Talk:Constitutionality of sex offender registries in the United States

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

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

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York Times editorial[edit]

Here's a link to a recent NYT op-ed piece, When Junk Science About Sex Offenders Infects the Supreme Court:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/opinion/when-junk-science-about-sex-offenders-infects-the-supreme-court.html

--196.251.88.15 (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about state laws, or the united states[edit]

@Discospinster: What are you hoping for this article to be about? I see you added lots of coat rack back to it. Hypno Worm (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article I don't see any coat racking. It's an article about the constitutionality of sex offender laws, and the content discusses the relevant laws and court cases. Can you be more specific about what in the article is a problem? ... discospinster _talk 00:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've indeffed them for that utterly unacceptable post to your talkpage. Whatever this user is up to, they've forfeited their privilege to edit with that edit summary. Acroterion (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changes have been made to try to clarify the federal-state coverage of the article. The article probably needs to have the three federal sections collapsed into one as they are duplicative. There's no need for two supreme court sections and there's only one body of federal case law (yes, diff. circuits, but there's no discussion of a split and at best this merits a subheading). Oblivy (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Needed[edit]

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:

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 this 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) 07:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]