Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:54, 31 October 2015

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

The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial

There is a "special report" from Mother Jones[http://www.motherjones.com/special-reports/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial ] titled "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial" that is being used as a source on multiple pages. It looks to me like an editorial opinion with no particular reason to give it any more weight than the hundreds of similar editorials on both sides of this politically charged issue. Is this a NPOV use of this source? --CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It is quoted/referenced in other RS quite a bit - see this article in the Atlantic, and the fact that some major academic works have referenced work by the same author (also published by mother jones) on the same topic. Some of that is listed towards the end of this discussion. So I don't think it can be ruled out as POV just because it's an editorial or just because it's mother jones - but whether or not it's appropriate probably depends on how specifically it's being used in the article (and which article we're talking about). Fyddlestix (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly POV - but its use is contextualised and far from undue - but that's because it's talking about people who would qualify as WP:FRINGE. Koncorde (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I would call it a reliable opinion piece. It can certainly be used... but information taken from it should probably be presented as opinion (ie attributed). Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I would call it an opinion piece that engages in informal fallacy: specifically, argumentum ad ignorantium where the reader may or may not be a scientist who has read the relevant research and argumentum ad populum where the article makes reference to a consensus. Scientific method is more a concern with methods and results - not a consensus. The title use of the term "Dirty Dozen" or "Climate Denial" appears an attempt to poison the well by stigmatizing the twelve entities, listed in the article, as a pejorative - without presenting their arguments. Brett Gasper (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." That's not been done. It took me only a minute of googling to find "pro" views on CFACT and Monckton, so the editor who put in Mother Jones (it was the same editor in almost every case) could easily have found other other significant views. Bias could have been avoided by ignoring Ms Jones's biased opinion, or proportionate representation could have been aided by including opposite biased opinion; neither of these things happened; this is not proper. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The question is whether or not this is a reliable source for the context used. Let's see the context used in reference to this source, so we can accurately and objectively answer this question. Koncorde seems to think it is, but the rest of us have no idea. As long as it is attributed and referenced properly, I don't see why it can't be included to a certain extent. Mother Jones' opinion is not entirely irrelevant, but it shouldn't be given undue weight. Darknipples (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

When those "significant" views are WP:FRINGE this is not an equivalence. Looking at the two sources provided by yourself for instance we have an opinion piece by Pat Boone of all people on WorldNetDaily (I'm not aware of him holding a "significant viewpoint" to represent), meanwhile Delingpole is often cited in defence of Monckton (and criticised too). I'm not aware of either of them offering defences of Exxon, the API etc but if there are counterpoints to those then they can be included in the article. However it is not up to an editor of an article to neuter their edits through the chilling requirement of faux NPOV. Koncorde (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Peter, we entirely understand that you wish climate change denialists were supported by real science rather than being denialists. However, they aren't - and to fail to acknowledge that this is denialism would be an abrogation of core policy. Representing sources fairly and proportionately means that we are more inclusive to sources that discuss the mainstream view - and in a situation like this where most of the relevant authors, we are entitled to ignore the more obvious swivel-eyed loons (e.g. Monckton). Guy (Help!) 22:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Some of the uses fail WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, as it obviously (to all except a now-topic-banned editor) an opinion piece. And the question of whether it is a notable opinion should take into account whether MJ has other disputes with the named entities. If it were still notable if it read "an opinion piece in the ultra-left magazine Mother Jones stated that the ultra-right Heritage Foundation ...", then it is probably notable. "This discussion" above seems inconclusive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The source is perfectly reliable if we position the list as attributed to Mother Jones or to the article's author. If there are any uses of the source that fail WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV they should be corrected, but not deleted. The author analyzed various factors that seemed critical to climate change denial, and came up with this list. We have no place trying to quantify the author's analysis in order to knock it down. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy is making a false statement about my intent, an insult about a living person who is a subject of a BLP, and a baseless claim that "the mainstream view" has called these people and organizations denialists. No, they're being called that by someone at Mother Jones. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this is the second time I have had to say this, while describing Moncton as a 'swivel-eyed loon' is generally uncivil, it is entirely accurate. If you wanted a more civil description of him 'A man whose opinions and thoughts have as much in common with reality as pink unicorns'. There is really no situation where Monckton is considered an authority or dissenting opinion on anything. It would be like citing David Icke on the advantages of Republicanism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. For Peter Gulutzan to complain at being called on his long-term climate denialist apologia, while engaging in apologia for a climate denialist, is a fine irony. Monckton is a denialist, those whose ideology causes them to recoil from the implications of climate change need to get over this, think of a solution that is ideologically consonant, and become part of the solution rather than pretty much the whole of the problem. We only have one planet, and the icecaps are malting. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Malting? Well we might get some better beer out of it... Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I have a couple of problems with the use of this source.

• Posting a reference to an opinion piece that links multiple persons and organizations could be considered guilt by association. We wouldn't include something like "Acme Corporation is on Bleeding Heart Liberal Magazine's list of Most Hated Organizations" if the list also contained the Nazi Party and The Association of Telemarketers And Robocallers.

• What evidence do we have that this ranking of individuals and organizations was objectively determined? What standards were used in determining inclusion or ranking?

• Where are the other reliable sources that reported this particular Mother Jones list? Why, of all the thousands of editorial opinions on this topic, are we giving this one obscure 2009 editorial such undue weight?

• The editor who inserted this into multiple Misplaced Pages articles has been topic banned from the articles, and so far roughly half of the near-identical additions have been removed by other editors.

Previous discussions: Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#Top_.22Promulagator_of_Disinformation.22, Talk:FreedomWorks#Climate_change_denial.-CypherPunkyBrewster (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Some of your questions have been answered elsewhere (as there are about 3 or 4 simultaneous noticeboard threads open about this source...) Regarding your second point, of course it's subjective. It doesn't pretend to be anything else. How could one objectively or quantitatively determine the twelve "worst" purveyors of climate disinformation? The source would be used (if it is used at all) subject to WP:RSOPINION, so in-text attribution makes clear that it is a subjective, opinionated source.

Regarding your second point, the list has been cited by authoritative sources (e.g. the Oxford Handbook of Climate Change), which is an argument for specific notability. Your last point has nothing to do with the merits of the source and is not really germane to discussion here. MastCell  18:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a comment on the reference of the source in the Oxford source. It mentions the article as one of several that claim right wing blogs were denying climate change. An article on quack medicine might quote a blog talking about alternative cancer cures. That doesn't mean they endorse the content of the blog. Anyway, I think this should be treated as an opinion article and cited as such. They hyperbole in the article should not be included unless it is clearly included as an opinion. Springee (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"The folks at Mother Jones last fall offered a helpful list of 12 corporate climate-deniers, including FreedomWorks, the Koch-infused group. " says The Atlantic about the list. In this manner it should be treated as more than an opinion piece. It identifies climate deniers well enough for The Atlantic to say so. We need to be careful of other use of the source, such as the position in the list or the rhetoric about the individual entries. That said, the introduction in the article is more than opinion, as are the facts and discussions about them throughout the article. --Ronz (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

An involved administrator of our project, who is opposed to the use of Mother Jones (magazine) in our project, is systematically adding the red-link author name Josh Harkinson in-text, in addition to the attribution to Mother Jones (magazine), wherever this source is used, with the edit summary, "proper application of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV." Is this a proper application of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? Does WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV require the author name in text? The source is a feature article, not a guest editorial. The source was subject to the editorial oversight of Mother Jones (magazine). The author name is available to curious readers in the well-formatted reference. The author name in-text is unnecessary and distracting to our readers WP:RF. In-text attribution to Mother Jones (magazine) is necessary and sufficient. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Such changes assume that there's consensus that the MJ article as used is a biased opinion piece. Such an assumption ignores the secondary sources, and seems to ignore the discussions to date--Ronz (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You would need to show the list had achieved widespread attention in the literature about climate change denial. The FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list for example is so well known that articles on these fugitives should mention they are on it. This list shows no such attention. One editor has said the list has been cited in reliable sources, but the example merely says that the article was used as a source in a book, but the list itself was never mentioned. Instead the book used the article as a source for a person working for no. 6 on the list. TFD (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

"You would need to show the list had achieved widespread attention in the literature about climate change denial". Howso? --Ronz (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

We're not creating a separate article on the topic, so notability guidelines do not apply. --Ronz (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

"Notability" does not apply but "weight" does. Just because something can be sourced does not mean it belongs in an article. The source says for example that Sarah Palin has a Facebook page. I can find reliable sources for thousands of people who have Facebook page - that does not mean we should add thousands of new sections to Facebook. The way to show that the list had received attention in the literature about climate change denial would be to find a reliable source about climate change denial that mentioned the list. TFD (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

As we have two such sources, then it is due some weight, right? --Ronz (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean we have two such sources? TFD (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Two sources have been previously discussed, but the opening of the RSN and NPOVN discussions didn't include them for some reason:

• What the Scopes Trial Teaches Us About Climate-Change Denial
• the Oxford Handbook of Climate Change

They're a bit lost in all the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The first source, which is an op-ed and therefore fails rs, mentions the list but says nothing about it, while the second does not even mention the list at all, it merely uses that article for information about one of the people discussed. There is no reason for us to provide further prominence to the list than it has received in reliable sources - that is central to NPOV policy. TFD (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The Atlantic ref is an op-ed? Howso?

"Who are some of these groups? The folks at Mother Jones last fall offered a helpful list of 12 corporate climate-deniers, including FreedomWorks, the Koch-infused group. " Seems to demonstrate that the list, and being on the list, is due.

"about one of the people discussed" So it is reliable, and appears due. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The Atlantic article simply cites the MJ list as a list; it doesn't cite it for the prominence of the twelve as deniers. This is where I see a problem: I can perhaps see using MJ as an authority for the claim that so-and-so does deny climate change (in which case the actual sub-article on that organization needs to be cited instead), but I don't see how we should be endorsing MJ's ranking, which seems to be what we are doing. Mangoe (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

My impression is that this is an opinion piece of MJ. A reliable media source that comes up with its own opinion for who are the top members of a category. Kind of click-baity actually. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The item in The Atlantic "What the Scopes Trial Teaches Us About Climate-Change Denial" is an op-ed written by an editor to tell us "what can happen when big business joins forces with religious faith." It is not reporting a news story, it is arguing an opinion. TFD (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Attack on Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger at "List of People from Tucson, Arizona"

At List of people from Tucson, Arizona user "User:Onel5969" is reinserting a sentence alleging that Sanger was a "prominent eugenicist" without context, balance or any hint that this view is controversial, of little relvance to the page and is NOT an accepted consensus of WP or scholars and as such contravenes neutral point of view.

The entire mention of Sanger on that page, without the slander, is a single sentence long, so that his edits now make it look like Sanger is primarily known for her views about eugenics - which were moderate and unsurprising for a time when more extreme views were common among the intellectual and political classes - rather than the important fact that Sanger was the highly notable founder of the widely discussed organization Planned Parenthood.

Indeed, the lede of the Margaret Sanger page itself does not mention eugenics. This, to me, reeks of finding a more obscure page to exploit since the main Sanger page seems more actively defended. The obvious goal here is to use guilt by association to tarnish Planned Parenthood by attacking its founder.

Another point is that Sanger is the only individual on that list who's views are even mentioned. Everyone else just gets a short description of their occupation or achievements. See for yourself - . This seems like soapboxing on an inappropriate page.

Diffs:, ,

Guardthetruth (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Sanger is known for both facts. To leave one out is POV pushing. She was known for her views, in fact, looking at her article, over three quarters of the article is about her views, not her founding of PP. This also might not be the appropriate forum since you (or the ip on the page, uncertain whether either one of you is a sock of another), has not attempted to engage on the talk page first, and seek consensus. The object of my reverts is to revert a POV pushing editor who is making ip edits on the page, without engaging in consensus. Onel5969 05:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to agree with Guardthetruth here. Sanger is primarily known for being a birth control advocate and the founder of planned parenthood, not for being a "eugenicist." Check out her ANB bio, which leads with "birth control advocate," mentioning Eugenics only briefly further down in the body of the article. The National Women's History Museum leads with "proponent for the availability of birth control and contraceptives and their use by women." Most general reference works say "birth control advocate." "Eugenicist" does not belong here - Obviously it shouldn't be relied on as a source anyway, but incidentally, our article on her has its own major NPOV problems, which have been discussed at length on the talk page. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

(Thank you Fyddlestix). I am not a sock, I've edited with that IP for a long time without incident, I make no bones of thät, and I have no agenda on Misplaced Pages. I just drift around randomly and fix little things here and there, like a dozer. Which is calm and pleasant until the fraggles show up...

I do notice that you have thousands of edits on that page. I have somewhat less.If anyone has an agenda here, it's not me, Onel5969. Or maybe it's WP:OWN. Guardthetruth (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

First, that's a perspective, Fyddlestix, not a fact. I am not saying that the statement should or should not stay, simply that it's removal should be discussed on the talk page. When the term was first removed it was with the edit summary, "Remove slander". This is clearly incorrect, since Sanger was a proponent of eugenics. That's not a question of perspective, simply a statement of fact, well documented. The next two times it was reverted it was without comment. The ip/GTT never attempted to engage in discussion, never attempted to build consensus. Per WP:BRD, the change needs to be discussed on the talk page and consensus reached. I would ask Fyddlestix to self-revert, and open the discussion on the list's talk page. Personally, I don't care if the fact that she was a eugenicist remains or not. The way it was done was incorrect, which was why there were reverts.

Second, the definition of sock puppetry is "The use of multiple Misplaced Pages user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry". It goes on to define improper use as "Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors...". When a discussion on an article is being held by a user as an ip, and then a question about that action is brought forth by that ip's registered account, that could be construed as an attempt to deceive, by making it look like more than one editor agrees with that position.

Third, I am not sure where you're coming up with "thousands of edits", I have about 3 dozen, for the most part format fixes, adding names and citations to the list. The agenda I have is to make an attempt to follow the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages. I am attempting to AGF, but some of your actions are making that difficult, including your uncivil (name calling) behavior.

Fourth, I'll address the point that GTT brings up in the below comment. When there is an ip making disruptive edits with incorrect or blank edit summaries on a page, and it appears that an edit war might develop, I ask for page protection. Plain and simple.

Regardless, I'd like to see some consensus building on the article's talk page, which is where the discussion should be taking place. Take it easy. Onel5969 14:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:UNDUE. Aspects of a subject are included according to their coverage in the body of literature on the subject. Whether it's "slander" is irrelevant. What matters is whether it makes sense within Misplaced Pages's content policies. When you need a short summary of what a person is "known for", we go with what the reliable secondary sources say. — Rhododendrites \\ 20:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I should've dug deeper before jumping in above. So here's what actually happened: An IP removed the eugenecist part of the Sanger line with edit summary "remove slander" (was that you, Guardthetruth?), Onel5969 undid saying it's not slander, then the IP edit warred over it without, as far as I can tell, any further communication until Guardthetruth opened this thread. This was the case of someone making a poor argument, not communicating, and edit warring, and someone else trying to protect the page. This noticeboard should come after discussing the issue with the other user and/or on the talk page, not when you don't get your way through edit warring. Procedurally, One15969 did nothing wrong here. I disagree about the content, but there's absolutely no reason why this thread should remain open when the matter hasn't even been discussed on the talk page. — Rhododendrites \\ 21:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I just stated that IP was me above. Do you have reading difficulties? There is no reason to discuss an obvious violation of npov on the talkpage.Guardthetruth (talk) 11:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Rhododendrites. btw, hope you don't mind but I corrected my username spelling above in your comment, to remove the redlink. Onel5969 21:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Onel5969 secretly moves for semi-protection, gaming system

See .

He goes right behind our backs to ask for semi-protection without informing admins of the ongoing content dispute. This is just gmaing the system. Guardthetruth (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to claim anything is being done "secretly" or "behind our backs" on Misplaced Pages. You edit warred over a change you did not effectively argue for. That's not how things work. Protection is premature, but I don't think there's anything unreasonable about considering a protection request when you see someone come in, claim "slander", and start edit warring. Before you come to a noticeboard, talk with the user and bring it up on the talk page. Don't WP:EDITWAR. There's no gaming the system going on. I agree with the removal of the text (as above), but there's no need to continue this thread. Next time this happens, keep it focused on the content for as long as you can before making the dispute about the editor. — Rhododendrites \\ 21:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Then why are there so many policies that require users to be informed when issues related to them come before a noticeboard? Misplaced Pages is huge and people go behind each other's backs all the time. That's why those policies exist. Do some research about this place before you waste my time again. Guardthetruth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Filing a WP:RFPP is not gaming the system. Nor is it going "behind anyone's back" (as you so quaintly put it) since the request can be seen by everyone. When an edit war is taking place an RFPP is recommended as one of the ways to get it to stop. Additionally there is no requirement that anyone be informed when an RFPP is filed. There merest moment or two of research will confirm this. Since you feel that editors go behind each others backs "all the time" it is worth noting that Misplaced Pages is not compulsory. MarnetteD|Talk 16:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez

This is to report the lack of compliance with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy in the BLP article Ariel Fernandez. The matter has not been resolved in the BLP notice board and has been brought up previously here. An entire paragraph with six references in the section “career” (which consists of only two paragraphs!) has been devoted to the questioning of papers by Ariel Fernandez as if they were noteworthy events in and of themselves, which is not something supported by reliable sources. The paragraph has negative implications, as pointed repeatedly by various editors, including Minor4th, Rubiscous and several others. No breach of ethics has ever been mentioned, let along proven, in regards to the subject. Thus, the paragraph is not providing useful information on the subject’s career or to Misplaced Pages. It should be mentioned that the subject has published over 350 professional papers, two books as the sole author and holds two patents, according to his online CV, and multiple secondary sources therein. Yet 50% of the discussion of his career in Misplaced Pages focuses on two papers questioned and his single retraction where no breach of ethics was involved. We may conclude that the Misplaced Pages BLP is not neutral and that the contents further reveal a nefarious intent to harm the subject. The libel has been repeatedly inserted as indicated in the following diffs, possibly pointing to a hatred driven attack on the subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ariel_Fernandez&diff=681893308&oldid=681661402 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ariel_Fernandez&diff=682581574&oldid=682001397 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ariel_Fernandez&diff=686246039&oldid=686186985 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ariel_Fernandez&diff=686248672&oldid=686247309

Thanks much for your prompt attention. 181.228.138.187 (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council

That's pretty over the top. Two points of context: 1) there's no reason to believe that this IP editor is in fact posting from the "Argentine Natl. Research Council"; it's likely instead that this is a sock of Arifer. And 2) there's no "hatred driven attack", rather a straightforward consulting of reliable sources that cover this subject. I'd suggest that there's a problem of forum shopping here -- but in fact I don't mind terribly that it's been brought to NPOVN, where there's an appreciation that whitewashing at the request of article subjects is not the way NPOV works. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I do think the article could use some work, and the questioned articles do occupy a place of undue prominence in this biography. I would encourage editors who have time to look for additional biographical information about this person - certainly the guy is not only notable for three articles that have been questioned. If that's the only real biographical infornation about him in reliable sources, then maybe the article should be prodded for deletion.

Misplaced Pages does have a history and a policy of hearing concerns from article subjects, and the IP is at least bringing the issues to the proper notice boards - rather than edit warring. Minor4th 00:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor gets no credit for not edit-warring -- because the article is indefinitely semi-protected (as a consequence of previous misbehaviour). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I didnt realize that. I did not look too far into the history of the article. I suggest the IP take some time to gather sources and make proposed edits on the article talk page. I will keep an eye out for proposed edits and work with the IP in improving the article - I just dont have the time or interest to do the research myself. Minor4th 17:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Minor4th, as per your advice and in an effort to get a balanced neutral description of the career of BLP subject Ariel Fernandez, we have included in the Talk page a proposed revised version with appropriate secondary sources for the Career section in the BLP. We most appreciate your help with the editing to ensure that the article complies with the neutral point of view. Our proposed version includes reputable secondary sources.

200.49.228.32 (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council

Nomoskedasticity, please stop abusing us and deprecating Dr. Ariel Fernandez. Dr. Ariel Fernandez has done more than writing 3 questioned papers. According to the public records, he has published at least 350 papers, wrote two books and holds two patents. As numerous editors have indicated, the BLP on the subject is not in compliance with the neutrality tone that must prevail at Misplaced Pages. Please stop your hate-driven attack on the subject! The National Research Council of Argentina has regional centers throughout the country and Dr. Fernandez, who resides in Basel (Schweiz), is probably unaware that you are defaming him by abusing the Misplaced Pages platform. He certainly has the right to defend himself but has not done so as far as we can tell. We don´t owe you any explanation, yet we feel we need to tell you to please stop attacking everybody who stands up for Dr. Fernandez.190.97.61.112 (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Argentine Natl. Research Council

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.
• 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)

Fish Pain Page

Just a heads up a NPOV notice has been reinstated for the fish pain page https://en.wikipedia.org/Pain_in_fish, as the notice was removed by one user , however based on my reading of the wikipedia guidelines the NPOV template should only be removed whenever any one of the following is true: 1. There is consensus on the talk page or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved. 2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. 3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

As none of these criteria have been met, the notice stays until we get the page sorted out. I will work through the points raised in the Talk section in == getting the balance right in instances with no scientific concensus == one by one and hope that contributors have a good grasp of the scientific literature on this subject - please read the actual papers cited, do not rely on newspaper articles, raw citation data or the like. Professor Pelagic (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC

Hi Prof Pelagic. Thanks for taking this on.DrChrissy 11:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Second Opinion Requested

Would it be possible for someone to weigh-in on this DYK nomination? The nom is not satisfied with a part of my review; out of a preponderance of caution and concern my opinion may be incorrect, I would like a second opinion. This doesn't require someone to undertake an entire DYK review, just to confirm or reject a WP:PROMOTION concern I had. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Second Opinion Requested

Could I get a quick set of eyes on Template:Did you know nominations/Nancy Cruickshank? You don't need to conduct a full DYK review, I just want someone to confirm or reject my belief that the DYK hook is too WP:PROMOTIONAL. I'm not entirely confident in my own determination, as it's probably on the line, and would appreciate input from a second editor. LavaBaron (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

White Anglo-Saxon Protestant

This article is absolutely terrifying. I would like your attention.

• Read my edit summaries and check the changes I made
• Check my message in the talk page.
• Still in the talk page, notice that the tone and neutrality of the article have been questioned in the past a significant amount of times.

Cheers, Outedexits (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Some of the passages in this article are absolute delights:

• "St. John's Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C. is an important church for the WASP community."
• Like other ethnic groups, WASPs live in proximity of each other in close social circles.

The article is hilarious and, most impressively, faithfully sourced throughout. The sourcing aside, there's obviously a fundamental structural issue with respect to tonality that can't be fixed by some edits. It should probably just be blanked down to the lede. LavaBaron (talk) 10:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Assumptive and non neutral language added to Fringe Theories guideline

This was added to the Fringe Theories guideline. The language is so inflammatory and non neutral especially for a guideline that I am bringing it here for neutral input and reading. I refuse to edit war this content and leave the working out of this to the larger community.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC))

Per this edit summary: "This is not an article. It is about fringe theories and the problems we encounter, therefore this is all exactly on-topic. Don't whitewash this to promote a fringe POV."

Language of the guideline is being skewed so that the assumptive and inflammatory is presented as neutral while what might be neutral language on any other guideline or policy is presented as biased and POV. We should at the very least have policies and guidelines that are written in a neutral manner. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC))

The guideline applies to all editors, not only ones that can be labeled as fringe or lunatic. Rhoark (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Most of your changes don't strike me as an improvement. The first part ('Proponents of fringe theories regularly attempt...') is the core summary of the section, and replacing it with 'editors may' completely undermines what it says; I don't think that that part is particularly non-neutral. Likewise, "...not the proclamations of its adherents. Attempts by such inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories..." is essential because the gist of the section is that people who are devoted to such theories frequently attempt to use Misplaced Pages to promote them, something we have to take specific steps to oppose; changing it to "editors or personal opinion" loses this. We could possibly lose the "lunatic fringe" quote, which doesn't seem essential, but I agree with BullRangifer's implicit statement that policy text is not subject to WP:TONE, which specifically refers only to articles, so even that removal isn't strictly necessary. --Aquillion (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Per Rhoarke: Policies and guidelines apply to all editors not those we choose to label. I would go one step further than Rhoarke and suggest we shouldn't label anyone. As for Jimbo's quoted cmt.; there is no place for name calling on Misplaced Pages. That Jimbo made this comment in public is no reason to use it here. The point is not whether my changes improve; its whether we should be slanting our policies using labelling and name calling. If there is agreement that we should colour policies that way then that is the community agreement, but heaven help us.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC))

Well, aside from maybe the Jimbo quote, I don't see how the other parts are name-calling; and I do think that labeling has a place (in the sense that policies sometimes have to use labels to say "don't do this; don't be like that.") We identify vandals, tenacious editors, and so on as problems to be dealt with in other policies; identifying proponents of fringe theories here as a general category to be watchful of strikes me as reasonable. Obviously, as with any other accusation about user conduct, we'd want people to be cautious about accusing individuals of it without evidence, but it's something we legitimately have to be watchful for and which is therefore worth spelling out. --Aquillion (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines apply to all editors. In this instance we identify editors under a criteria that is wider and more nebulous than an identification like vandal, and the criteria for identification is also nebulous and subject to change on the whim of personal opinion and bias. Before we label editors in a policy or guideline we need to make sure the label itself can be applied with consistent accuracy by all editors not just by those who have demonstrated they use the view to create outcasts to their view. Yes. POV labeling. We cannot create labels to tack onto people and then further cement that label by including it in a guideline. Further, labeling people as lunatics and charlatans is name calling and I hope beneath the dignity of people here. Are we professionals or not. We aren't when we call people names because we don't like what they do. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC))

• Olive, I'm surprised you haven't alerted User:BullRangifer to this discussion. Or have you, and I've missed it? Surely it would be helpful to get his take on it, beyond what can be crammed into edit summaries. It's not like you took it here and left it in the hands of neutral editors, is it; you have continued to post and argue with them, and more than half the words in the discussion are in fact yours. There, I've pinged him. Bishonen | talk 19:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC).

I left a note on the talk page where he made the reverts here. Since he reverted my changes I assumed he would look at the talk page. And no I did not intentionally leave him out of the discussion. I have continued to expand and comment on my concerns while not reverting to my preferred version of the guideline. In the end it doesn't matter to me what is added to that guideline (in part because it won't make any difference to how people are treated) or I would have reverted to what I consider to be a neutral version. My intent was to explain and expand on clearly what my concerns are. I understand your innuendos and they are unfounded, and I am truly sorry you felt you had to deal with my input this way. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC))

The diff given at the beginning is really quite deceptive, seeming to show substantial rewording on BullRangifer's part. He actually added only the quote at the end and the change of tense at the beginning. Almost all of what you see in that diff is actually the reversion of Littleolive oil's changes diff. It is this change against a consensus version that hadn't changed since at least August 2012 which needs justification, not BR's relatively minor edits. Mangoe (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not lay blame for the edits on anyone nor was that my intent, but its true I hadn't seen them until today and felt they as a group they were not appropriate words for a guideline. I left a notice on the talk page as notification for any editor including BR interested in a further analysis of those edits. The diff represents my edits not BR's so I'm not sure how the diff is deceptive. Please AGF.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC))

• WP:NPOV is applicable to all editors, whereas, the section in WP:FRINGE noted above (i.e. "Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories") refers to a particular subset of editors... those who invent, promote, or adhere to fringe theories. Now, not everyone who invents, promotes, or adheres to a fringe theory is a "lunatic charlatan", so I would be OK with removing Jimbo's quote. - Location (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Location, I agree that NPOV applies to all editors, but it only applies to the encyclopedia itself, IOW only to articles, not to article talk pages, policies, guidelines, or userspace. Even content in articles need not be neutral. At least that's my understanding.

This is not directly related to this discussion, so if you think this is worth further examination, it might be best to start a new discussion. I would love to hear what other people think there, but not here. We must not derail this discussion. Does that make sense to you? -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 17:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

While I still disagree with the wording because of its possible implications, you make a good point which is logical and makes sense when you say, "the section in WP:FRINGE noted above (i.e. "Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories") refers to a particular subset of editors.". (Littleolive oil (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC))

Nice discussion here! I see I missed the party, but I'll leave a couple diffs which show the differences between the contributions/revisions:

• BullRangifer
• Littleolive oil

I'll let all the fine editors here discuss the merits and demerits of each version, and maybe there is some usable good in each version which could be used in a third version, one which is even better. Whatever will improve this guideline is fine with me.

I notice some focus above on this applying to "editors", but we must keep in mind that these fringe people who attempt to misuse Misplaced Pages are often not regular editors, but driveby promoters and advocates who use the "edit this page" tab. They should not be treated or advised in the same way as trusted editors who know our PAG. That's why my version made this change: "Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used regularly attempt to use Misplaced Pages as a forum for promoting ..." I think we can recognize this as a common and problematic occurrence which must be discouraged, and that cannot be done with neutral language.

Keep in mind that NPOV does not mean neutral content, but neutral editors editors who edit neutrally. We document all kinds of non-neutral things and biases, using very biased sources, and our articles are often filled with such biased content, and that's how it should be. The important thing is that Misplaced Pages does not take sides, so the bias is not coming from Misplaced Pages's editors, but from the sources, and editors must not neutralize what sources say. Censorship is "taking sides"! They must faithfully reproduce the ideas, biases, and spirit of the sources. (I'm working on a new essay on this subject.) -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 05:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Then why not let neutral editors like (Littleolive oil (talk) improve the NPOV....?--Aspro (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Aspro, I see my wording has led to confusion, so I have tweaked it. Obviously no editor is neutral, neither myself, nor Olive, nor yourself. My edit is at least factual, so I'm going to seek a consensus, and I'll abide by it. Fair enough? -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 04:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The statement in question (i.e. "Proponents of fringe theories regularly attempt to use Misplaced Pages as a forum for promoting their ideas.") is accurate and neutral. - Location (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Also note that the text in this section of the guideline had remained untouched since at least October 2012 (i.e. three years); the first paragraph hadn't been touched since at least October 2009 (ie. six years). Consensus needs to be reached, preferable with discussion on the talk page, before changes are made. - Location (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC) edited 05:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Location, I agree with you that, because the edit has been contested, we should seek consensus before proceeding. I also agree that this discussion should have been held at the article talk page, but Littleolive obviously chose to use this venue for the discussion, and immediately after starting it here they left a notice there, presumably to direct editors there to come here.

So, where is the best place to discuss, now that the discussion already exists here, and was intended to exist here? Shouldn't we just continue here, rather than have two discussions on the same subject? -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 04:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to form consensus for the inclusion of the wording you propose, the article talk place is the right place. This page is in fact entirely irrelevant for the discussion as NPOV doesnt even apply to policies.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it was probably inappropriate to bring this discussion here. However, I wanted input from the community as a whole. Both Bull Rangifer and I changed the guideline and are following those changes with discussion, all appropriate actions. The content I can't agree to is the Jimbo quote for the reasons I've given. I don't agree with BR's other changes or the stable version of the guideline, but given BR's reasonable input, and some of the insights above I could support both.(Littleolive oil (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC))

Littleolive oil, I understand and agree that community input is valuable. I totally AGF in you and think we can just work toward more input and get some kind of consensus. My edit had two parts, and the quote from Jimbo should be left for later discussion. Right now let's all concentrate on the wording of the first sentence. There has been some good input here, and we can ping or otherwise seek input when we continue this on the guideline's talk page. Does this seem reasonable? -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 17:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I think one of the Village pump pages, possibly the Policy one WP:VPP, is the best for notifying about a discussion like this but the discussion should take place on the talk page of the fringe theories guideline. The language does seem wrong to me and I would not let the business about it being from three years ago deter there. The Fringe theories noticeboard was a real cesspool then which actively deterred members of its clique from telling anyone on a talk page that the subject being discussed on FTN, and they plotted ways of acting in concert to remove articles. At least they now have a note at the top that they should inform editors that they are being talked about even if they don't put a notice on the talk page of an article being talked about. When I just looked now the discussions seemed fairly okay so I would give the benefit of the doubt and see if you can get a reasonable discussion on the fringe theory guideline talk page. Dmcq (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with taking it back to the guideline talk page, and with dealing with the first sentence, first.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC))

Agreed. Go for it and I'll get back to you a bit later. Thanks for great collaboration! -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 17:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

fringe zoning the editor

RfC announce: What claims are governed by WP:MEDRS?

RfC announce: What claims are governed by WP:MEDRS?

There is a current RfC that concerns which claims should be sourced under WP:RS and which claims should be sourced under WP:MEDRS. This has the potential to affect sourcing rules for a large number of articles, so please help us to arrive at a clear consensus on this issue.

RfC:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#RfC: What claims are governed by WP:MEDRS?

Related:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Does MEDRS apply to Epidemiology?
• Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Clarifying "biomedical"
• Misplaced Pages talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#RS/N
• Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Domestic Violence article

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution