Talk:Sex offender registries in the United States#Merge discussion

:This is the first time I have looked at these types of articles and I was amazed at the lack of coverage on Wikipedia especially concerning individual states.

• 1)- Neutrality: The article seems to me to be presenting a broad coverage that does not seem to show bias either way. Not only is there a form of "pros and cons" format there is a debate section. There is a couple of problems with the second paragraph bit it seems more from confusion that non-neutrality. Content:

::a)- "The majority of states and the federal government apply systems based on conviction offenses only, where the requirement to register as a sex offender is a consequence of conviction of or guilty plea to a "sex offense" that triggers a mandatory registration requirement.".

:It does not matter if a defendant "pleads" guilty or is "found" to be guilty by a judge or jury.

::b)- "The trial judge typically can not exercise judicial discretion, and is barred from considering mitigating factors with respect to registration".

:This is confusing because the word "typically" means there can be exceptions yet the last part of the sentence is restrictive to "no" judicial discretion at all.

• 2)- Lead: The lead has six paragraphs. We can do better than that. Although four has been shown to be a community-accepted standard (of course with exceptions) six can be reduced.
• 3)- History section and tag: The third paragraph does "stray" from the "history" aspect and can be placed somewhere else.
• 4)- Coverage: The rest of the article has a lot overly broad coverage and subsections as to why or what led to certain laws that have been enacted but not much explaining the title specific "Sex offender registries in the United States". I would think this may only be solved with state-specific coverage. Otr500 (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It is of great encyclopedic value. It is noted that the law created the AMBER Alert System and the national sex offender registry.[http://www.salem-news.com/articles/january052010/amber_bus.php]Speakfor (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Following the no-consensus AfD vote at Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States concerns were raised that there are four articles that deal with the subject of U.S. sex offender registries. They are:

• Sex offender registries in the United States
• Effectiveness of sex offender registration policies in the United States
• Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States
• Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States

I think it's fair to say:

• Keep votes thought there was value to these articles but acknowledged that cleanup was required. Also the AfD nomination, and some recent blanking on these articles were done by apparent (now checkuser-blocked) sockpuppets, and this conduct should not stand. There was not consensus among the keep votes whether this was a "movement".
• Delete votes focused on coatracking arguments, and the idea that there is no "movement". One argument said the decision to split these articles some 7 years ago was a "POV fork". While there was no explicit undue/balance complaints that seemed to be a theme.

Clearly these articles all need cleanup. I think we should look for ways to reduce the article count to 2 or 3. I have made a substantial revision to the constitutionality article. Helping hands would be appreciated. It's time consuming, and not really my area of interest. Perhaps someone with expertise (any pro-registry advocates?) wants to help balance these out. Oblivy (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)