerns relating to a biased point of view being displayed by editors within the article. Though this may apply to the skate punk article, the real glaring issue is with WP:VER and WP:OR. Normally NPOV issues derive from material that's already sourced, but it's being used to present a POV not supported by the source. However, this is part of the Misplaced Pages process. It seems you have a passion for this subject, so feel free to find some reliable sources of your own, and start editing the article to better represent those sources. At this point in time, you could argue that it be merged since I think there's only one source used for the entire article, but after doing a Google Scholar search, I found a few sources that discussed skatepunk. That means it probably deserves its own WP article and just needs to be developed more. Feel free to create an account and start getting involved in the project.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross

This article needs more uninvolved editors to check it for neutrality. The subject posts copiously on the talk page and does not always help his case, but I think that he has a genuine concern about neutrality. The lead talks about a twenty-year-old lawsuit, for instance. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Cosmology: Biblical Cosmology

Alohascope (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Biblical cosmology portion of Cosmology: Despite serious errors and lack of substantiation in the 'Biblical cosmology' portion of 'Cosmology' the editor 'All The Foxes' insists on reverting to the original text from my much more factual revision DESPITE my revision including the original text to show the reason for the changes. I suspect this is a case of an editor's personal opinion of both Old and New Testaments being false and untrustworthy. I ask for community support based on my inclusion of links in my revision testifying to the factualness of my revision, and the error of the original. Please and thank you.

Original Text: "Biblical cosmology Genesis creation narrative (c. 500 BC) Flat earth floating in infinite "waters of chaos"

My change: "I will leave the original text in 'Biblical Cosmology' unchanged, but changes should be made by an editor. The date or origin for instance of the Genesis creation narrative according to a Misplaced Pages article should be at least earlier than 1,000 BC, and according to other sources as early as 3,500 BC, not the 500 BC stated in the original text. Also, Babylon was a latecomer in Old Testament history when the Jews were captive there, having taken Moses' scriptures with them, with Jewish men rising to high positions in government, so the Babylonian account is likely based on Jewish scripture. In the Genesis account the "dry land" was not given a description, but appeared from beneath the waters which covered the planet earth, the earth not described as flat and circular, but a person can be led to believe the bible described the earth as circular because a sphere viewed from any angle is circular."

Original text: "Based on Babylonian cosmology. The Earth and the Heavens form a unit within infinite "waters of chaos"; the earth is flat and circular, and a solid dome (the "firmament") keeps out the outer "chaos"-ocean."

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution