Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

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. [1], [2] and [3]). 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 Wikipedia: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)

Off-topic. Please comment about content, not contributors.
Mongo's field of expertise is geology/geography. Look at his contributions. My own field of expertise, if anyone cares, is history. deisenbe (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Well that's a non sequitur. My field of expertise is Wikipedia 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 [these laws], 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 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)

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. [4] (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 [5] and tracking of sex offenders seems to be within their remit. ViperFace (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

A note to anyone in this place who still gives a crap: In response to my changing one word[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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You should probably go back and read the history[19] before you continue. If you actually knew what was going on and made a considered decision as you pretended, you would have known that I added nothing. I edited one word ("rare" to "some") to match what the sources actually said, MONGO deleted the section in response, I reverted that, and you restored his deletion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• You suggested above that removed content belongs to "Legal Challenges to American Sex Offender Registries". How come if the content you removed [20] includes the following subtitles: "Registration process", "Public notification", "Additional restrictions", "Effectiveness", "Perceptions", etc.? This is not about any "legal challenges". Look, you made this posting on the noticeboard to have opinions by 3rd uninvolved parties, and here is it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

If you look at the history of that page, the revert on the Adam Walsh Act was the same material that he had removed based on COPYVIO. I looked it over as well and felt it was at the very least an extremely close case of paraphrasing material. [21]--MONGO 17:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about this removal? Can you give any link where this came from? This is different from the text removed as alleged copyvio [22], and according to the edit summary by ViperFace it was taken from another WP page. But this is a peripheral issue. Looking at discussion on article talk page [23], it appears that idea was indeed to improve the text rather than remove. My very best wishes (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You are correct on the revert issue in that the COPYVIO revert was different and that material was added by an IP, which originates from Helsinki, Finland. [24] Yes, ViperFace, I am sure that must be you...it seems rather implausible that another Fin would be editing these articles on en.wiki. We're not here to discuss a different article. I'll look over ScrapIrons latest revert but it does appear to be very COATRACKish for this article.--MONGO 17:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

MONGO is blatantly gaming the rules, and will continue to do so for as long as he is allowed. First he brings in his old ally ScrapIronIV to agree with him[25]... at least until ScrapIronIV slipped badly and revealed[26] that he didn't even know what he was agreeing to[27], continued to repeatedly[28] (and demonstrably[29]) lie about why he started with that then went on to blank 20% of the article[30], and finally upped his bluster to crude threats[31],[32]. Then when a new genuinely-uninvolved editor became involved[33] and explained why he felt both sides had a point, but undid ScrapIronIV's blanking until a compromise could be reached, a "long term articled" editor whose talk page reflects repeated personal and noticeboard support from MONGO just coincidentally happened to stop by and feel very strongly that the blanking should be restored[34],[35]. This story seems to have been repeated, here and elsewhere[36].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By "mistake", I'm not referring to the fact he blanked 20% of the article[37].

I'm referring to his having accidentally admitted that he didn't even know what he was agreeing to[38],[39] when he reverted on your behalf[40]. He then compounded this mistake by demonstrably[41],[42]) and repeatedly[43],[44] inventing false reasons for it.

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

Too much science in Astrology

Read the third paragraph (the last one) of the lead section. The paragraph is giving undue weight to science in an article that is not about science. I tried to at least add qualifiers like "in a scientific way" [45] and "according to science"[46] but both times I've been reverted. I came here to request someone to remove excessive bias, and overall, tone down that section, if appropriate. Cheers, Outedexits (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"in an article that is not about science" The article is about a subject relevant to science. In fact, one of the sections of the article is related to the scientific views on the topic precisely because many sources talk about that connection. What you seem to be doing is to try make scientific evidence etc sound like "just another opinion". Second Quantization (talk) 09:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

yes, that's quite plain. The third paragraph is entirely appropriate, I'd say. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, due weight dictates that the best sources and best evidence be given the most weight. The balance should not be level between unequal content. Scientific fact and opinion weigh more than unscientific speculation and fringe theories, so they get the most weight. Articles about pseudoscience and fringe theories must always make it clear that the scientific POV is the best one. We do that by letting the sources speak for themselves. That's what they say. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 03:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Third paragraph seems to be a concise, accurate summary of the relevant section of the article body, and necessary in order to not give undue weight to fringe theories. Adrian^[232] (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Too much science??? You can't give science undue weight. That's not how Wikipedia works. DreamGuy (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Use of Watch Tower Society

The article on Jehovah's Witnesses uses Watch Tower Society when describing doctrines (shortened for Watchtower Bible & Tract society of Pennsylvania, Inc). It uses "Watch Tower Society teach", "Watch Tower Society publications teach", "Watch Tower Society policy is that" and so on. FYI Watchtower Bible & Tract society of Pennsylvania, Inc is the corporation in US to which many of Jehovah's Witness' publications copyright belong to. Some copyrights belong to Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. and presumably other corporations around the world. Secular sources sometimes use Watch Tower Society when describing doctrines but its not accurate anymore, since 2000, all corporations are completely independent of religions Governing Body (spiritual leaders). Non-profit corporations are used by Jehovah's Witnesses around the world for administration, publishing and for legal defense. I opposed using corporation names when describing doctrines and policies of Jehovah's Witnesses. I believe it was stemmed out of the fact that some ex-JWs editors prefer that wording to support alleged authoritative structure of Jehovah's Witnesses. (scholars dispute that claim). I felt its an NPOV issue. My reasons are below

• A corporation is not the source of Jehovah's Witness doctrine. It's the Bible and its interpretation by governing body. (doesn't matter if its published or copyrighted by one or more corporation)
• There are multiple independent corporations used by Jehovah's Witnesses with the words "Watchtower Society" around the world (Its ambiguous)
• Some teachings are disseminated orally in conventions (later with an explanation in one of the publications from Governing Body copyrighted by Watch Tower Society or another corporation)
• Jehovah's Witnesses use other independent corporations without the words "Watch Tower" to copyright its publications. (example Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc)
• Using "Jehovah's Witness publications say" or "Jehovah's Witnesses policy" or "Governing Body teach" etc is accurate and neutral when describing official teachings
• Existing policy say so, but its interpretation is disputed

I recommend to only refer to corporations when describing its history, legal aspects, publishing and administration. And not to use it when describing doctrines or church policy. See Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#RfC: Jehovah's Witnesses vs Watchtower Society. I also notified this thread in the current discussion page. (An Rfc is raised, only one involved editor commented so far) Roller958 (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Roller958, who is a Jehovah's Witness, has been pressing the point for some time that the term "Watch Tower Society" in the article is being used to imply JWs are "a bunch of uneducated ignorant people ... controlled by a corporation called WTS". I have provided many examples on the talk page of widespread and longstanding usage of that term by authors of academic and mainstream works in referring to the umbrella organisation that issues doctrine and policy for the religion and administers and directs its activities globally. Sources continue to use that term without any negative connotation. Apart from Roller958, I am not aware of any suggestion that that term has a pejorative meaning. At the talk page he is resorting to cherry-picking to support his weak and novel argument. BlackCab (TALK) 23:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Like you said I can also say, BlackCab, an ex-Member, has been writing in the past about alleged mind-control techniques used by his former religion and its authoritative and corporate style. That's not relevant. The secular sources you added is not accurate anymore, since Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania, Inc is a corporation without any Governing Body members as its officers. Before the year 2000 it used to be. Why are you insisting on this when its clear that the source of doctrine is Bible and Governing Body? Does it have anything to do with alleged and disputed claims of Authoritative structure? It's not important which publishing company prints doctrine, or owns copyright its important who writes the doctrine. We attribute as such. You just realized that after days of discussion all your arguments has been weakened. Roller958 (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You have raised this here as a POV issue. There is in fact no point of view (implicit or explicit) in the usage of the name of the Watch Tower Society. BlackCab (TALK) 23:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It is a POV. You push the use of "Watch Tower Soceity" despite my clear explanation and existing guidelines that its not accurate and its historical. Use "Governing Body teach", "Jehovah's Witness publications teach" etc. --Roller958 (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Your belief is that the term "is POV of critics to prove that JWs is nothing but a bunch of uneducated ignorant people (supported with the statistics on low college degree) controlled by a corporation called WTS." [47] I am interested in seeing if other editors sense that same implication. BlackCab (TALK) 00:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are you insisting on this then? What's your attachment to use Watch Tower Society when its inaccurate and ambiguous when describing doctrines? It is simple and clear to say "Jehovah's Witness publications", since Watchtower Society is not the sole copyright owner of all Jehovah's Witness publication nor it is the leadership. I also like to see what independent editors say.--Roller958 (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Roller958 has already been told that it would be okay to change some instances for variety of presentation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The Watch Tower Society of Pennyslvania (not "Watchtower") is both the parent corporation of other corporations used by Jehovah's Witnesses, and it is the source for where JW doctrines are to be found. The article is very clear in indicating that it is the Governing Body that establishes JW doctrines, but the sources that can be cited in the article are from the Watch Tower Society.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

The guideline (not a policy) at the JW WikiProject page refers to statements about those who lead or who set doctrine (and I already recommended a change for the one instance in the article where this is currently an issue). It does not refer to properly indicating where the doctrines are presented. The guideline does not trump actual policies about citing sources. Watch Tower Society publications are authored anonymously, and it would be inappropriate to present those sources as statements of the Governing Body.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I highly question if parent religious corporation does mean they are legally binding. Its simply suggesting that other corporations were created in a similar line, with the similar name with the original corporation in Pennsylvania. They are managed independently and run independently. For example corporation charter of IBSA, of Watch Tower Society UK, of Watch Tower Society of Australia all clearly shows they are managed by Jehovah's Witnesses in respective countries. Regardless my other reasons above stand clear. Corporation is separate from Governing Body (spiritual leadership). Therefore "Jehovah's Witness publications" is accurate. --Roller958 (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

But back to why we are here: what is the point of view being presented to which you object? BlackCab (TALK) 03:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You simply keep asking. Insisting on using Watch Tower Soceity when its not necessary suggest a corporation that control doctrines is the POV. Replace that with "Jehovah's Witness publications or policy or teachings". --Roller958 (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

That's just a content dispute. You should probably take a moment to read WP:NPOV BlackCab (TALK) 04:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Watchtower publications are for all means and purposes the way that Witnesses are confronted with the official teachings of their faith and with the interpretations of the Governing Body. It is an entirely permissible source for statements about official doctrine. However whenever there are questions of interpretation we should use academic secondary sources. Witnesses themselves have a series of jargon terms to refer to the entity that is the Governing Body/Watchtower Society - among them "the faithful and discreet slave" (or just "the slave" for short), "the organization", "Jehovah;s organization", "the society", etc. These terms and "the governing body" are used fairly indiscriminately to refer to the authority that provides authorized doctrine to the congregations. In my experience, the phrase "the Watchtower Society" is pretty much only used when referring specifically to the publishing house or the legal entity that owns property - not when referring to the source of authorized doctrine.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

What happens when a big portion of an article is promotion

I was asked to help copyedit Faisalabad but it reads more like a page from a tourism brochure instead of an encyclopedic article. For example, the section Cuisine is off the charts. Much of the article lacks RS because there simply aren't any so we're also dealing with OR. I don't want to provoke any edit wars but at the same time, I believe the article has potential to be a GA if we can get it compliant with NPOV. I am open to suggestions. Atsme^📞📧 14:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

If parts break our policy, can't we remove these parts? The gruesome Scourge of Trumpton 14:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

UK, Canada, Australia and NZ

Does the section "Proposed arrangements" violate weight and is it relevant to Commonwealth realm?

A Commonwealth Realm is a member of the Commonwealth that shares the British monarch as head of state. This section discusses a proposal to provide greater integration between the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ. While these four countries are Commonwealth realms, the reasons for greater integration appear to be the countries' similarities, rather than sharing the crown. There is no proposal to include the other non-white Commonwealth Realms or any recommendation that the four countries could only belong if they agreed to retain the monarchy. (Both Australia and NZ are considering severing ties with the monarchy.)

Furthermore, the "United Commonwealth Society" has received no coverage at all in reliable sources. The source used in the article is its web page.

TFD (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

TBH, this is the first I've every heard of United Commonwealth Society or their goals. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Er, yes. Echoing GoodDay's observation: I've never heard of them (until now). In the context, WP:UNDUE at best. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Right, I have no idea what this United Commonwealth Society is, and am in agreement it seems fringe. However, looking back I do remember reading about a movement in the CBC, although re-reading it, it speaks about the "Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organization" instead, which would explain why I've never heard of the "UCS". The petition seems to have gathered somewhere around 100,000 signatures. That being said, being covered by state media and receiving 100,000 signed supporters does not mean it is mainstream. It does seem that the core idea however, of a much better integrated "CANZUK", is not new nor is it fringe. For example, former media baron Conrad Black has often spoken of the benefits of closer integration between the 'principal Commonwealth players'. Whether it deserves to be covered at this juncture or not however, is more of a policy decision. If someone wanted to spend the time or effort they may find a great deal more sources dating back further than 2012 perhaps. If such a decision is pursued however, I suggest it be focused on the core idea of closer CANZUK integration, and not on any one random (and largely unknown) single organization. trackratte (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification, Trackratte. While a projected theoretical state may warrant its own name space article (based on solid research), one minor offshoot group-come-single-variant on an historical theme is definitely undue in context. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for not knowing this dispute was here. User:Miesianiacal has continued to maintain that UCS is notable in Commonwealth_realm#Proposed_arrangements. He provides no reason other than it exists. Or so I take his remarks to mean. See Talk:Commonwealth_realm#On_the_United_Commonwealth_Society. Juan Riley (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

"Is notable"? Do stop being disingenuous; you omitted the important fact that I have said repeatedly the organisation is not very notable and doesn't deserve any more coverage in the article than it already has. (In fact, it could well do with less, primarily by eliminating the tiny separate section for the UCS and CANZUK free trade idea and merging it into another existing section.) Since you were playing with straw men and being abrasive, I suggested you pursue dispute resolution. I hope you do. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have been unable to access the UCS website. But a 2005 press release says it includes "The United Commonwealth of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Realm of New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, the Dominion of British West Florida, Independent Long Island and all territories pertaining to them." The Hon. Most Rev. Dr. Cesidio Tallini was head of Independent Long Island,[48] while the Dominion of British West Florida was headed by Robert VII, Duke of Florida, Lord of St. George, GSB, Her Majesty's Governor­ General in and for the Dominion of British West Florida.[49]

The CFMO seems to be separate and currently claims 250,000 people have signed their petition. I do not think that the scant coverage they have received warrants mention and note that if it did it would not belong in the article because they say nothing about Commonwealth Realms or about the monarchy.

TFD (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems pretty far out there. I'd like to see if the UCS website comes back up or not. trackratte (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

GSB stands for Grand Commander of the Order of Barnabas, the Dominion of West Florida order of chivalry. Current knights include HRM King Christopher I of Vikesland and Grand Duke Eric I of the Grand Duchy of Elsanor. Bringing this into the article makes the Commonwealth Realms seem like something out of the Game of Thrones. TFD (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Trackratte: Notability is I think the first criterion. This is a negative evidence criterion, i.e., nothing ever made UCS notable. Fringe on the other hand is a secondary issue. Though it is a positive evidence one: positive and amusing evidence. If you wish to waffle then please do. Don't blame me if I am amused. Juan Riley (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It's unclear to me why you've tagged me, and to what you're responding to. I'm not an advocate in this debate. And you comment "if you wish to waffle then please do" is, I imagine, an attempt to bait me into an argument I'm not even part of? I think your energies would be better focused on improving the project through cooperative teamwork as opposed to actively trying to negatively engage with other editors. Cheers. trackratte (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Oddly enough I am not argumentative. Cheerio. Juan Riley (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

And let us all wait for UCS's site to come back up. Perhaps there will be something on their site which convences us. (PS I am sarcastic though.)Juan Riley (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

This is clearly a fringe group which has had almost zero third-party coverage for itself or its views. Giving prominence, however briefly, to its views, cited to its own site, is a rather obvious breach of both WP:SPS and WP:FRINGE, as well as of the consensus on the page. I can't see that the two (?) editors still pushing it are being anything other than simply obtuse or wilfully disruptive, given the edit-warring and the amount of talk page time wasted on something to which the answer is simple and obvious. N-HH talk/edits 17:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The above comments are enough to show there is no need to "wait for UCS's site to come back up". So far nothing has been produced to warrant any mention of this in the article, even AGF. Meantime, quarrelsome BRD-ing is not sufficient to let this stay.[50] Qexigator (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

All these remarks are about non-reliable sources that are related to something other than the UCS or have used the UCS name. But, none of it reflects what's actually on the UCS's website. This is all one giant red herring. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out, they appear to be self-published and and there are no third party RS to indicate any form of notability. Whether the site comes back up or not, it's irrelevant whether there are notable individuals involved per WP:INHERITORG (despite the fact that the policy relates to a name space article, it's applicable to having a subheader in an article). The organisation, and its views, are definitely a red herring shoehorned into the article (now that's one disgusting mixed metaphor). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me summarize my take: we have one defender of UCS (well he does keep insisting he doesn't..but), one waffler, and everyone else wonders WTF?! Juan Riley (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of the sacred, fond and everlasting memory of sweet poor little late Fanny Adams, the "United Commonwealth Society", so-called, are actually just a one-man nonsense [51]; which are in fact different, separate and distinct from the "Commonwealth Freedom-of-Movement Organisation", so-called, but which are however just another one-man nonsense [52]. User:Miesianiacal is really "not quite up to it", isn't he?! -- Urquhartnite (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@JuanRiley and Urquhartnite: Please note that this is the NPOVN, not the bitching noticeboard. You've had other editors weighing in on the query AGF. No one actually wants to know about personal, non-collegial baggage you're carrying with you. Thanks for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

cecil the lion RFC

There is an RFC that may be of interest to the readers of this board. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killing_of_Cecil_the_lion#effect_on_conservation_RFC Gaijin42 (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Islamic charities

I have come across what appears to be a series of articles and article sections related to various Islamic charities that, at first blush, are trying to weave a narrative of "ZOMG HAMAS TERRORIST PUPPETS"! It appears, at least to my initial skim, an organized attempt to add undue weight/build coatracks (I came across this while following up on what looked like bog-standard commercial real estate listings-disguised-as-articles (Westgate House, Crown House Business Centre) but seem instead to be WP:COATRACKS for "ZOMG NESTS OF HAMAS TERRORISTS!"). The ones I've come across include:

• Human Appeal International
• Union of Good ‎
• Al Hiwar ‎
• International HIV Fund ‎
• Emirates Centre for Human Rights ‎
• Islamic Help ‎
• Centre for Strategic and Diplomatic Studies ‎
• ICFR, Ltd.
• Muslim Charities Forum
• Qatar Charity

The editors include

• Fact Checkmater (talk · contribs)
• 91.233.116.87 (talk · contribs)
• 166.184.167.208 (talk · contribs)

This is over my head -- and beyond my interests, generally -- but perhaps some editors experienced in these areas should take a look at this. --Calton | Talk 02:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Politician?

There is a (civil) dispute as to whether we should say "Donald Trump is a politician", "Ben Carson is a politician", and "Carly Fiorina is a politician". One side argues that anyone seeking office is a politician, while the other side cites common usage -- all three of the names listed above have multiple reliable sources that say they are "not a politician". What is the NPOV here? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources noting they are "not a politician" then we shouldn't include it. Unless they held public office before, it should not be added. Their candidacies are already discussed in the body of the article. IMO - They are not a politician until elected. I'm curious to hear other users' inputs on this. Meatsgains (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm predisposed towards Meatgains' interpretation. There are no requisite skills/diplomas/degrees attached to seeking political office, therefore putting oneself forward as a candidate only qualifies one to be 'aspiring' to be an elected incumbent of a political office. Unless someone has held an office, they don't meet the primary criterion. If RS say that they're not politicians, then they're not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Right. Candidates "aspire" to be a politician and aren't one until elected. It would be premature to call these individuals politicians. Meatsgains (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Would it suit the context to describe them as 'candidates' rather than 'politicians'? They may not be politicians, but (until they withdraw) they're undisputably candidates. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't want to weigh in until I heard a couple of other opinions, but that was my understanding as well. "Ben Carson is a politician and retired Neurosurgeon" is factually incorrect, but "Ben Carson is a political candidate and retired Neurosurgeon" is factually correct. After going back and forth a couple of times, the editors on the page appear to have reached a consensus for "Benjamin Solomon "Ben" Carson, Sr. (born September 18, 1951) is a retired American neurosurgeon who is a candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in the 2016 election.", which seems like the right decision to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

If someone is called a politician, the assumption is that is their main occupation. Clearly that is not the case for Trump, Carson or Fiorina, although it is for the other Republican and Democratic candidates. TFD (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Coatrack pov-pushing on Southern Strategy

WP:COATRACK information has been added in an attempt to discredit what peer reviewed reliable sources say about the Southern Strategy and Nixon's Reagan's use of dog whistle politics and race baiting language. The talk page discussion is here

A peer reviewed reliable source discusses Reagan's use of dog whistle politics and/or race baiting to appeal to southern voters.

"Reagan's race-baiting continued when he moved to national politics." Lopez then goes on to explain how he launched his 1980 campaign from Neshoba county fair in an attempt to win over "George Wallace inclined voters". Lopez explains other examples of Reagan's racial appeals stating "Reagan also trumpeted his racial appeals in blasts against welfare cheats." and also explains how Reagan used the term "strapping young buck" because it played on fears of white voters of a "threatening image of a physically powerful black man." Ian Lopez Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class

In response to this peer reviewed source, information has been added to "casts doubts" on the material presented from reliable sources. The user adding this material characterized the information he added as "casts doubts on a claim of coded racism" here [53]. There are 2 separate instances where he is doing this:

1. Information from a 1980 newspaper article about how Reagan was considering speaking first at the Urban League was added to the article.[54] This information is tangentially related to the Southern Strategy and is being used to "casts doubts" on what reliable sources say about Reagan's Neshoba County speech and his racially coded language. On top of the coatracking concern, Blog posts and Op-eds are being used to contradict what peer reviewed sources say.[55] I believe this is clearly against NPOV and gives undue weight to less reliable sources. I'm here looking for input from uninvolved editors on whether adding marginally related information from blogs and op-eds to refute peer reviewed source is a violation of WP:NPOV.
2. A quote from a football player that Reagan housed once, has also been added in an attempt to show that Reagan isn't racist.[56] The article is about the Southern Strategy, not about whether or not Reagan was racist. So this is another example of WP:COATRACK, attempting to give undue weight to tangentially related material to push a distinct point of view. Again, this information comes from a privately published book which is given undue weight when compared to the peer reviewed source. I'd also like to point out that the source doesn't reference the quote in an attempt to refute the scholarly viewpoint on Reagan's use of coded language or his Southern Strategy. This information is trying to be used in conjunction with Reagan's comments about a "strapping young buck", thought the source cited doesn't even make that connection. I feel this starts to crossover into WP:SYNTH concerns, but I feel the pov-pushing is still prevalent.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Procedural distraction

Comment The above claim of NPOV is part of a larger content dispute. I ask that this NPOV discussion be put on hold pending a possible dispute resolution request. The larger discussion can not proceed so long as this subtopic discussion is open. Springee (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Why not? Seems a straightforward enough issue. --Calton | Talk 15:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC) The issue is it relates to a series of reverts of my edits by Scoobydunk over the last few days. Those reverts cover more than just the information here. These are the related reverts [57], [58], [59]. This does not mean I accept his version of events, only that I think this is a larger topic than what he is presenting here. Note, I do not agree with the facts as he has presented them. Springee (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Comment A previous NORN discussion initiated by Scoobydunk and related to this article is still open [60]. Scoobydunk should request closure of his previous noticeboard discussion before opening a new, closely related discussion. Springee (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC) WP guidelines allows multiple noticeboard discussions so long as they rightfully address the correct content as pertaining to the noticeboards. So the other NORN discussion doesn't have to be closed before opening a new discussion here, especially since this discussion is on a completely different content issue and doesn't even remotely address the same things as the previous discussion.Scoobydunk (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC) In that case you should be happy to request closure of the older topic. Springee (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC) I've already informally requested that it be closed but I'm unfamiliar with formally requesting closures. So feel free.Scoobydunk (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about what claims are supposed to cast doubt on the more reliable source? Rhoark (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

In reply to Rhoark's question The filing editor claims recent changes to the article are violations of NPOV and COATRACK. For easy reference I will quote the material in question (material taken from a larger and subsequently reverted edit [61])

Earlier version which Scoobydunk has restored

One example of Reagan field-testing coded language in the South, was a reference to an unscrupulous man using food stamps as a "strapping young buck." Reagan, when informed of the offensive connotations of the term, defended his actions as a nonracial term that was common in his Illinois hometown. Ultimately, Reagan never used that particular phrasing again. The "young buck" term changed into "young fellow" which was less overtly racist, but worked just as well to provoke the racial tensions of Southerners and white victimization.

Disputed version which was reverted

A statement about a "strapping young buck" made during his 1976 campaign was described as a "field-test" of dog-whistle politics by Haney Lopez. "Young buck" was a regional term of racial derision. Reagan, "alerted that the phrase was an offensive reference to black males, never used it again, though he defended it as a nonracial term common in his Illinois hometown." Lopez argues that the "young buck" term changed into "young fellow" which was less overtly racist, but worked just as well to provoke the racial tensions of Southerners and white victimization. Cannon cites comments by William Franklin Burghardt, an African American who played football with Reagan in college in response to charges of racism associated with the "young buck" and "welfare queen" stories. Burgehardt said, "I just don't think he [Reagan] was conscious of race at all. If you listened to the Carter debate during the campaign, Reagan said that when he was growing up they didn't know they had a race problem. It was the dumbest thing a grown person could say, but he'd never seen it. I believe that [the hotel incident] was his first experience of that sort."

The core of the dispute can be summed up as, do we have reliable evidence to change the WP voice from stating something did happen to language that says something that indicates the claims are disputed by reliable sources. In this case do we treat the claim that a given statement was testing the waters as a proven fact or do we present alternative views to the readers.

Scoobydunk's opening statement regarding Nixon suggests a level of confusion. The president being discussed in this case is Reagan. While Nixon is widely associated with the use of the "Southern Strategy", the passage in question is discussing Reagan and a specific instance when he is claimed to have tried to use coded racism and hence applied what is argued to be an extension of the Southern Strategy.

Scoobydunk makes several claims regarding the reliability of sources as justifications for the material reversion. He notes that the book, Dog Whistle Politics by Lopez, is a peer reviewed book and thus in his view unless a peer reviewed source is found which directly contradicts the claim we must treat it as proven fact. It should be noted that the related passages in question do not reference a peer reviewed book but instead reference an article published in Salon magazine. So based on the edits he is supporting the question of scholarly work doesn't enter into the picture and thus we have an improperly form NPOV request.

However, assuming the Lopez book in question offers the same claims Lopez makes in Salon we still have an issue that Scoobydunk is asking us to dismiss the views expressed in more than one alternative reliable source. One is a book by Jeremey D Mayer, a Prof at Georgetown University, Running on Race. This book was positively reviewed by several scholarly journals. Dismissing a book by a scholar of the subject and with strong positive reviews in the scholarly field is a questionable application of RS guidelines. Cannon's book has similar, strong scholarly reviews. The outright dismissal of these sources as not credible is a highly questionable reading of how we should balance reliable sources. Given their strength and oposition to the view offered by Lopez we should not use WP voice to state as a fact that the "young buck" comment was a "field test".

The statements by the football player were from Cannon's book and used by Cannon as part of the section where he addresses the "young buck" story. Given a RS made the connection WP:SYNTH cannot apply here. The "privately published book" comment is an attempt to discount the quality of the source, the scholarly reception of which was described above.

The 1980 newspaper article is not related to the "young buck" story and shouldn't be included in this NPOV discussion. Springee (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Springee's response doesn't address the added Neshoba County information and, I feel, muddles the "young buck" information. So I'll lay it out more simply using the same number outline as before. This is the information added in an attempt to "cast doubt" on what reliable sources say:

1. In 1980, Republican candidate Ronald Reagan made a much-noted appearance at the Neshoba County Fair.[55] The "I believe in states' rights" speech he gave there was cited as evidence that the Republican Party was building upon the Southern strategy again. Lou Cannon[57] and David Paul Kuhn[58] each dispute the claim of intentional racism. In a 2007 New York Times Op-Ed article Cannon noted that Reagan's campaign pollster urged canceling the speech anticipating negative feedback. "Mr. Reagan wouldn't do it. He had a showman's superstition that it was bad luck to cancel an engagement once it was booked. Brooks notes that the primary focus of the period was meant to be on courting the African American vote and noted this was a shift from previous Republican strategies.
2. Cannon cites comments by William Franklin Burghardt, an African American who played football with Reagan in college in response to charges of racism associated with the "young buck" and "welfare queen" stories. Burgehardt said, "I just don't think he [Reagan] was conscious of race at all. If you listened to the Carter debate during the campaign, Reagan said that when he was growing up they didn't know they had a race problem. It was the dumbest thing a grown person could say, but he'd never seen it. I believe that [the hotel incident] was his first experience of that sort."

So regarding #1, the bolded text is what Springee has added. He squeezed this in before the Lopez source in the article, which he moved to a different paragraph though it directly discusses the Neshoba County speech.[62] He cites Kuhn immediately following the Neshoba County claim, though Kuhn doesn't mention Neshoba County once in his entire article. This is clearly done to "cast doubts" on the racial indicators of the Neshoba County speech, though Kuhn doesn't directly comment on the Neshoba county speech or its significance. Let's not forget that this is a blog. Springee then uses Cannon to give undue weight to details surrounding whether or not to cancel the Neshoba Speech, and some overly detailed information about Reagan and his superstitions regarding commitments. None of this has anything to do with the Southern Strategy, nor does the author use this information to discuss the southern strategy. It's purely fluff that's tangentially related and that's what WP:COATRACK addresses. Then he lists Brooks, another Op-ed, that actually just discusses Reagan's schedule and how it didn't pan out how some of his strategists originally wanted. Again, that's not a critique of the Southern Strategy and puts undue weight on Reagan's "what could have been" campaign schedule. So, we have 3 different sources carefully arranged to "cast doubts" on explicit statements from peer reviewed reliable sources. Like I said, I know this crosses over into OR synthesis, but I feel the bigger problem is the POV pushing from less reliable sources. This is especially apparent, since Springee removed the peer reviewed source of Aistrup and Lopez to a different paragraph, so that way the opinion bloggers could have their own paragraph to refute the scholarly supported position of Reagan resurrecting the Southern Strategy in his Neshoba County speech.

Regarding #2, this entire quote is misrepresented and is a violation of WP:Coatrack. Cannon, in his " President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime", does not associate Burghardt's comments to Reagan's use of "young buck". As a matter of fact, Burghardt's quote appears in the next paragraph, which is about Cannon's personal beliefs regarding Nixon's racism. Again, the paragraph in Cannon's book isn't about the Southern Strategy, it's strictly about whether the author feels Reagan was intentionally racist. The author uses Burghardt's quote to support his viewpoint, but doesn't connect this to the "young buck" comments whatsoever. So, this information is placed in the article to "casts doubts" on the racist implications of the term "strapping young buck", though the source doesn't present the material in that fashion. Regardless, this article is about the Southern Strategy and it's NOT about whether Reagan was/wasn't racist. What are we going to do, start listing every person who doesn't think Reagan is racist and then include anecdotes for all those people? That's obviously coatracking.

Regarding some of Springee's concerns. The Salon source is actually just quoting an excerpt of Lopez's peer reviewed source. I don't know why someone listed the salon source instead of the original, but it doesn't change the fact that the information came from a peer reviewed reliable source. It is completely relevant and so are arguments regarding the reliability of sources. When available, peer reviewed scholarly sources should be used and are regarded as the most reliable of sources because they go through a stringent peer review process. This makes them more reliable than blogs and Op-Ed pieces. I don't know why I should even have to explain this, it's not like we allow editors to refute peer reviewed global climate change consensus by quoting things off of Ken Ham's facebook page. None of the sources Springee has listed are peer reviewed.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Scoobydunk's comments

Sorry, the intro to this NPOV discussion was confusing and it was not clear that Scoobydunk was actually referring to two different article subtopics at once. I will come back to the Neshoba discussion as some of Scoobydunk's exclusionary arguments are the same for that material. I will also note that highlighting just "what I added" without showing the full change or the material Scoobydunk wishes to restore can be misleading as it can leave out context.

• At a high level Scoobydunk is trying to reject this content based on two flawed assumptions. First, is that the only source material that can be included when discussing evidence used to support or reject the "Southern Strategy" is material which specifically claims to be discussing the "Southern Strategy". Thus a source, regardless of reliability, that says Reagan's use of the phrase "young buck" was not coded racism should, in his view, be excluded because it does not say, "was not coded racism and thus was not part of a Southern Strategy". A higher level claim (Southern Strategy) is based on supporting claims. If a source refutes the supporting claim then it is relevant to a discussion of that supporting claim even if it doesn't mention the bigger picture claim. Here we have a claim that Reagan's coded racism is proof of continued use of the Southern Strategy but we also have sources that say this wasn't coded racism.

Side Notes: The Lopez book does not talk about the "young buck" story as an extension of the Southern Strategy but as an example of coded racism yet Scoobydunk wants that source to stand. This is not the first time Scoobydunk has attempted to exclude information because it doesn't specifically say "Southern Strategy" Another editor, one who is a historian by profession [63], made the same arguments to Scoobydunk in August [64]

• Second assumption, Scoobydunk argues that peer reviewed articles trump all other sources in all cases (ie they get the most WP:WEIGHT). This isn't in line with WP guidelines which say these are guidelines, not rules and that we should use our heads when assigning relative weight to source material. Regardless, when we are presented with one peer reviewed book that says A and two high quality sources, one from a scholar (Mayer), one from a long time reporter in the area (Cannon), and both with strong scholarly reviews of the works (book reviews published by scholars in peer reviewed journals), we should not blindly exclude clearly reliable information because it disagrees with the claims made in a peer reviewed book.

Side Notes: It is questionable to claim I'm violating NPOV and RS guidelines when in fact the sources I added were, by WP guidelines, at least as good as an article in Salon magazine. The Lopez book wasn't referenced anywhere in article section in dispute. If the use of a peer reviewed source was so critical to Scoobydunk's view then why did he not replace the Salon article with the peer reviewed book? Scoobydunk specifically edited the section to add more to the "young buck" story yet seemed to have been comfortable with the Salon article as the source. [65]

• Scoobydunk says the added material "muddies the waters". History is often complex and we do a disservice to readers when we ignore relevant, reliable sources because we think it adds complexity to the subject.
• Scoobydunk is wrong to claim that the Burghardt quote was not related by Cannon (the source) to the "young buck" story. Simply linking to an Amazon listing for the book doesn't support that view. Both the young buck story and information relating to the Neshoba speech are included in a section of the book where Cannon talks about Reagan's frequent ad-libs which drove his political handlers crazy. The section continues by talking about a few of the well known gaffs. It finishes with Cannon stating that he didn't think Reagan was racist and reiterating that Reagan often slipped up when he was speaking off the cuff. To further this high level explanation which Cannon applies to several examples including the "young buck" story Cannon supplies the Burghardt quote. Thus Cannon uses the Burdghardt quote to support the claim that the "young buck" story was not coded racism. Since it strongly supports the view that the "young buck" (and Neshoba "states rights") comments were gaffs AND because a RS made the connection I included the material. Springee (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

References

• Comment - Not these two again! In particular, not User:Springee again! Springee won't stop forum shopping, and has been to the original research noticeboard, the dispute resolution noticeboard, the edit-warring noticeboard, and now here. This is exactly the sort of dispute that discretionary sanctions under American politics 2 is needed for. Springee has had WP:1RR imposed, and Scoobydunk has been warned. Maybe these editors should be article-banned from this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the above comment is unjust, particularly the part where you suggest that my involvement here is forum shopping. I would start by noting that this discussion was opened by Scoobydunk, not me thus I couldn't have forum shopped to open this discussion. Since you mentioned previous discussions please allow me to indicate the time line of events. After a failed discussion on the article talk page I open an Editor Assistance Request regarding assigning relative weight to two competing points of view related to a section of the Southern Strategy article (Oct 30th [66]). After replying to my EAR (03:10 Oct 31st [67]) Scoobydunk opens a NORN discussion covering the same material (03:42 Oct 31st [68]). The NORN discussion would seem to be forum shopping but didn't raise that objection at the time. Note that neither of these discussions actually related to edits to the article, just a discussion of weight related to material in the scholarship subsection. Seeing there was no movement on the NORN discussion other than Scoobydunk and myself after ~3 days and given that since then there was a dispute related to the article lead content, I opened a DRN to discuss the disputed edits to the article lead.[69] When informed that this could be seen as forum shopping I requested closure to the NORN and EAR because, at that time, both were still only edits by Scoobydunk and myself and the DRN actually related to content vs a talk page discussion. The NORN discussion only pick up after my DRN request and after I requested the NORN be closed due to a lack of input. The ANI-3RR [70] was due to a series of edit reversions by Scoobydunk. That was not a content dispute but a behavior dispute. You noted that I was sanction (1RR) and Scoobydunk was warned. The sanctioning admin (Slakr) noted the only reason Scoobydunk wasn't subject to the 1RR sanction was because he hadn't previous received the ARBAP2 notice.

Based on the above I don't believe this NPOV discussion can be seen as forum shopping on my part since I didn't initiate it. Additionally, Slakr did suggest that Scoobydunk and I seek 3rd party input to resolve our content dispute.[71] While this particular noticeboard and the particular scope of the discussion here would not be my first choice Scoobydunk was following the suggestion of an admin. So long as this topic is focused on content (or disputed content) I would ask that you allow it to continue. Thanks, Springee (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

POV-disputation tag should be removed from Fawzi al-Qawuqji

The POV-disputation tag should be removed from this article being removed because:

1) It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. 2) The editor who inserted the tag has never explained his reasons on the talk page. 3) The tag has been on the page for almost two years. 4) There discussion about the tag has been dormant for these same two years.

This appears to be a 'drive-by' tag that was put by an editor who *apparently* believes that Qawukji's German MIlitary Service should not be mentioned in the article. It is difficult to determine if this is actually his objection, however, since he does not explain his reasoning or specific objections. Other editors have pointed out that peer-reviewed reliable sources that are cited in the article show that Qawukji was given a rank equivalent to a Colonel in the German Wehrmacht (army) during WWII, lived in Berlin during the War and was very active in contributing to Nazi propaganda efforts, was involved in the Nazi military training (in Greece) of Arab troops. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawzi_al-Qawuqji#German_Military_Service

The talk page indicates that the editor objects to including that information because he is pushing a POV that portrays Qawuqji as a heroic figure. Even this motivation is not clear, however, since the editor (as noted above) does not explain his reasoning.

Do we have a consensus to remove this POV-disputation tag?

Ronreisman (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Per Template:POV#When_to_remove, and as there has been no discussion for almost a year, we don't need consensus. I have removed the template. KSFT^C 23:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

List of lieutentant governors

Which version of the List of lieutenant governors of Ontario is preferable?

Version 1 provides a list with dates and names of each lieutenant governor (or equivalent) of Upper Canada (1791-1841), Canada West (1841-1867) and Ontario (1867-present) and their portraits where available.

Version 2 provides the same information and:

i. Groups lieutenant governors under the reigns of British monarchs: George III, George IV, William IV, Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI and Elizabeth II.

ii. Numbers lieutenant governors from 1791, and for Upper Canada, Canada West and Ontario. (For example, Henry William Stisted (1867-1868) is shown as the 11th lieutenant governor and the 1st lieutenant governor of the new province of Ontario.)

iii. Provides a Union Jack or coat of arms of Ontario where portraits are unavailable.

I think that Two is cluttered. Henry Alexander Bruce for example is listed three times, since George VI, Edward VIII and Elizabeth II all reigned during his term. While technically lieutenant governors represent the monarch, they are appointed by the governor general on the advice of the Canadian prime minister and act on the advice of the provincial premier. Their terms (usually 5 years) continue regardless of changes in monarch, governor general, prime minister or premier. Few have any contact with the monarch. The numbering is confusing. In Upper Canada, the governor of Canada (who resided in Lower Canada) often was also lieutenant governor and appointed an acting governor for Upper Canada, while in cases of the absence of a lieutenant governor, his functions were carried out by an administrator. Canada West was not a province, but part of the united Province of Canada, hence the governors listed were governors of the united province.

The use of the Union Jack and the Ontario coat of arms (which was awarded in 1868) is confusing. Why not use the British coat of arms and the Ontario flag instead? Why use a British symbol, when the governor's authority did not extend beyond the province?

TFD (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this qualifies as an NPOV issue. But, anyway, I don't have a particularly strong opinion either way, though I do lean more toward keeping the monarchs, since those markers give the reader a better sense of era. My main concern is that whatever is decided for List of lieutenant governors of Ontario is applied to the nine other lists of Canadian lieutenant governors, since they're presently all consistent in look and format and should remain so. I said as much in my last edit summary at List of Lieutenant Governors of Ontario. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Gospels section on Jesus page

Which section should go first, the section summarizing the four canonical Gospels, or the section summarizing historical views? RSs treat Jesus as primarily a historical figure and don't have sections like the Gospels section on the WP page. So maybe the historical section should go first. On the other hand, maybe we should start with the Bible section, as we do for WP pages for Moses, Abraham, and King David. The editor who I'm in a conflict with is StAnselm. I don't know how to use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}}. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 03:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Start with the history, but get rid of the institutional bias. Even Calling him a historical figure, for example, is a bias. We need to get rid of anything that says he's an infallible, real-life person, and ditto for other Bible articles. Or have some balance, real sources. Will never happen because of Western society being so Christianity-based, but what we *should* do is easy. DreamGuy (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Can you also explain your reasoning that we should start with history, or offer good evidence in that direction? Thank you. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)