Talk:Adolescent sexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Adolescent sexuality is part of WikiProject Sexuality, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of human sexuality. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Archives 1

Contents 1 Where should a "History of Adol...S." entry go? 2 Merge proposal/state of article 3 I have fixed up the opening a bit. 4 Start it over 5 POV sentence. 6 Recommendation for adolescent sexuality 7 Merge from Adolescent sexuality in Britain 8 Mergefrom Adolescent sexuality in the United States 9 Proposal of a complete rewrite

[edit] Where should a "History of Adol...S." entry go?

Human social history is rife with what we now consider to be extremely young marriage. Mohammad's second wife Ayesha was 7-9yrs. Marriage in Palestine at the time of Christ happened at 10-12yrs with first birth as quickly thereafter as humanly possible. Alexander the Great fell in love with Roxianni when she was 14 and promptly took her to his tent (see Plutarch). Shakespearean romance is all about 14-16yr marriage. US laws for most of the 19th century allowed marriage at 10yrs. Delaware allowed 7yrs. This sounds strange to our modern sensibilities. But it raises important questions. What is the proper forum for this data? (please comment only on the question, not the data) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.32.92.214 (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

IMO, that kind of history should be a section in this article. If it got to be long enough, it should be a breakout article of its own. I think once this article is taken out of "badly written soapbox" mode, there would be all kinds of room for expansion. Iamcuriousblue 22:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i've heard things of the sort. It IS pretty interesting to see how 10, and 14 year olds were married regularly in the past and how nowadays it's considered 'child abuse'.

Very interesting. We DEFINATALY need to include this in the article. Nateland 02:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal/state of article

Let me just state my opinion up front. Adolescent sexuality in the United States is an absolute train wreck of an article. It is hugely biased toward social conservatism and very poorly written, being essentially a collection of cherry-picked quotes. This article ("Adolescent sexuality") has some useful information, but has been severely compromised by the same NPOV and quotefarming problems as the other article.

These articles are so bad, in fact, that I think most of the content should simply be deleted. I propose knocking this article ("Adolescent sexuality") back to just the neutral, verifiable information found in each section (which means dumping a large chunk of the article) and knocking back "Adolescent sexuality in the United States" to a simple redirect page to this one. Iamcuriousblue 21:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the article in detail, I would have to agree with this proposal. I feel that it certainly is poorly written, and seems to try to push one POV by finding select opinions (within the fast amount of published information regarding psycho-social and self-help genre) to try to support one view. Little of this, even though referenced, seems to have research behind it, and referring back to the main article rather than having an obviously POV slanted article would be desirable until substantial research is done, or someone who can gather the research in a cogent form can do that. I think moving forward with the merge to redirect is a good idea. Atom 16:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to run this proposal for another week or so and unless I see some significant objection to it, I'll make the edits I've suggested. My concern is that Illuminato, the main author of the article, has not responded to this discussion even after I've informed the user about it. Hopefully, this won't end up turning into a revert war, but on the other hand, I don't think its OK that one user can go ahead with blatant POV-pushing, completely ignoring numerous other editors who have raised objections. Iamcuriousblue 23:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the redirect. I think there is certainly enough information out there relating specifically to American adolescents that it warrants its own article. I just improved the article by removing the dependence on quotations and standardized the references. If you can improve it then by all means WP:Be Bold and do so. --Illuminato 04:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is still highly dependent on quotes, plus there is the enormous problem of POV-pushing on your part. You've basically cherry-picked a large number of quote and studies to support a sexually conservative POV. Are you even aware of WP:NPOV???? Iamcuriousblue 05:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is rediculously biased towards a conservative christian perspective ( you know, all the stuff that rational people reject about sexuality) The sources scream out that they are chosen to represent the views of the contributor. I think wiki can do better.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.167.146.35 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 12 March 2007.

• I support the redirect; I think we could do with a fresh start in this article. It's blatantly POV and a lot of other information could be presented about the subject, such as the history of adolescent sexuality, without the negative quotations and without moralizing on whether it is right or wrong for adolescents to engage in sexual activity. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 19:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I see that in my absence more people have come to try and fix this article. I will stand with you guys on removing large portions of this article and rewriting it in a manner that is NPOV and doesn't support an overtly conservative agenda. (Nor an overly liberal one for that matter).

We need just the FACTS. NOT biased information. I'll be able to help with finding articles and doing some research if needed. This idiocy over the article has gone on for plenty long enough and I think that the suggestions of the majority here is a good idea.

I say Redirect Adolescent Sexuality in the US to this article. And almost completely rewrite it. Shall we vote? Nateland 21:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we could take a straw poll, but it would be non-binding, since WP guidelines emphasize reaching consensus rather than voting. I suppose the next step would be to ask for a Request for Comment about this article, with a statement from Illuminato, myself, and anybody else who cares to comment and try to hash it out that way.

Of course, if anybody feels they have a better alternative than the simply supporting or opposing the proposal I've made, feel free to make an alternate proposal.

Anyway as to my original proposal to knock this article back to a redirect, given the lack of salvageable content:

• Support: Article as it stands is hopelessly biased, with the main writers of the article not seeming to be making a good-faith effort to adhere to WP:NPOV. The writer instead seem to be piling up a mountain of one-sided, cherry-picked "facts", and demanding that other authors must make their own effort to counterbalance this huge, one-sided presentation. Having "your side" get there first with the most "facts" is not the way to properly create articles for Wikipedia. Iamcuriousblue 06:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have fixed up the opening a bit.

I fixed up the intro (moved Lynn Ponton's quote to beginning of U.S. section as she doesn't appear to have worldwide knowledge of the subject in question: if someone can prove me otherwise then do so)

Rephrased the 'concerns to the wider society'. As this an article on adolescent sexuality on a global perspective and saying the 'wider society' is suggesting that it applies for most EVERY country and EVERY place. (That can't be very easily measured and I HIGHLY doubt the veracity of that statement). So instead i put in the usual 'what adolescent sexuality can be comprised of' and the usual 'you can get AIDS'. (No i didn't phrase it exactly that way :-). I'm not an idiot, I made it much broader)

That's pretty much it. Nateland 03:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Start it over

From what I've seen, the article is based too much off of quotations of other sources. While that makes it nice and non-plagiaristic, it's really not a good idea. I think we should scrap the existing article and write from the bottom-up. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 22:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Where should a "History of Adol...S." entry go?

Human social history is rife with what we now consider to be extremely young marriage. Mohammad's second wife Ayesha was 7-9yrs. Marriage in Palestine at the time of Christ happened at 10-12yrs with first birth as quickly thereafter as humanly possible. Alexander the Great fell in love with Roxianni when she was 14 and promptly took her to his tent (see Plutarch). Shakespearean romance is all about 14-16yr marriage. US laws for most of the 19th century allowed marriage at 10yrs. Delaware allowed 7yrs. This sounds strange to our modern sensibilities. But it raises important questions. What is the proper forum for this data? (please comment only on the question, not the data) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.32.92.214 (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

   IMO, that kind of history should be a section in this article. If it got to be long enough, it should be a breakout article of its own. I think once this article is taken out of "badly written soapbox" mode, there would be all kinds of room for expansion. Iamcuriousblue 22:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal/state of article

Let me just state my opinion up front. Adolescent sexuality in the United States is an absolute train wreck of an article. It is hugely biased toward social conservatism and very poorly written, being essentially a collection of cherry-picked quotes. This article ("Adolescent sexuality") has some useful information, but has been severely compromised by the same NPOV and quotefarming problems as the other article.

These articles are so bad, in fact, that I think most of the content should simply be deleted. I propose knocking this article ("Adolescent sexuality") back to just the neutral, verifiable information found in each section (which means dumping a large chunk of the article) and knocking back "Adolescent sexuality in the United States" to a simple redirect page to this one. Iamcuriousblue 21:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the article in detail, I would have to agree with this proposal. I feel that it certainly is poorly written, and seems to try to push one POV by finding select opinions (within the fast amount of published information regarding psycho-social and self-help genre) to try to support one view. Little of this, even though referenced, seems to have research behind it, and referring back to the main article rather than having an obviously POV slanted article would be desirable until substantial research is done, or someone who can gather the research in a cogent form can do that. I think moving forward with the merge to redirect is a good idea. Atom 16:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A new plan to take this article forward.

As I said to Illuminato in a message to him a few minutes ago. I stated the below. And a further message a few seconds afteward I agreed to do something and gave him my expectation he will do the same.

This article's primary purpose is to tell what Adolescent Sexuality is. NOT to state opinions on the subject. If someone wants they can be wikipedia's guest and make an article on opinions on Adolescent Sexuality. But let this article say WHAT Adolescent Sexuality is.

Think. Answer this question. What is sexuality?

Think. And answer this. How does sexuality develop in adolescents?, human growth and development, sexual attractions? Who knows. You answer.

Now think one last time. What IS adolescent sexuality?.

Obviously it's sexuality among adolescents. Not sexual activity or sexual development solely. These are subsets of this. And Adolescent Sexuality is a sub set of sexology or sexuality in general as well as adolescence, which in itself is a stage of life. Which in turn is a study in science.

Science in turn is an attempt to understand the universe in a purely logical way. (Using the only way we know how, statistics is part of that way).

And WHY do we attempt to understand the universe? I'd say because we're Sentient. Above the other animals as far as we can tell.

And that Sentience creates thoughts, and opinions. And this discussion loops to the beginning because it has arisen out of opinion.

Welcome to the human condition and our world my friend(s). I hope you understand what I'm trying to tell you.

In other words. (In correlation with the issue at hand)

I will let my POV drop and I expect you to drop yours. I just deleted any POV statements which I've favored currently or in the past. And I expect Illuminato and all others to do the same. So that we may rebuild this article upon a foundation of scientific and logical accuracy. Not religion or superstition or untrue myth.

Just facts. The facts is all that is needed.....

[edit] POV sentence.

I once added quotations to this sentence as it is OBVIOUSLY SOMEONES opinion and not a proven fact. (Trying to remove it from the lead, where it is unfairly made to look like world view) was reversed by Illuminato and so now I will keep it out of the article until YOU. Illuminato clarify some things.

What do you mean by Emtional Intimacy?

If you say this isn't someone's statement. Then WHAT IS IT?. If you're claiming it's a worldview then open your eyes and realize its narrow to think such a belief is a world view followed by almost 6.5 billion people.

Also, if this IS statement then don't remove the quotation marks I put around it and the citation needed. If it IS a statement then say WHOSE statement it is. And put in a section respective to the country. Putting the blow 'fact' into the intro of this article is unnuetral and defacing to the integrity and honesty of this article.

"When teens engage in sexual activities that are separate from emotional intimacy they may develop habits that will cause them to have trouble forming adult relationships in the future."

Nateland 21:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually Illuminato, you need to very strongly back a statement up if you're going to phrase it outside the context of a quote.

For example, your third cited reference doesn't even address your claim.

The first cited reference isn't available to check up on. (especially significant since at least one of the three references was faulty.) It's available online, but you need a subscription to read it. (That makes it a bad reference)

And even the second reference, well, it simply doesn't cut the mustard. One person makes that claim. Her only (listed) qualifications are that she used to be an editor for Seventeen magazine, and that she apparently did research in collaboration with the "National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy", which is probably pretty likely to promote a teen-sex-is-bad view. That isn't to say they lied; just that they hardly qualify as neutral. What's more, another person in the very same article says, ""What will the impact be on their ultimately more lasting relationships? I don't think we know yet." So, you see, that article hardly makes a strong assertion to back you up there.

What does this mean? Of three cited references, the first is unavailable to confirm, the second does just as much to contradict the claim, and the third one doesn't even address the issue at all.

Sorry, but I'm removing the statement entirely. If you want to include some sort of a quote, go ahead. But just make sure it's a reliable and verifiable source. Bladestorm 23:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The citation you originally deleted did address the topic, and I have added a direct quote from that particular article to the lead. I thought it was more NPOV and more in line with {WP:Lead]] without it, but since you insisted I placed it in. I was able to access all sources I used, and I don't have a subscription. The key is verifiability, anyway. It is verifiable. As for the third source, the person I am referencing is clearly marked so you can find what he said in the source provided.--Illuminato 00:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see an edit war brewing, so I'd like to remind everyone of WP:3RR. Xiner (talk, email) 00:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've only done one revert so far (two edits collectively summing to one revert), but fine. I'll refrain from editing again today.

However, here's what still needs to be addressed: You're making an assertion. The fact that you quote part of the reasoning is irrelevant. You're making a direct assertion. Since it's a disputed assertion, it needs to be pretty much irrefutably verified. I don't know what you're saying is "verifiable". The new york times? Even if that weren't simply a newspaper, without being able to see the article (you didn't even provide a direct link to the article), how can it possibly be verified that that's even what they said?

One of your references, at usatoday, includes one person's (pov-by-virtue-of-her-funding) pov that agrees with you, but also includes a quote from someone who very clearly says that nobody knows yet. Since your own reference contradicts that it's a certain assertion, it clearly cannot be used to prove that it's 'irrefutable fact'. As such, you cannot make that direct statement.

So, this is simple. Directly cite everything you want to say. The references need to explicitly agree with you. Your references must be verifiable and reliable. A former editor for Seventeen magazine may be noteworthy for expressing an opinion, but is not reliable as being the sole definitive source of information on a topic.

If you cannot provide evidence of your claims, they will be deleted. You need to back up what you say; this isn't a new concept.

You need to attribute POV's to specific authorities; not misrepresent them as undisputed fact. Bladestorm 00:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I made the same revert, and agree with the other editors here. We really shouldn't need to have an edit war, so I strongly suggest ironing out our difference on the talk page instead of playing around the 3RR rule. Quotes are verifiable, but are often POV and should never be stated as fact when there is significant disagreement about their accuracy. Xiner (talk, email) 02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that building an entire article out of quotes is inherently a poor way to write an article. Building an entire article out of cherry-picked POV quotes is even worse. Iamcuriousblue 04:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recommendation for adolescent sexuality

I left the following message with Illuminato. I'll post my reccomendation in the talk page. give about a week for discussion. And based on the discussion. BOOM!. Feel free to participate.

Note: While the below might seem uncivil i'm sorry to say but get over it. I've had eons oof problems with User:Illuminato and he's not been much civiler then I am. I mean no offense but I want to try and end this madness ASAP. Let the discussion BEGIN!.

(The below message is meant to describe my reasons for deleting the articles adolescent sexuality in the united states and adolescent sexuality in Britain. no need for merging, all these two articles are is just identically copied text from THIS article)

Illuminato, Admit it.

Those two articles ARE simply copied text. I left the adolescent sexuality in India article stay as is because it wasn't carbon copied text.

Remember, your actions are putting undue strain on the servers. I'll put it up for vote in the talk page. And Illuminato, I'm sorry but you'll probably outnumbered. And seeing as you are about the only one objecting it WILL probably go through. I'm simply asking you to put aside your views and think rationally. DOZENS of people have complained about and critisized your actions on wikipedia. Far more than mine.

Sincerely, Nateland 01:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I really don't care for the rhetoric, but I don't see any attempt at compromise by Illuminato, and his insistence on placing opinions as facts is baffling, especially when I tried to put them into context yesterday. I'm in no mood to engage in an edit war, but I'm very disappointed by his actions and would like to see it stop. Xiner (talk, email) 01:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

He's tried to compromise. But on very superficial grounds that still leave his POV's as king(or those that obviously are favored by him. Since he'll argue they're not his pov's in defense). and there won't be an edit war if we can get a majority consensus to go for deleting these two articles in question. That'll cut down on editing to mainly within the scope of this article and we can eventually get around to making this article be about what IS about.

what adolescent sexuality is. not cherry picked people's opinions. If enough people go for deleting those articles, Illuminato will HAVE to violate the 3RR rule MULTIPLE TIMES within a day or hours because he'll be going against the general agreement. And yes, i did press admin action against him. Except a 'buddy' of his or something counter reported me for incivility. (Ech, so stupid).

Nateland 01:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Xiner, if you look at the difs you will see that the revert I just made was back to your version of the article. All I did was restore the delted text, and asked for a deletion to go through the proper process. I have no desire to get into an edit war, but I don't know what you are upset about. --Illuminato 01:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I was still upset about the way my edits were reverted yesterday, and didn't see the new edits today. I'm sorry.

I've posted a merge proposal for the Britain article. Hopefully we can reach common ground there. Xiner (talk, email) 01:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Adolescent sexuality in Britain

• Support Britain faces similar problems to America's, so I think whatever difference there is can be contained in this article. Xiner (talk, email) 01:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support The information in the two articles is essentially the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Illuminato (talk • contribs).

[edit] Mergefrom Adolescent sexuality in the United States

• Support: Article as it stands is hopelessly biased, with the main writers of the article not seeming to be making a good-faith effort to adhere to WP:NPOV. The writer instead seem to be piling up a mountain of one-sided, cherry-picked "facts", and demanding that other authors must make their own effort to counterbalance this huge, one-sided presentation. Having "your side" get there first with the most "facts" is not the way to properly create articles for Wikipedia. Iamcuriousblue 06:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, please don't move this poll to another section again – if we keep starting from scratch over and over again, nothing will ever get decided. Iamcuriousblue 04:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Undecided That article is rather long. Perhaps we can agree to work on that one together before we decide on the merge? If that article is kept, then we should take out the quotefarm in the U.S. section of this article and try to make it a true summary of that article. Xiner (talk, email) 02:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason I am proposing the merge rather than a formal AfD is that once the blatantly biased and quote-dependent content is removed from Adolescent sexuality in the United States, which needs to happen, I just don't see any article being left. The reason I haven't proposed an AfD is because I see that down the road a potentially valid breakaway article from Adolescent sexuality could be written on this topic. However, that is not the article we have now and that's why I have proposed the merge. The problem with trying to fix the article as it stands is that Illuminato has basically stacked the deck – the user has contributed a mountain of cherry-picked "facts" that are dubious in accuracy and obvious in bias. The user has then challenged anybody who disagrees with them to counterbalance each "fact" and fights for each of these edits. The result – trying to come up with a balanced, NPOV version of this article is an impossibly uphill battle. This is why I'm proposing to simply erase this article (and similar content in Adolescent sexuality) so as to start with a clean slate. Iamcuriousblue 04:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• like I said. Merging these articles is unneeded. It's nothing but carbon copied text placed into spin-off articles which Illuminato created a while ago in a dispute over the main article not having a world wide view on adolescent sexuality.....

compare the spin-off articles and the sections. You'll find a 99.9% identicality between the sections on the U.S. and Britain and the articles about AS in those countries.

This article is supposed to be ABOUT adolescent sexuality. NOT peoples opinions, while they can be included, they should be limited to allow for other more important information (Facts for instance?) to make this article shine. Right now it's not. It's being run pretty solely by a single user with an agenda who uses various unwikipedian and uncivil methods to get his way on this website.

Crazy..... Nateland 18:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting an AFD? Xiner (talk, email) 19:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No, see my comments above. Iamcuriousblue 04:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• I oppose the merge. It is too long and there is too much information in the main article to merge into here. I would support trying to make the US section here less dependent on quotes and more of a summary of the main article. --Illuminato 20:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Once biased, quote heavy, and otherwise inaccurate information is removed from Adolescent sexuality in the United States, I simply don't think there will be an article left. That's why I support a merge. Iamcuriousblue 04:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. If we remove all of that, there will be nothing left, which is why I have been so hesitant to attempt to overhaul the article. I therefore support the merge as long as this means we remove the quotefarm that presents the opinion that adolescent sexual activity permanently damages all people in the U.S. and makes them screwed-up mentally. I believe that the entire section of "Effects of sexual activity" especially over-represents this viewpoint. It's overwhelmingly biased to the point that perhaps a rewrite may be in order. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 21:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems obvious that this proposal has failed. The discussion is closed. Xiner (talk, email) 20:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal of a complete rewrite

Main article: Talk:Adolescent sexuality/Nateland's version

As you can see, the above article is pretty heavily neutral. Gives the facts. tells WHAT Adolescent sexuality is, and while it may get too specific at times it's at least not a POV plagued quotefarm.

Hardly any quotes at all except for undisputed verified information from WITHIN wikipedia. (Now what could be better than that?). Nateland 19:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I must admit Nateland's version looks like what the subject is actually about. The current version is more like Adolescent Sexual Behaviors. Xiner (talk, email) 23:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this looks better, even in draft form. This version doesn't rely on opinions about adolescent sexuality like the current version of the article does. I was overwhelmed by the POV version of the article and hardly knew how to salvage it. This is a nice start for a good article. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 04:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Better, but in definite need of a copyedit, which shouldn't be that hard. Iamcuriousblue 04:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I can do a bit of copy-editing later. But now I'm gonna make out this goddamn orthographic projection for homework. (Without a ruler). Anyways, I hope this version I've proposed gets through the pipes intact. Nateland 23:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)