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

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)5 (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)┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I apologize for the late reply here; my current schedule has kept me away from Wikipedia 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)┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘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)A note to anyone in this place who still gives a crap: In response to my changing one word[6] that MONGO had previously edited in[7] which mis-characterized the source material (and providing clear reasoning why it was a mischaracterization), MONGO deleted the whole paragraph with a mocking comment of "good point…its POV"[8]. When I reverted and asked for reasoning or sources[9] rather than a hand wave, he immediately got the help of a friend (ScrapIronIV) to revert it again in the same fashion ("Per WP:NPOV")[10].
When I challenged ScrapIronIV for reasoning or sources[11], he responded "Not happening"[12] and began blanking[13] everything that didn't match his and/or MONGO's POV, with only token attempts to pretend his reasoning was any more than an echo of MONGO's "POV" claim. (Now he's all-but admitted they were deliberate POV edits[14] in retribution.) Meanwhile, MONGO is bragging about how this is what happens to people who contradict him and his friends[15], and accusing me of being a ban evader based on the evidence that… I'm an IP[16] who disagreed with him.
Gee. I wonder why I ever left, this place is a paradise… oh wait, now I remember. It is a paradise… for those who know how to game the system, because the rules make it easy for them to make others waste much more time following the spirit of the rules than they themselves waste by pretending to follow the letter of the rules (well, usually[17]). And for some strange reason, people give up once they realize this. That was why.
So, yeah. Good luck with it, and I'll go back to remembering there's no point in caring about an organization that doesn't mind being used for the ends of small groups with an agenda[18]. (Not to mention an organization that has refused to learn from its own history, or Stephen Colbert's attempts to warn it about Wikiality.) 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Getting more and more personal. Hugs and kisses.–MONGO 00:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I love the fact that you and ScrapIronIV are so fond of insinuating/asserting/threatening that I'm a banned editor – without a shred of evidence. For the third (or is it the fourth?) time, I'm not. I left long ago of my own accord when it became obvious that you and people like you will always win unless WP is willing to reform the rules.
It's far too easy for those who (usually) pay lip service to the letter of the rules to bury editors of good will under dozens of hours of work following the spirit of the rules. Your appeal to AGF just now by implying "Who, me? I have no idea what you mean, let's start aaaall over again and now you can beat your head against my 'army' of 'Mongo-bots'‡ to game consensus until you give up in despair" is a perfect case-in-point.
I can read histories just fine, thank you, and I do well enough at creating my own despair. So no, I'm not interested in returning to editing and wasting dozens of hours demonstrating how long you've been doing this, if you can just bat your eyes and say the magic words "But I've changed and I've learned how wrong I was, soIapologizeandnowIdeserveanotherchance (or a dozen)." Nor am I interested in hoping you'll dig your own grave a hundred feet deep by continuing to use allies who make mistakes as obvious as ScrapIronIV's.
No one, except perhaps those who try to pretend that you and your ilk haven't made WP fodder for comedians, is that obstinately blind. If not even an admin is willing to tackle you – even when your group has made it this obvious that you're colluding – there's little point in me alone trying to do so.
‡ – "Why yes I do keep saying it, but I'm only joking, you big silly. Tee hee. Like I said, let's start over again." 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)I'm really surprised that this topic hasn't generated more input from uninvolved editors after all this time on this noticeboard. As it stands, the article has been gutted and the original editor has moved on to other topics of interest (possibly disproving the claim that it was an SPA). I'm really disappointed that, as a community, we have apparently decided to ignore the WP:RS and instead go with practically a bare bones de minimus article on the subject. Yes, it's more than a stub, but certainly not the encyclopedic work I was hoping to see when all was done. As it stands now, the article supports beliefs from popular culture (i.e. beliefs supported by television crime dramas and the like) and does nothing to inform the reader, based on RS, the way an encyclopedic article should. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing doesn't end up on WP:LAME! Etamni | ✉ | ✓  12:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)I have reconsidered my position. I think we should try to build consensus around what MONGO and JRPG have proposed above. I try to see this as more of a WP:SPINOFF rather than WP:POVFORK. The problem is this. To save the deleted RS what MONGO considers peripheral for purposes of this article, multiple separate articles are needed. Could we add the debate section, which would have subsections with minimal coverage on each topic which would provide links to the main articles? ViperFace (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)This post concerns Paul Singer (businessman). I recently copy edited the article rather succinctly due to its NPOV tag. One of the sentences I removed from the lede reinstated by Nomoskedasticity, mainly “His business practices have been described by detractors as having the characteristics of avulture fund, a characterization which Singer rejects.” I claim the use of “vulture” is non-neutral, and as such goes against WP:LEAD. Subsequent attempts at discussion were diluted and fizzled out, e.g. here and here. A related issue, concerning the fact that 67% of the article's Elliott Management section contents relate to distressed debt, was also raised per WP:CRITICISM. Please note this is a BLP. Given nobody commented besides people who are directly involved with the article, I hope anyone unfamiliar with this issue and yet experienced in NPOV matters can provide much needed insight. I appreciate your help and look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)This is just getting desperate now. There's no way I'm discussing this anymore. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT seems to be the running theme with this article. This is just so absurd now that it's almost descended into parody. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)I'm not comparing Vulture funds with murder. Clearly analogies aren't your strong point. The first couple of lines of the article are:Paul Elliott Singer (born August 22, 1944) is an American hedge fund manager, investor, philanthropist and political activist. He is the founder and CEO of hedge fund Elliott Management Corporation, what the New York Times terms an "activist hedge fund", and (via his Paul E. Singer Foundation) a prominent New York based philanthropist.I'm simply saying to change this description of his company to what it is widely regarded as. I'll ignore the rest of the straw man.Also, again just as a side point, this sentence highlights the problem which has historically plagued this article – giving equal weight to "activism" and "philanthropy" in an attempt to detract attention from what should be given far greater weight. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm unnecessarily reopening a can of worms, but I'm not sure I understand: If there's a clear consensus (and it appears there is) that Wikipedia policy does not forbid calling a vulture fund a vulture fund any more than it forbids calling a loan shark a loan shark (in both cases the most common term for a particular style of business practice), why does the lede call a vulture fund an "activist hedge fund"? 2001:558:600A:4B:78C0:A7BD:D471:9409 (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)Can we please focus on the content at hand rather than the behavior of users? Meatsgains (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)History of the Great War I'm revamping the article; a couple of years ago added material (1917 Part II) that didn't seem as NPOV as it does now, with me being more experienced. I'd like someone with an interest in NPOV to help me identify what certainly can't stay in since it's my OR. The problem I've got is that the paraphrase of Edmonds, Travers and Green is OK but they all get it wrong and that's the bit I couldn't resist adding. Edmonds tucked certain potentially embarrassing facts away in footnotes and appendices and occasionally they contradict the narrative. I'd hoped by now someone would be in print so that I could cite this to them but alas not (Unless there's an adept who knows better?). Everyone who writes on the 3rd battle of Ypres swallows the biggest mistake in the book. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)The skate punk article covers way to many other genres of punk music, and sports including but not limiting to BMX and also surfing which also adopted the punk movement at the same time. This article is to generalistic and biased to have any real encyclopedic value at this point in time. This article needs a massive adjustment beyond what I can achieve as an IP editor and perhaps a merger with the Punk rock article. Talk:Skate_punk#What_is_.22skate_punk.22_anyway.3F– (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)This article needs more uninvolved editors to check it for neutrality. The subject posts copiously on the talk page and does not always help his case, but I think that he has a genuine concern about neutrality. The lead talks about a twenty-year-old lawsuit, for instance. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)Alohascope (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)Biblical cosmology portion of Cosmology: Despite serious errors and lack of substantiation in the 'Biblical cosmology' portion of 'Cosmology' the editor 'All The Foxes' insists on reverting to the original text from my much more factual revision DESPITE my revision including the original text to show the reason for the changes. I suspect this is a case of an editor's personal opinion of both Old and New Testaments being false and untrustworthy. I ask for community support based on my inclusion of links in my revision testifying to the factualness of my revision, and the error of the original. Please and thank you.Original Text: "Biblical cosmology Genesis creation narrative (c. 500 BC) Flat earth floating in infinite "waters of chaos"My change: "I will leave the original text in 'Biblical Cosmology' unchanged, but changes should be made by an editor. The date or origin for instance of the Genesis creation narrative according to a Wikipedia article should be at least earlier than 1,000 BC, and according to other sources as early as 3,500 BC, not the 500 BC stated in the original text. Also, Babylon was a latecomer in Old Testament history when the Jews were captive there, having taken Moses' scriptures with them, with Jewish men rising to high positions in government, so the Babylonian account is likely based on Jewish scripture. In the Genesis account the "dry land" was not given a description, but appeared from beneath the waters which covered the planet earth, the earth not described as flat and circular, but a person can be led to believe the bible described the earth as circular because a sphere viewed from any angle is circular."Original text: "Based on Babylonian cosmology. The Earth and the Heavens form a unit within infinite "waters of chaos"; the earth is flat and circular, and a solid dome (the "firmament") keeps out the outer "chaos"-ocean."I visited two related articles, Koshare Indian Dancers and Koshare Indian Museum in the course of doing research on my current topic of interest. I found the content to be drawn from the Koshare Dancer's own website, or from travel websites that copied that content almost verbatim. Many of the links were also dead, since neither article had received much attention since the 2009 Anniversary of the group. Failing to find alternative sources of the material to fix the dead links, and generally finding the content to be unsupported by reliable, unbiased sources, I deleted much of it in preparation for merging both articles into a section in the article Otero Junior College. This merge had previously been discussed and approved in 2009 but not done, for some reason.I place a NPOV tag on both articles, but this generated no interest, perhaps due to the holidays.I did find some secondary sources referring to the Koshare Indian Museum and Dancers, all providing the Native American POV. Adding content from these sources drew the attention of Kintetsubuffalo, who instead of engaging in a discussion began by removing my edits, presenting his own interpretations of WP guidelines as rules, and then resorted to making personal insults.FriendlyFred (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Since roughly 2008, the "Environmental record" section of article ExxonMobil has included a subsection "Funding of global warming skepticism." The subsection was about nine paragraphs in length, and well-referenced by about 40-some reliable sources, including the The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, the The Guardian, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and InsideClimate News. The subsection summarized copious investigative journalism into what ExxonMobil knew and when they knew it regarding cliamte change, and ExxonMobil's extensively documented support for lobbying and grassroots lobbying in favor of fostering climate change denial and scepticism and in opposition to environmental regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.24 December 2015 this subsection was moved en mass to the "Criticism" section, and 27 December 2015 re-headed "Attitude towards global warming."Policy WP:STRUCTURE requires us to extend our neutrality principle to article organization and section headings. The subsection content is an integral component of the environmental record of the subject of the article. The subsection content includes activities, not criticisms, not attitudes. The references in the subsection are investigative journalism, not editorial opinions. The subsection move creates "an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false."Please see previous attempts to resolve this neutrality issue at article talk at Funding of global warming skepticism section, in general and Neutrality.Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)I'm seeing some serious NPOV issues occurring at Paleolithic diet. I don't have much time to give this, but if you see the article's current content, edit history, and talk page, i think the problems would be obvious to an uninvolved observer. I'd rather not prejudice anyone by saying what i think about the issues, but just to highlight the article for more eyes. I'd ask for anyone's help there. I'm probably not going to be editing there much due to the toxic environment, but more eyes could be useful in helping this article conform to WP:NPOV basics. Thanks for anyone who has the willingness and energy to do so. SageRad (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Like many things, i think it's about perspective — and i have a strong sense that we need more editors with various perspectives to add their voices there. It seems like there are two strong perspectives currently butting heads and it's not very fruitful. SageRad (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ To me eyes, the problem persists and is getting worse by the hour. Needs attention regarding NPOV compliance. SageRad (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)The article is Zamzam Well. The text is:"The British Food Standards Agency has in the past issued warnings about water claiming to be from the Zamzam Well containing dangerous levels of arsenic;[1] such sales have also been reported in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where it is illegal to sell Zamzam water.[2] The Saudi government has prohibited the commercial export of Zamzam water from the kingdom.[2] In May 2011, a BBC London investigation found that water taken from taps connected to the Zamzam Well contained high levels of nitrate, potentially harmful bacteria, and arsenic at levels three times the legal limit in the UK, the same levels found in illegal water purchased in the UK.[3] Arsenic is a carcinogen, raising concerns that Muslims who regularly consume commercial Zamzam water in large quantities may be exposed to higher risks of cancer."Although there are times when "alleged" may be called for, I'd say that nitrate and arsenic aren't alleged health risks. This is a new account making the change. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)ReferencesTwo editors have been reverting back and forth at 1) MOS:REGISTER and now 2) MOS:SUPPORTS. Their core purposes are to 1) record consensus on MoS decisions and 2) list external sources that back up Wikipedia's Manual of Style. They both contain brief factual descriptions of the rule in question and its alternatives.First editor says (approximated), "Because these are not articles, we do not need to follow NPOV. They are not articles or lists."Second other says (approximated), "Because these pages make claims of fact in Wikipedia's voice, we should follow NPOV. They are not essays or policies."Policies cited: WP:POVNAME, WP:ASSERT, WP:FALSEBALANCESpecifics and difs: (NOTE: Not all difs are listed; please review page history and talk pages for complete picture.) The first editor has removed reliable sources that use terminology that he does not like, has replaced common terminology with rare terms[55][56][57] that the second editor claims are loaded[58][59], and has used descriptions that the second editor claims are biased[60][61]. Second editor has provided sources to support claim that the common terms are indeed the most common.[62] Has also provided sources that may indicate that rare terms are being used inccorectly[63][64]. Both editors accuse the other of framing the issue improperly. Both editors accuse the other of inserting arguments instead of neutral descriptions (and claim that they are using neutral descriptions)[65]. Both editors have a long history of participation in the many disputes over the MoS rule in question.Both editors have made some effort to compromise; each has given way in the other's favor to some extent, so it is likely that a resolution may be found, but emotions are becoming heated. Please comment.Talk page threads: Support, RegisterEditors involved: alerted by poster. 14:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)I may be missing the whole point here, but would one possibility be to use neither the term "British" nor "American" and refer to the styles as Logical Style and Aesthetic Style? I realize that each term is "loaded" in its own way, but that would cancel and be neutral in an overall way. Or am I way off base to begin with? In any case, I just wanted to throw my two cents in.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)No Democratic party exists. However nearly all articles in WIKI contain this misleading error. Inacurractely naming Democrats, Democratic, conveys a false sense of identity to Democrats – inferring Republicans are not democratic. A global change is needed to correct this misnomer.Veganism currently has a dispute on the talk page by editors over the neutrality of the lead. There is also a dispute over the placement of a dispute tag to indicate that. I would like to request comments from other editors on whether or not the placement of an NPOV dispute tag on the article is appropriate. Zippy268 (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)I have been trying to offer balance to edits written by one editor bloodofox. He is making this into a WP:COATRACK. I have put the following addition at the end of the Reception article -'Academic theologian Ted Peters in reviewing Painted Black refers to Raschke's critics as "anti-anti-Satanists." He writes that "Raschke shows no investment investment in anything other than garden-variety secular values regarding human decency. Even so, he is attacked by the anti-anti-Satanists not for the position he actually presents but as a front for the targeted enemy, the church."[12] A review in the The International Cultic Studies Association said "With his book, Painted Black, Dr. Carl Raschke…makes a unique and valuable contribution toward the understanding of this bizarre and frightening problem [of Satanism]. Raschke's book is not merely a survey of recent outbreaks of Satanism, but a comprehensive treatment of the phenomenon. He does not limit himself to criticizing the practices of Satanism while granting an unearned respect to the belief system that inspires them."[9].Bloodofox continues to revert this edit by saying ICSA and Ted Peters are not "reliable", which they are. He just has own dogmatic point of view and is making up reasons to eliminate them, calling what they say "nonsense." He also makes absolute negative claims about Raschke without citing evidence and won't allow anything other than what he writes to go up there. He also makes claims about me that arent true. He is clearly on a vendeta for some reason (probably because he is on the opposite side of the satanism argument) and is completely violating NPOV policy. In his mind anything that is not purely negative is not "reliable." I request that you allow the edits above and block him from further reverting them. Or someone should explain why they cant count as "evidence." You can see the discussion on the talk page.LH Chicago (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)LH_Chicago