Talk:Sexually violent predator laws

POV?
''On the use of the term "Sexually Violent Predator " (S.V.P.) to describe Civil Detainees. The term "S.V.P." has a meaning in many state's laws quite distinct from that of any reasonable person. As it is now defined, neither actual violence nor coercion is needed for a crime to meet the statutory definition of "sexually violent". The age of the victim, non-familial victims or past convictions are some criteria useful in branding someone " S.V.P." That this definitional shift has occurred during a period of mass hysteria over sex offenders cannot be seen as coincidental. California prisons and state hospitals have been launched on a wave of distorted public opinion. We insist that non-violent offenders not be smeared by this scurrilous and damaging defamation.'' Mik 20:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree the article was subjective. I removed the language lacking sources and cleaned the article up generally, adding new links and removing the broken ones. Blue Sheepdog (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I came across this:                       &mdash;  Ríco  21:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Overly broad opening sentence
The first sentence was edited to read: "Sexually violent predator (SVP) laws permit states to confine someone that has been convicted of a past sex offense if that person is likely to reoffend." The grammar errors aside, that's not correct because it's so overly broad and includes persons and violations not triggering SVP status. If someone reads only that and moves on, then they've seriously misinformed. I recognize the need to make Wikipedia easy to read, but that shouldn't be done to the point of making something wrong. Blue Sheepdog (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On a similar point, the sentence "In principle, SVP statutes permit the state to indefinitely confine someone as a threat to others" was also vastly overbroad; hence, I removed. Blue Sheepdog (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Contradictory numbers
One part of the article said forty states had SFP stats, another said sixteen. Therefore at least one of those numbers has to be wrong. Which is it? I removed the higher number. Blue Sheepdog (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Table with state laws
The CRS report has a nice table with those. We could probably have an abbreviated version of that here. I've added the California one in "see also" for now. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Move of this article
Deisenbe, same goes for this article, as goes for that other article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Reverted Deisenbe yet again. Reverted on this. And per Template:Globalize, "This tag should only be applied to articles where global perspectives are reasonably believed to exist (e.g., that people in China have a different view about an idea or situation than people in Germany or South Africa). If additional reliable sources for a worldwide view cannot be found after a reasonable search, this tag may be removed." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View Issues
The changes made by Flyer22 Reborn were contrary to Neutral Point of View policy of Wikipedia. While some of the changes seemed justified, the majority suggested a biased point of view that caused for the disregarding of those who believe "sexually violent predator" laws are unconstitutional (i.e. the view held by US District Court Judge Donovan Frank, the UK High Court, the New York Times and other reputable sources).

In order to ensure Wikipedia is neutral both the proponents' and the opponents' viewpoints should be noted in an unbiased factual manner. The alternative, is the forbidden appearance that Wikipedia is merely a political tool as opposed to a neutral encyclopedia. CathyR 2015 (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No, CathyR 2015, what I did was revert WP:Tone and POV issues. And with regard your editing, I reverted, WP:Editorializing and POV issues. And if you are the same editor as before, you need to stick to one account; see WP:Sock. Also, on Wikipedia, being neutral does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse. Actually read the WP:Neutral policy. All of it.


 * Pinging Legitimus for any help he might be able to provide on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Many of those edits do take a preachy and unnecessarily editorializing tone and seem highly inappropriate in the context where they appeared. We need to just state the facts, not advocate.Legitimus (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I must agree with CathyR 2015 that the edits of Flyer22 Reborn violate the Neutrality concepts of WikiPedia (FYI we are not the same person despite the inference from Flyer22 Reborn). Specifically, the neutrality violations can be summed up as follows: (1) Failure to Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts: Flyer22 Reborn's suggested version states the "opinion" that people deemed to have mental abnormalities in "fact" have such mental abnormality despite many scholars / experts believing they do not in reality have such a mental abnormality, (2) Failure to Avoid stating opinions as facts.: Flyer22 Reborn seems to have the "opinion" that personality disorder can be exclusive of the needed mental abnormality dictated by the laws; however, this opinion can not superseded the "facts" of the way the laws are written, (3) Failure to Prefer nonjudgmental language: Flyer22 Reborn repetitively uses language that suggests the legitimacy of such laws despite there being opposing views that these laws are illegitimate making such statements appear judgmental when the opposing view(s) are deleted, and (4) Failure to Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views: Flyer 22 Reborn has deleted references to opposing views despite these views being quite prominent (as evidenced by the prestigious journals and News Papers that have supported the opposing views Flyer22 Reborn deleted).
 * The current edit shows both points of views (the supporting view and the opposing view) which makes it consistent with POV policies. I note that sometimes there seems to be a desire to state "opinions" as "facts" and leave out prominent opposing views within WikiPedia when one or more have some kind of interest in making Wikipedia a political rather than factual forum. For instance, when I search through various Wikipedia pages having to do with wars or genocide, there are often alleged "POV" issues that stem from a clear desire to edit out unwanted "facts", insert "opinions" as if they wee fats and remove prominent opposing views. It is unfortunate that is so prevalent and that it is happening with this "sexually violent predator" law page. I understand providing further references, changing incorrect dates, adding more facts and other neutral modifications; however, other edits (designed to skew reality) is not what I believe Wikipedia is about (as evidenced by their POV / neutrality rules). Jessica .D. Smith (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting, Legitimus. Jessica .D. Smith, it is suspicious that you showed up after all this time (since last editing this article on March 18, 2018), and without being WP:Pinged, and proceeded to make the same edits as CathyR 2015. I'm willing to bet that you are CathyR 2015. And if you are, that means you are WP:Socking and are violating that policy. In this case, you should not be surprised to find yourself in a WP:Sockpuppet investigation in the near future. And if not a sock matter, it is a WP:Meatpuppet matter. You clearly do not understand our WP:Neutral policy, just like you clearly have not taken the time to understand our WP:Synthesis policy and the fact that you have been engaging in editorializing. Your own personal commentary, such as the WP:Label commentary "controversial" and the WP:Editorializing commentary "although as noted below there is debate as to whether in practice this consistently occurs" and "generally paraphilias despite the fact the DSM notes ability to control behavior is not a facet of a paraphilia," does not belong in the article. There are ways to address what you are trying to address, but the way you are going about it is not it. You should also read WP:Edit warring. Valid objections to your edits have been made. Per WP:BRD, now is the time to discuss and perhaps work on a draft for changes, such as in your WP:Sandbox. If you keep restoring your contested edits, I am likely to take further action against you, by first reporting you in a WP:Sockpuppet investigation where I will note, for example, that you and the CathyR 2015 account are also editing the Coalinga State Hospital article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * My latest edit has provided much clarity and added references. Undoubtedly Flyer22 Reborn will find more reasons to undo it as he/she has done systematically with previous edits. Very peculiar behavior from Flyer22 Reborn. It seems whoever you are you have little interest in keeping this page neutral; but that you do have an interest in harassing me and Jessica .D. Smith. It seems odd that you are the only person who objects to the edits done by either myself or by Jessica .D. Smith. For some reason you believe that 2 users are the same user merely due to their having similar interests. You may find it hard to believe, but I could find several additional people, to the two of us, who would happily contribute to the issues of ensuring accuracy and neutrality in civil commitment related pages on WikiPedia and you would likely improperly call that Meatpuppery (improper as they'd not been persuaded to support a view but merely to contribute independently to a topic they have researched). That would not magically make us all the same person or make it sock puppetry or meat puppetry. I note that you've had some problems before here at WikiPedia for similar strange behavior that has resulted in multiple blocks. I have no idea why you have decided that this behavior is appropriate; however, I'd appreciate it if you did not threaten users who are trying to stick to WikiPedia values.CathyR 2015 (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Two editors thus far have objected to your edits, and why has been explained. Yes, I've been blocked before. How in the world do you think that helps your case when my own block log itself partially explains the errors on that front, and when it's noted on my user page and talk page with this commentary from an administrator who knows what happened on that matter? You can argue your "2 users are [not] the same user merely due to their having similar interests" case at Sockpuppet investigations/Jessica .D. Smith. If you want to think that editors were born yesterday and have not seen socks or meatpuppets like you times before, then so be it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

____