Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus here but this is not the type of discussion that I think will be clarified by additional time gained through relistings. The only thing that seems clear to me is that this article needs some serious work. Whether or not it is renamed can be determined on the article talk page. If this article isn't improved, I can see it returning to AFD for a second evaluation. Liz Read! Talk! 05:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article isn't about an actual movement, and has no sources about a movement. It's a wp:coatrack of arguments against sex offender registries, relying on a lot of wp:synth to string together unrelated references How I could just edit a wiki article (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's on this and similar articles.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has been raised at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Movement_to_reform_sex_offender_laws_in_the_United_States. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to Sex offender registration. Indeed, not a single source mentions the word "movement" in their heading, and GS has only a single hit for the "Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States". This might be a notable topic, and perhaps this movement is better known under a different name, but as written, it suffers from reliance on news sources. This type of topic should be written based on academic literature from social movement studies and similar. WP:TNT applies to some degree, but I'd prefer SOFTDELETE approach - something from this might be usuable for other articles or for a future, academically-focused rewrite. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been mulling over a response to this, and while I agree with you merge is probably the best possible outcome here I'm stuck on a few points:
    • while there is not a lot of support for there being a movement that seems to be semantics as there is a persistent set of organizations (see[1]) and activities aimed at the goal of reform;
    • this article describes a USA-based phenomenon and set of actors, but whats described in sex offender registration is international with a rambling policy argument at the end; these would have to be reconciled because adding a "calls for reform" section would overlap some of the policy arguments;
    • there's a benefit to having a single-purpose article because it would allow discussion, for example, organizations like National_Association_for_Rational_Sexual_Offense_Laws which differs in its non-support of changes to age-of-consent laws, and as an umbrella organization doesn't suffer from the same notability issues as the two other orgs which were nominated for deletion by the same nominator[2][3]
    I would note there's more than a hint of POV-pushing in the deletion nomination: @How I could just edit a wiki article was registered on 16 July as what seems to be an SPA relating to sex offender registration laws, now blocked[4] for unspecified abuse apparently based on evidence of sockpuppetry. We should be cautious about letting AfD become an instrument for suppressing discussion of unpopular activity, especially when the core complaint is one of article quality and not the substance of that activity. Oblivy (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Back in 2016, there were three articles split off from the main article Sex offender registries in the United States. The first is Effectiveness of sex offender registration policies in the United States, the second is Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States, third was Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States. There was a previous discussion Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_57#Sex_offender_registries_in_the_United_States, but this link no longer works because it was archived (if there an easy way to find archived discussions, please drop a note on my talk page!) Denaar (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC) (found it with the search bar on the noticeboard) Denaar (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    comment - all three pov forks were written by the same person, and have the same pov, which matches their talk page. I think we should probably delete them all and let someone recreate them from an academic view if they'd like How I could just edit a wiki article (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Rename - There really are efforts to reform sex offender laws, I've heard about it in news reports, and I think some groups are reasonable, some groups border on advocacy, and I don't see any reason not to report on them. At the same time, "Movement" is the wrong term, but it was an attempt to describe the contents of the spin off article. I also think this needs to be re-added to the main article, with a "see also", it needs to be clearly noted as a spin off, with a "see also" back to the main article as well. Otherwise a merge back into the Sex offender registries in the United States article seems appropriate. "Sex offender law reform in the United States" seem more neutral as a spin off term? Denaar (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support keep/rename if the name was right -- not sure about reform as there's not much prospect of reform just calls for it. But the article itself is out of date and lacks a section laying out positions. An argument section was deleted at some point in the past but it was short. If recreated, such as sectioin could collect some of the complaints - stigma, difficulty accessing affordable housing, this[5] issue with joining Nextdoor that I found by searching WP comments, conflict with notions of rehabilitation, etc. It could also host "academic" material other commenters have suggested is appropriate for this article. I saw something about controversy over the NARSO annual meeting (IIRC mayor sent them a letter of support) which got press coverage and could help bolster notability.
    It's nearly 5 days since the AfD was brought - it looks like merge is the frontrunner. Is there a way forward to try to WP:HEY the article so people will support keep/rename? I can't say I'm super excited about working with something that looks like reducing consequences for rapists and child abusers, but this issue does seem to actually implicate fairness/effectiveness and the nomination itself strikes me as POV in the wrong direction. Oblivy (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm leaning toward "Keep with the right name" if we can find one - and thank you for the WP:HEY - I do think the article needs to be updated, normally I'd work on it but I just committed to another big project. I think a student created a lot of this, they aren't editing much anymore, and so the information is out of date - how much activism is going? Did any of it work? Many USA States already have Romeo and Juliet laws to carve out exceptions to the law. Denaar (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename I have done some digging and found that on 1 July 2023 the 7.8Kb arguments section was blanked by a now-blocked SPA, A person from nowhere. Again, this is a checkuser block so I can't see the evidence, but that editor has a strikingly similar edit history to How I could just edit a wiki article. Here's the edit summary:

"Wp:OR, none of the references were about the subject of the article, each was meant to defend the subject of the articles views instead."

I restored that section and edited it, adding a few scholarly cites (there are A LOT of academic sources out there). Most of what was deleted was not WP:OR but citations to independent media articles and while I haven't had a chance to look at all the cites the ones I did supported the text. I took out the word "movement" wherever it appeared except the lead and infobox. There was some (not a lot of) POV in the text and I've tried to tone it down, but if there's a balance issue then I would think opponents' voices should be easy to find.
The remaining question would be what to rename it to. Although @ Denaar suggested ""Sex offender law reform in the United States" perhaps ""Calls for sex offender registry reform in the United States" would be more accurate. I'm open on this one.
To the closing admin As we're at the close-or-relist date, I'd suggest this be relisted on grounds of WP:HEY
One more comment: looking at the history of these blocked editors I found they and another editor recently blanked a bunch of what looks like good sources on Effectiveness of sex offender registration policies in the United States (hat-tip to Denaar for mentioning the history of this article above). I'm worn out from thinking about POV -- grownups can talk about difficult/controversial subjects without being advocates, but for sure there are balance/undue/advocacy issues at play. I'm not going to tinker with that article now, but at some point it should probably be merged with this article. Will see how this discussion goes first, and maybe (maybe) drop a note on the talk page.Oblivy (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and restored the article Effectiveness of sex offender registration policies in the United States to the most recent version prior to the blanking edits, since the edits seemed to be POV-pushing and were made by two accounts banned for sockpuppeting. Vontheri (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here. First, this article can't be Redirected or Merged to Sex offender registration as that page is a redirect. Also, I think any article rename has to be a discussion that occurs in the event that this article is Kept. If it is Merged, Redirected or Deleted, than the title won't be terribly important.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a coatrack. Portions of the content may be salvageable and merged into any of a number of relevant articles, but a detailed review of the article as it stands leaves little doubt that this is a POV fork for the purposes of advancing a particular narrative regarding laws regarding these kinds of offenders. The positions are not contextualized within the larger issue in an encyclopedic manner and particular statements are clearly cherry-picked to advance the arguments of a particular minority activist viewpoint. It's not remotely neutral and it violates a bevy of policy points regarding forks of this nature.
    As a side note related to the appropriateness of the article (but independently of concern in any event), does anyone else find that image to be a major concern. Let's assume for the moment the license on the photo itself is valid: I'm still very concerned about our using the picture of a child (even limited/non-identifiable portions of a child) on an article such as this. The subject matter of that photo feeds into the serious concerns about the neutrality of this content as a whole, but quite aside from that, without having clear documentation of a release to use a child's image (again, even a partial image), I'd say we have ethical and policy issues quite separate from any validity of the CC particulars. SnowRise let's rap 07:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the image, I had reinstated the image box as it existed before the section containing it was blanked by two now-blocked accounts, one of which brought this nomination. I did consider the propriety of including the picture from a privacy perspective, but the likelihood of identifying the child seemed pretty remote. Nevertheless I can see your point and have removed the image. It's not used anywhere else on the site so if you feel strongly about the image itself perhaps it should be deleted.
    I'm afraid I don't understand how this fits within the COATRACK essay as it's pretty short and focused on one topic. As far as cherrypicking, the article is about reform so it will naturally focus on those views. Certainly there are other anti-reform views out there and those could be added. There's no "anti-minoritarian" policy on WP, and WP:NOTCENSORED seems to preclude such arguments. Oblivy (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there is any reasonably real danger of the child being identified, as his face was blocked in the image. However, I do think the image was from a non-neutral POV. I also had a problem with the image's description saying the toddler was protesting. I don't think a child that young (he looked about 2 or maybe 3 at the most) would be developmentally capable of truly understanding what he was "protesting", and certainly wouldn't have been old enough to write the sign himself. He was being used by someone else (presumably his parent(s)) who was protesting. It was right to remove the image in the spirit of neutral point-of-view, but not for reasons of privacy concern.
    I think removing the image was a good first step to improve the article. Deleting the article would be unnecessary and detrimental to the encyclopedia. It's a notable topic that should have an article. The article needs work, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We can't delete an article just because it's about a topic we don't like or have strong objections to. Vontheri (talk) 11:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree 100%. Oblivy (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article may need some editing for NPOV, but the fact is that such a movement does exist, and whether we like it or not, it is notable and should be described and documented. Vontheri (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But does any sort of organised movement exist as the title suggests? It would need to be TNT'd in order to be remade into an acceptable article. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That depends how one interprets the word "movement". Just how "organized" does something have to be before it becomes a "movement"? There are high-profile people (at least high-profile within relevant circles) who are calling for such reform, for example Patty Wetterling. I would be fine with renaming the article, but deleting it entirely seems detrimental and unnecessary. Vontheri (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Addition to my previous comment: Also, does the word "movement" necessarily imply "organized movement"? A movement can be a movement without having central organization. Otherwise, the term "organized movement" would be redundant and unnecessary to exist as a term. The title "Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States" only implies that there are people advocating for it, it doesn't necessarily imply organization.
    That said, I am fine with the name being changed as long as it is to a relevant and unbiased name. I just don't think the article should be deleted. Vontheri (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I found an organization that should confirm the existence of a "movement": Women Against Registry. Vontheri (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think this movement is significant and notable enough to deserve an article. GeodeRose (talk) 06:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added two more sources to the article, including an opposing view. As noted in the first relisting comment, questions about renaming the article need to wait although I agree with @Vontheri the meaning term movement is fairly expansive.
  • Comment After reading the article completely and more in-depth, I am more convinced than ever that the article should not be deleted and that it really isn't even problematic in its current state. Sure, it can use some work, but so can most Wikipedia articles. Given the topic of the article, of course it is going to focus more on arguments against sex offender registries/laws. There could and should be some more counter-balance given to the article, but it's really not anywhere nearly as radical or as biased as was initially implied. The main issue was the overly-dramatic picture of the toddler, but it has now been removed. Let's all remember that the article was nominated for deletion by a now-banned account, and if you look at the banned accounts (note plural) edit histories, then it doesn't take long to see that this editor was on Wikipedia primarily, if not solely, to make changes to fit their personal political views. Vontheri (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit off-topic at an AfD but proper consideration should be given to whether we need four articles about U.S. SORs. The 7-year old forking argument is a distraction. But something is wrong here, not about POV/undue but it's bad to have things scattered all over the place. Constitutionality article has a long discussion about effectiveness data, for example).
    An argument could be made for merging some of it into Sex offender registries in the United_States but that's already 3500-odd words, of which 800-odd relate to the three forked topics. Effectiveness is 2500 words, constitutionality is 2150, this one is 640. Even with some trimming de-forking is likely to end up at 8000. I could easily see merging effectiveness into this one (subject to post-AfD rename away from "movement") then keeping constitutionality as its own article.
    When this AfD is over I'll put a comment on the talk page to try to get some consensus (not ruling out being bold, but this topic trips some red lights for folks). Oblivy (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm mixed on that one. On the one hand, the four topics do have discernible differences that could merit separate articles, but there is also much overlap. It's a borderline case, but I could see an argument for merging this article with "Effectiveness", although I'm not quite sure what an appropriate title for the article would be in that case. I think "constitutionality" is probably distinct enough that it should remain as its own article, but if it is merged, it would probably make the most sense to merge it into the "movement" article. I think "constitionality" and "effectiveness" are distinct enough from each other that they deserve separate articles; but that creates a bit of a fallacious sort of situation in which "effectiveness" and "movement" could be merged together, and "constitutionality" could be merged with "movement", but "constitutionality" would not be compatible enough to be merged with "effectiveness". All three of those can't be logically satisfied.
    It is unfortunate that so many people can't put their emotional reactions (or "red lights", as you put it) to a topic aside and neutrally and factually work to document phenomena and build an encyclopedia, not only in regards to this topic but in regards to so many varied topics that people have strong feelings about, though this topic is probably one of the most severely affected by emotions in that way. Vontheri (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment. This isn't quite the right place for this discussion, but I wanted to raise it. Hopefully this will end as a keep or no-consensus, and then we can discuss how to put the articles on a good footing (and after they are cleaned up and merged if that’s possible, candidly, I'm going to go work on something else) Oblivy (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I only see two votes for "delete". Unless something radically changes over the next few days, then the article won't be deleted. Once this sock-puppet/POV-warrior initiated time wasting is over, then we can work on actually figuring out a direction forward for the article, as you said. Vontheri (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vontheri’s comments. There is more than enough sources to support this subject. Elttaruuu (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Movement_to_reform_sex_offender_laws_in_the_United_States&oldid=1171608835"