Talk:Sex offender registries in the United States: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:36, 15 September 2015 editFlyer22 Frozen (talk \| contribs)365,630 edits →WP:Neutral policy and WP:Citation overkill ← Previous edit		Revision as of 09:23, 15 September 2015 edit undoViperFace (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,334 edits →WP:Neutral policy and WP:Citation overkill Next edit →
Line 9:		Line 9:

	Also be mindful of ]; it's an essay, but it's followed, especially in cases such as . ] (]) 02:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)		Also be mindful of ]; it's an essay, but it's followed, especially in cases such as . ] (]) 02:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
	:Thanks for pointing this out. I was not aware of ]. This is a controversial subject. People hold strong opinions which are some times unfounded. The reason why I over-killed with citations is the lesson learned from AWA case: there are editors who refuse the reality and substitute their own, even when faced with overwhelming evidence. The problem with positive sources is that there seems to be none, except general opinions of politicians and victim advocacy groups of public registries being "useful tool". Academic RS on current state of registries is unanimously critical, period. I'm going to re-write the effectiveness section where I'll cite few studies finding positive effect of registries. (There exist only 2 or 3 I'm aware of and they come from states applying risk-tools.) Also, I'm contemplating writing a section of perceptions of these laws by general public vs. academics. I'm happy to see you here ]. You are one of those editors that make me trust Misplaced Pages, and who keep my kind of editors with strong POV on check. On the other end of spectrum are editors you mentioned above, and one you forgot, Tom Harrison. ] (]) 15:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)		:Thanks for pointing this out. I was not aware of ]. This is a controversial subject. People hold strong opinions which are some times unfounded. The reason why I over-killed with citations is the lesson learned from AWA case: there are editors who refuse the reality and substitute their own, even when faced with overwhelming evidence. The problem with positive sources is that there seems to be none, except general opinions of politicians and victim advocacy groups of public registries being "useful tool". Academic RS on current state of registries is unanimously critical, period. I'm going to re-write the effectiveness section where I'll cite few studies finding positive effect of registries. (There exist only 2 or 3 I'm aware of and they come from states applying risk-tools.) Also, I'm contemplating writing a section of perceptions of these laws by general public vs. academics. I'm happy to see you here ]. You are one of those editors that make me trust Misplaced Pages, and who keep my kind of editors with strong POV on check. On the other end of spectrum are editors you mentioned above, and one you forgot, Tom Harrison. ] (]) 15:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

	::Thanks, ViperFace. I'll go ahead and WP:Ping ] as well. ] (]) 15:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC) (His username is lowercase; fixed WP:Ping with second try. ] (]) 15:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC))		::Thanks, ViperFace. I'll go ahead and WP:Ping ] as well. ] (]) 15:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC) (His username is lowercase; fixed WP:Ping with second try. ] (]) 15:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC))

	::I didn't forget Tom harrison, by the way; I simply didn't know he was involved. Also, why did you think it a good think to link to that ] thread? ] (]) 06:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)		::I didn't forget Tom harrison, by the way; I simply didn't know he was involved. Also, why did you think it a good think to link to that ] thread? ] (]) 06:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

			:::Tom got involved when AWA article was turning into edit war between Me and James pulling in one direction and MONGO and Dheyward in other. Prior to that Tom had shown little interest (only one revert in 2012) towards said article. Dheyward (aka Tbeatty] had shown zero interest, but jumped in when MONGO alone was in trouble due to me and James presenting a mountain of RS to support our position. To me it looks like what is described in Wikipediareview, pretty much went down on AWA talk page. I did follow these users for a while and saw Tom, Mongo and Dheyward tag teaming against individual users in other articles. Some times this seemed warranted as they were fighting with tin foil hats in 911 related articles, but some times, not so much. I don't now how much ScrapIV interacts with said editors, but together they all managed to get James, and eventually me tired enough to drop it, even though multiple un-involved editors coming in trough ] and my RfC were supporting my proposed edits. Scrap got involved trough ] so I'd be cool with him had he not lied in another ] claiming that my proposed edit "was practically single-sourced from an advocacy website", when in fact of 19 sources one was editorial, half from peer-reviewed journals and the rest from news. As I said, your kinds of editors make me trust WP, non-consensus seeking editors undermine my trust. PS. I have removed the links as potentially inappropriate as they allege wrong doing but might be just rumors started by someone who got as pissed as I did. ] (]) 09:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:23, 15 September 2015

Law C‑class Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Unassessed

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement Unassessed

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

United States Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

???

This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WP:Neutral policy and WP:Citation overkill

ViperFace, make sure that you are adhering to the WP:Neutral policy, including what its WP:Due weight section states, at this article and at other articles about sex offenders. As you know, editors who weighed in at Talk:Sex offender and at Talk:Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act have concerns about you giving criticism of the sex offender laws and registries too much weight, while never focusing on what positives sources cite about such matters. As you know, James Cantor doesn't seem to have had any problems with your edits on these topics while MONGO, ScrapIronIV and DHeyward especially have. There is obviously a place for criticism of the sex offender laws and registries, so I am not arguing against that.

Also be mindful of WP:Citation overkill; it's an essay, but it's followed, especially in cases such as this one. Flyer22 (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I was not aware of WP:Citation overkill. This is a controversial subject. People hold strong opinions which are some times unfounded. The reason why I over-killed with citations is the lesson learned from AWA case: there are editors who refuse the reality and substitute their own, even when faced with overwhelming evidence. The problem with positive sources is that there seems to be none, except general opinions of politicians and victim advocacy groups of public registries being "useful tool". Academic RS on current state of registries is unanimously critical, period. I'm going to re-write the effectiveness section where I'll cite few studies finding positive effect of registries. (There exist only 2 or 3 I'm aware of and they come from states applying risk-tools.) Also, I'm contemplating writing a section of perceptions of these laws by general public vs. academics. I'm happy to see you here Flyer22. You are one of those editors that make me trust Misplaced Pages, and who keep my kind of editors with strong POV on check. On the other end of spectrum are editors you mentioned above, and one you forgot, Tom Harrison. ViperFace (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, ViperFace. I'll go ahead and WP:Ping Tom harrison as well. Flyer22 (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC) (His username is lowercase; fixed WP:Ping with second try. Flyer22 (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC))

I didn't forget Tom harrison, by the way; I simply didn't know he was involved. Also, why did you think it a good think to link to that wikipediareview.com thread? Flyer22 (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Tom got involved when AWA article was turning into edit war between Me and James pulling in one direction and MONGO and Dheyward in other. Prior to that Tom had shown little interest (only one revert in 2012) towards said article. Dheyward (aka Tbeatty] had shown zero interest, but jumped in when MONGO alone was in trouble due to me and James presenting a mountain of RS to support our position. To me it looks like what is described in Wikipediareview, pretty much went down on AWA talk page. I did follow these users for a while and saw Tom, Mongo and Dheyward tag teaming against individual users in other articles. Some times this seemed warranted as they were fighting with tin foil hats in 911 related articles, but some times, not so much. I don't now how much ScrapIV interacts with said editors, but together they all managed to get James, and eventually me tired enough to drop it, even though multiple un-involved editors coming in trough A/NI by James and my RfC were supporting my proposed edits. Scrap got involved trough so I'd be cool with him had he not lied in another A/NI claiming that my proposed edit "was practically single-sourced from an advocacy website", when in fact of 19 sources one was editorial, half from peer-reviewed journals and the rest from news. As I said, your kinds of editors make me trust WP, non-consensus seeking editors undermine my trust. PS. I have removed the links as potentially inappropriate as they allege wrong doing but might be just rumors started by someone who got as pissed as I did. ViperFace (talk) 09:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Categories: