Talk:Adolescent sexuality/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 related to Adolescence article 2 World view 3 I am totally in agreement with the above. 4 Maybe better title would be "Adolescent sexuality in the United States" 5 This is a COMPLAINT. 6 oh yes i almost forgot. 7 Do not copy and paste, please. 8 i added links 9 I added study data 10 so if i were to.... 11 guess what? 12 ok it is done.. 13 Ponton book - research of a global, western culture or US specific focus? 14 This is a call to action. 15 Illuminato, you should know his by now.. 16 Illuminato this is a warning 17 A way forward 18 Yes you have deleted data. 19 read my reply i just made, it's up next to your last reply. 20 A full list of additions/fixes that could be made. 21 Yes i know that.... 22 U.S. centricity 23 Note to illuminato. 24 I take that back... 25 I take back my last post. 26 A proposal 27 Basically what've wanted for the lead all along. 28 A totally radical new idea to almost COMPLETELY settle almost ALL conflicts 29 Category:Adolescence also Category:Sexuality and age 30 I'd like to apologize if i sounded 'crazed' in my last post. 31 I've created an article titled Controversy over adolescent sexuality. 32 update 33 Concerns over article length. 34 Contradiction 35 I'm a bit confused 36 My main proposals for this article.

[edit] related to Adolescence article

I've greatly reduced the length of the "sexuality" section in Adolescence -- it's sloppy and runs the risk of a POV fork to have such a lengthy treatment of a subject in a subsection when a separate article also exists. However, I have reproduced the old section below so that editors can mine it for any material that is not also in Adolescent sexuality now.

69.3.237.3 20:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Some one moved material into article. Paul foord 09:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World view

Adolescent sexuality appears to be one of the critical issues in the US culture wars, behaviour, attitudes and understandings of the topic are US centric. Paul foord 09:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I am totally in agreement with the above.

Exactly!, in Europe and Japan as far as I know Adolescent sex is HARDLY an issue. Although in order to get a good idea of their views we'll need some peeps from Europe and other parts of the globe to do some editing on this.

I myself am American so.... well, yeah. Although I have some Israeli friends who might be able to contribute a tiny bit or more, i'll see if they're willing to help out.

No one i know from any other place though, sry... But i never did realize it WAS highly US centric until now. Damn is this topic a US culture war.... ech *shudders*.

I'll be removing some POV statements and links however, and i'm GLAD that this is part of wikiproject sexuality, that's quite a good category. It might even expand coverage of this topic and help straigten out POV statements.

Nateland 19:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe better title would be "Adolescent sexuality in the United States"

The intro is still US biased. Change of title would be a better reflection of the article. Also links to Amazon. com are problematic. Paul foord 03:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is a COMPLAINT.

I am lodging a formal complaint about the user illuminato.

Why?, because he IS ALWAYS inserting every possible kind of weasel word, POV statement, and he CONSISTENTLY reverts changes made by me and other people back to a HIGHLY POV state.

I am stating this now.

I request that Illuminato be BANNED from editing Wikipedia for a while at least. Due to his constant unwillingness to allow ANY sort of lettering into wikipedia other than his own biased views.

This has been glaringly obvious to me in the articles on

Adolescence, namely the adolescent sexuality section. And the new article created on Adolescent sexuality. Which he has CONSTANTLY been reverting back into an incredibly biased state with sources from 2 year old single day of printing newspapers, use of HIGHLY DUBIOUS sources to back up his OBVIOUSLY POV statements and claims which he injects, and how he HAS ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS disregarded the requests and wishes of me and other people on wikipedia in order to revert and basically vandalize articles so they reflect a TOTALLY BIASED POV,

I am sick and tired of this and will go into a revert war if need be until this gets fixed as HARDLY ANYTHING has managed to be accomplished with his constant interference which DOES NOTHING I repeat... NOTHING to help the article out whatsoever...... Although i am asking help from my fellow wikipedians n solving this issue and perhaps calling up a moderation committee person.

If you check over the discussions and histories on these two articles I am sure you will CLEARLY see the point of contention.

also, i will place a copy of this in Illuminato's talk page so that he knows what my allegations against him are, i am sick and tired of thiss silliness ans i hope it stops here.

NOTE: Illuminato's edit said fixing up the front part of the topic.... except it was basically reverted. now THAT is what REALLY annoys me, lying in order to rebias an article which is ALREADY in dire need of improvement.

I hope my wishes are at least considered or met.

Nateland 04:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Illuminato shouldn't be banned. User:Illuminato isn't reverting User:Nateland's edits out of maliciousness, he is doing it to restore the articles. User:Nateland removed the entire contents of the Adolescence article. User:Illuminato hasn't been lying as previously claimed, but User:Nateland deleted large portions of an article, called it a minor change, and didn't mention the deletion in the edit summary. That would be considered as a misrepresentation of the facts. User:Illuminato is respectful. User:Nateland is refers to people he disagrees with as trolls. User:Nateland says POV is bad, but then adds his own point of view to the article. All related major points of view should be included in Wikipedia article. Points of views should be mentioned as opinions unless they can be backed up as fact with reliable sources. Jecowa 05:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I admit that at first i ddin't keep my cool, HOWEVER, Illuminato HAS BEEN doing all of what i mentioned and I DID NOT DELETE the entire article.... (at least as far as i can remember). In the beggining of my joining this site a couple of weeks ago i DID delete the adolescent sexuality section of the article on adolescence but that was ONLY because of how shocked and angered I was by the countless amounts of POV in it at that time.

And i am STILL trying to make it less POV of but user:Illuminato has been causing A LOT of trouble for me and the other people who have been revising this article... he might be 'polite' but if you look closely you'll SEE he IS NOT following the wikipedia guidelines..

Do you REALLY think that the January 25th or so edition of the 2005 U.S. world and news report is a good reference?, how many people do you think still have it to easily review?. And you can't say that using a two or so year old monthly magazine article is an easily peer accissible reference EITHER. And yes, i am trying to make it NPOV, and when i rearranged it into a format that was more conducive to a NPOV way and added the OTHER major point of view (The POV that says adolescent sexuality isn't all that bad..) Illuminato called it Nambla material and promptly deleted it.

HE DOES NOT post on the board before making changes, I and the others DO! and if you look at his record User:Jecowa I am CERTAIN that you will see how he has CONSSITENTLY done endless reverts in order to keep the major points of view that don't agree adolescent sex is horrible down at the bottom or deleted (Which he consistently does).

Why stick up for him if you don't view his records?, YES in the start my own changes were not so bright, but i HAD JUST JOINED wikipedia.... duuuuuhhhh. Do you really expect a person who'd been editing on wikipedia for 2 days to know EVERYTHING?.

P.S. and Illuminato has called many things he's done MINOR but they turn out to be apparent cover ups for rearranging, deleting, and POV'ing entire sections. Several paragraph summaries?

Ok, this one is for Illuminato.

A. you CREATED the article on adolescent sexuality.

B. the text in the adolescent sexuality section is IDENTICAL to that of the article.

C. Despite my attempts to fix that and make it into a summary you have REPEATEDLY reverted it.

D. why in the hell would you do all of the above?, as someone in the adolescent sexuality article talk said. "Sounds like a duplication of efforts to me"

no offense but you need to set your brainwaves to the tune.

-|

I rest my case, for now Nateland 20:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] oh yes i almost forgot.

Could someone explain why the link to this article which i put in the main article on adolescence was moved?. I don't see any reason that it doesn't belong... in fact, if the sexuality sectino of that article ever DOES become an unbiased summary than having the link to this article would.. in my opinion and i think many others would agree, be a neccissity

Nateland 21:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do not copy and paste, please.

Please keep this article clean—copy & paste are not allowed from web sites with copyrighted information (see Wikipedia’s copyright policy). Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 08:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] i added links

I added links and put the copied information into CLEAR quotationd.

I believe that the link to siecus is allowed for informational purposes.

I did copy a bunhc of extra info accidently because the damn reference link screwed up, but THIS is the link to the page. Ask before reverting, you're giving me the impression you just don't like what i'm adding to wikipedia (Which is quite valid information)

http://www.siecus.org/pubs/fact/fact0020.html

If you could restore my edit and fix the above reference link to not copy the entire siecus page that would be highly appreicated and MUCH better than just reverting it using 'popups'

Nateland 08:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the Wikipedia Copyright Policy for information on why I reverted your edit. You copied a lot more information than could be considered to be fair use under United States copyright law. The only information that you are permitted to copy verbatim is that which has entered the public domain through the expiration of the original copyright—which lasts a very long time for businesses. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 08:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I added study data

The study data which I added IS from the public domain or is granted for educational use I am pretty sure, if you want me to paraphrase it then tell me so and I will, just don't suddenly revert it,

If the centers for disease control publishes data then it is AUTOMATICALLY in the public domain, the siecus website just has a brief summary of the data STRAIGHT from those study reports.

And the KFF data i am fairly sure is usable under fair use, that should be the only thing i would have to paraphrase.

check the links on http://www.siecus.org/pubs/fact/fact0020.html Nateland 08:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.kff.org/newsroom/howtocite.cfm here is the KFF copying guidelines, however online reprinting is not mentioned, but linking is allowed, So i think that paraphrasing would be alright.

Paraphrasing is always acceptable. However, and I have mentioned this before, it is to revert all destructive edits, including copyright infringements. From the copyright policy: “If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the talk page, along with the original source. If the author's permission is obtained later, the text can be restored” (WP:COPY, § 1.3, ¶ 3). —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 08:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] so if i were to....

So if i were to paraphrase the 2000 seventeen magazine and KFF survey and add the link it would be acceptable?.

And

I can't seem to find the YRBS info on the CDC website (There's a LOT of pdf's etc. with YEARS of YRBS data, perhaps you could help?, it's the 2001 YRBS) but if i were to find it and cut & paste from the CDC website that data THEN that would be ok as well correct?, since the CDC is a federal agency anything it publishes goes right into the public domain.

RSVP

Nateland 09:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

i'll get right down to paraphrasing the Kaiser Family Foundation info right now.

Nateland 09:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can paraphrase, and then add a link. Wikipedia has a page showing how to attribute sources through the use of footnotes, as well as their policy on citation in general. As long as you paraphrase, and then you cite where you got the idea from, so that it can be verified independently, you can’t go wrong!  :-)

I can understand how the PDFs and the like are hard to go through. I may be able to help you tomorrow (it is 4 AM here my time, and I need to be up at like 10 AM, so I have to scoot) and I have been working on monitoring other articles this evening. However, leave me a note on my talk page and tell me what you need from where, and I will be happy to help out with this article as much as I can tomorrow. Have a good night! —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 09:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] guess what?

It's 4:16 a.m where i live :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nateland (talk • contribs) 09:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] ok it is done..

I've paraphrased the KFF source, and dug up the 2005 CDC YRBS study and have 'injected' that into my additions, HOWEVER. I will get some more study and CDC data straight from the sources and THIS time i will check out the copyright policies :-)

It should be fixed up a fair amount by sunday, depends on my speed of editing.

And as a note to Illuminato:

DON'T go about deleting what i put in and call it 'formatting references and spelling' like you did in the other article, if you want it taken out then DISCUSS it here, although I think that even you won't find this too disagreeable, (You still get your nice little globs of Leonard Sax 'data' wayyy up top, mainly because i'm sick of arguing over it at the moment and want to fix up this article a bit more before seeing if you'll actually agree to making it not so POV'D,

(note, the note to Illuminato IS simply my opinion and a little note to him telling him not to mess with what i put in, as he has done in the past, this goes for everyone else to, i'm SICK of reversions based on POV) Nateland 10:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nateland, I have already asked you to be more careful in your edits on your talk page. You made a number of mistakes in your edits here again, so I ask you here to take greater care when you edit so that these major mistakes are not made. For instance, you changed the quote in the lead but kept quotation marks around it. You can NOT change quotes like that. Quotes indicate that what is between them is a verbatim account. When you substitute your words you are giving the impression that someone said something they didn't. You also did this with a sentence I wrote, but ascribed it to Dr. Sax. You can't put my words in his mouth.

Your data on why teens engage in sexual intercourse was flawed several ways. First, it may have come from Seventeen magazine originally, but thats not where you found it. You found it on the Sexuality Information and Education Council's website. You need to say so. Further, you miss cited the data you found there. It was not 51% of 12-17 year olds who had sex because they found the right person, it was 51% of 15-17 year olds. Furthermore, 'Risky Business is not a book, it is the name of a story in U.S. News & World Report. While discussing this article I should also point out that the author is a journalist writing for a news publication. If she has personal views on adolescent sexuality she keeps them to herself in the article. You can not claim, as you did, to know what she thinks on the subject.

Finally, again many of your edits are poor grammatically and contain numerous misspellings of words. You have fragmented sentences, subjects and verbs don't match, single sentence paragraphs, etc. You even had a whole section that consisted of a single sentence. You messed up this sentence anyway, as one half of it came from the US News story but you put gave Dr. Sax attribution for it. Like you can't change peoples words inside quotes you certainly can not take comments from two different people, put them in a single quote, and give someone else authorship of it.

Please be more careful, Nateland. It will make for a better experince for all readers and all editors. --Illuminato 19:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I brought back my version after anon reverted to the version as of 19:36, 20 January 2007 by Nateland. Anon called them reckless and asked me to bring changes to talk page, which I had already done. I kept all the content that was verifiable, and even some that wasn't properly sourced, and didn't delete anything substantive. All I did was reorganize it so that it would be easier to read.--Illuminato 20:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ponton book - research of a global, western culture or US specific focus?

I have not got access to this book - is Ponton writing about research of a global, western culture or US specific focus? Paul foord 13:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

i'll guess that it's U.S. centric, however i don't know exactly if it is US centric or not.... I'll google it and see if i can find som info, also, you might want to try and see if there's a wikipedia article on her. Although the Article IS slowly becoming less and less United states centric, i think that a worldwide view template should be placed on this. Nateland 19:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

She uses case studies from her work with San Fransisco teenagers to highlight larger points in the two books I have read from her. I think most of what she says relates not just to the US, but to all of the developed world. --Illuminato 20:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is a call to action.

Could we get someone down here to assess this article? It would be greatly appreciated in solving a few things...

Oh yes, I find that while this article is being slowly reworked into something doable, the 'summary' on the main article about adolescence ITSELF is...

well, IN need of much reworking, though I will wait to get some other people's input, It's been sitting there in the adolescent sexuality section of the article for a couple of weeks now with NO changes whatsoever.... And I think that it either needs to be made into a NPOV summary, or lengthened to include all of the CURRENT adolescent sexuality article.

(Well, i'd go for making it into an NPOV conforming summary) But this is my opinion and I think that we should divert some focus to that issue.

Nateland 19:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Working on it. I am working on a complete and utter re-write of the article now, such that it can be verified. However, I am running into issues finding unbiased sources of information—everyone has their slant on this subject. That is rather frustrating. I have been working on this for a few hours now, though, and I have a draft of a new article in my user space, but I need to find way more information before I can replace this article with it. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 19:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Allow me to restate that—I need to find more references to information that is viable and within our standards here. Having gone through the process myself, there is more that I can write on it for sure, and I am sure that anyone who is a teenager now can contribute widely. However, verifiability and neutrality are the problems, and they’re amazingly hard to find in the several articles that I have read so far. I am about to start looking at dissertations, as well. Those have to be neutral, right?  ;-) —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 20:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that's why whewn i first started editing the adolescent sexuality articles (or section because at that time it was a sectioni n thwe main article on adolescence) I lost my cool, I think however that the references and quotations from Leonard Sax should go, as Illuminato, who just recklessly deleted entire portions of this article (I had to revert and he messed up some revisions i had made due to my getting an edit conflict message) has NOT posted ANY of Leonard Sax's sources of information, yet he conitnuoualy tries to keep as much of his info in their as possible, and I havn't been able to get y hands on the book yet.

I think that we'll need some protection for this article, because i have NO doubts that Illuminato's vandalizing will go on and on and on as he tells me WP:Be bold (In other words, i won't give you any of the books sources, but you should go buy it, you might actually learn something) YES!, he actually said, *You might actually learn something*....

As POV as that sounds it ticks me off to no end, could you provide me with instructions of reporting 3 revert rule ivolations just in case it gets taken there?

Thanks, Nateland 20:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nateland, I do not see anything that would constitute violations or destruction by way of article reversion. We’re all here to help Wikipedia out—personal matters do not matter here. That having been said, there is considerable evidence that would suggest that you have been dealing with this article—and this situation—in a manner reflecting your age. You’ve been warned on various issues—not just by me—as to your edits here. I understand that being bold is part of the Wikipedia experience. However, being bold also does not mean sacrificing quality, verifiability, neutrality, or originality for anything else.

You have a great deal to learn, Nateland. And there are many people here on Wikipedia that would be willing to help you out. However, you seem to come across as arrogant. You’ve started an edit war on this article for little reason, and made accusations that as far as I can tell are unfounded—feel free to correct me if you think that I am wrong, and point me out to where such violation(s) occurred. However, as of this time, I don’t see them.

I would encourage you to settle down and be patient. There are peaceful ways of settling disputes that do not require great deals of “mud slinging,” so to speak. You’ve great potential as an editor here at Wikipedia, but you have to simmer down at least a little bit. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 20:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

sigh... I have tried to improve this article, and if you want the source of it all check out the main article on adolescence (There were also disputes in the adolescent pshychology article over Illuminato's addtions), I have tried to keep my cool for some time but Illuminato has been conssitently giving me problems, yes.. when I first joined wikipedia i acted pretty uncivil, but I tink that right now I am not doing the wrong thing, he deleted LOADS of information (For the upteenth time) and has done so again and again and again, I have TRIED ... (Believe me) to settle this but he won't budge, I know maybe i don't budge that much either but at least i am allowing him to keep a LOT of his stuff in the article, while he simply deletes whatever i put in their or formats it so that it is nearly invisible to the eye.

Like I said.. check out the history and discussion on the main article on adolescence. (I mean, Illuminato CREATED the article on adolescent sexuality, why would he continuously delete entire sections which haven't met objections, are correctly paraphrase, and just go on trying to keep it as much an exact copy of the sexuality section in the article on adolescent as possible?)

He comes across to Me as simply using requests for politeness and warnings as an umbrella to continue degrading wikipedia. I'm all FOR editing and expanding articles and improving them, but when only ONE side of an issue is allowed to stay, and TONS of viewpoints come from one man and are kept there via edit warring...

It starts to cause annoyance (At least with me) Nateland 21:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Illuminato, you should know his by now..

Ok here's the deal bucko, I clearly cited my sources and so far NO ONE but YOU has disagreed with them, you have deleted ENTIRE SECTIONS 2 TIMES in the last few minutes and If you continue to do so i will report you for a 3 revert rule violation.

Ask Fd0man or any of the other people who helped me correctly paraphrase and reference the siecus and other information, you have NO RIGHT to go about deleting other peoples contributions by the truckload, I've been on wikipedia for less than a month and even I know that.

I will revert the article back to its state before your reckless editing, if you 'edit' it again and fail to discuss it with ALL of us beforehand then i will report you.

Nateland 20:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nateland, as I discussed above, I did not delete any of your proper content. I just reformatted some of it and made it easier to read, but none of the data you provided was removed. In fact, it was good data and I commend you for finding it. However, the version you keep reverting to has several major problems with it. You change quotes, provide incorrect attributions, misspell words, etc. The whole idea of wikipedia is that it is something anyone can edit. I have every right to edit this article in order to clean it up. Please read my above comments and the version of the article I have again reverted back to so that you can see for yourself that all your data was included. Also, 'bucko', please read the official policy on Wikipedia:Civility. It will make for a better experience for all. --Illuminato 20:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, my HTML skills are as basic as can be, I normally have to take a couple of tries to get a reference tag right, and I simply changed the quotes because I saw that according to the flow of the article that they'd be better in other sections of the article, I also have had to take a couple shots to get the CDC 2005 YRBS study data ontrack as my computer messed up a few times and impeded my drafting up revisions for this article. And no, I am not an expert speller, maybe You are, and if so than feel Free to fix any speling mistaks I make and improve the article further, and the atributions was a whole paraphrasing misunderstanding on my part early this morning which I corrected.

You see, you can't just delete entire sections because of major problems.. the studies are listed correctly, so if they don't fit... Then just find the correctl inks on the web. Believe me, I tried to make sure the refs were right, and to my knowledge they were. You can blame me all you want for the above mistakes, but instead of deleting it, try and IMPROVE it!!! ( That's what I am rying to do nowadays, and I hope you'll do the same on this article)

Yes.. .I know that this topic is a point of contention, but we can't make it solely or vastly or POVly opinionated, if we include opinions, then we mark them up equally as certain peoples views and try to format them accordingly to this simple guideline, and CDC and KFF study data isn't even a summary of someones opinion, it's pure mathematically represented statistical data which Might be showing that teens aren't engaging in sex 'mindlessly and mind numbingly' as one of your experts put it, but That's a GOOD thing right?, to show that condom usage is going up, and that adolescents are not just making love for the heck of it or to piss off their parents or whatever. Unless someone is raped or coerce, people have sex because they WANT to, it's part of life, and I don't see how including accurate easily peer accessible information on that topic is such a bad thing.

Correct me if i'm wrong.

Nateland 21:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Illuminato this is a warning

Ok, illuminato, I am going to revert your reckless 'edits' and 'fixes' back to its state before you went about destroying them.

IF you decide to mess it up AGAIN without discussing it with the rest of us on the talk page 9That means waiting for a couple of responses) and getting a consensus, then I WILL report you for a 3 revert rule violation.

A warning will be placed on your talk page.

66.212.201.26 20:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A way forward

Nateland, you keep adding a Weasel Words template to the article. Instead of continued bickering, why don't you point out some instances of these weasel words. Then, you and I can join with whomever else is interested and we can fix them. It is a small project that hopefully we can work together on them and engender some good will. If you place the statements with weasel words here on the talk page we can work on them to remove the weasel words, and then fix it in the article. Sound good? --Illuminato 21:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yes you have deleted data.

The first thing i did when I saw your name on the history with no explanation whatsoever was to compare edits.

Guess what I found? You did delete a lot of my data, and other peoples contributions as well.... While some of it might have been additional info on other organizations who are of opposing views to Lynn Ponton, Leonard sax etc. they were only put there to try and eqaul out the balance, with people stating views AGAINST adolescent sexuality being kept WAAYYY up top in the article, and only one tiny little author being mentioned as a 'minority' view, It compells me to try and make it more even so people, when reading the article... will have information they want and/or need to make a decision if they havn't done so already or arej ust looking for a good encyclopedia article to help them with a delimma etc. (Trust me, this is the other MAJOR side of the debate, while there might not be many people who share that view, they still make up roughly the other half of the debate, so they SHOULD be included in full, or at least a little bit more then a scanty reference)

So I hope that you can see my concerns Illuminato, and while I will try to be as civil as possible, You should learn to be a little bit giving to other view points in the article, i mean?, is deleting a rough summary of the 3 major organizations that make up the opposing view points REALLY a valid deletion?.

Because doing so just biases the article even more and makes you look like you're pushing your own agenda as you have seemed to do many times in the past, Besides.. all I WANT you to do is to provide some of Leonard sax's OWN sources online, because even a book by a so called 'expert' can be filled with not a single bit of scientific od statistical or even USEFUL data except relegious and moral statements.

All you have to do is just look in the references page in the back of the book, and try to find some links to his 'evidence' online.

I will try to get time to buy the book, but the Least you can do is do the above and make it easily peer accessible... That's all I want, then, if the studies seem NPOV enough and don't come from a small town survey, then I won't complain.

The End.

Nateland 21:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked at their websites, and found for the most part they advocate giving teens more information. My quick review of SIECUS and the Advocates for Youth websites didn't really seem to be saying that adolescent sex is a god thing. In fact, I found that SIECUS' official position is that "Adolescents should be encouraged to delay sexual behaviors until they are physically, cognitively, and emotionally ready for mature sexual relationships and their consequences. ..." I think these groups could be of more use to the sex education artilce. Judith Levine does advocate in favor of free sex for children and teens, so I kept her in. I don't have Dr. Sax's book anymore. I have returned it to the library. When I get back there I'll try to check it out again, but it was a featured book (thats how I came across it) and I imagine the wait list is still in effect. I would encourage you to go out and read the book yourself. You can then look up the sources yourself. --Illuminato 21:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] read my reply i just made, it's up next to your last reply.

The reply i made just before this one should lay everything out pretty much. And The advocates for youth ARE adovcates for allowing adolescents to have sex, they have PAGES saying how it's ok as long as condoms etc. are used, and SIECUS might be in favor of abistinence, but their link I kept in to support the KFF and Seventeen Magazine survey of the 510 kids aged 12-17, I couldn't find the original KFF source on their website or on google, so I used the SIECUS one as data to show that there is evidence CONTRARY to Leonard Sax's opinions that sex is just a casual hook up.

And that evidence simply told the percentages of teens that had responded WHY they had sex, the vast majority of which said they thought 'They had met the right person". Perfectly Acceptable to this article I think.

Besides, this is data STRAIGHT from the adolescents themselves, and i'm not quite sure if Leonard sax got his straight from teenagers by interviewing them or using a comparable method. It's simply study data which holds the views of adolescents themselves in an article all ABOUT adolescents.

Nateland 21:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A full list of additions/fixes that could be made.

_________________________________________________ "Teens - and preteens - are too young to fathom the consequences, both physical and emotional, of their [sexual] behavior."[4] According to Lynn Ponton, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco and author of The Sex Lives of Teenagers, "early initiation into sexual behaviors [takes] a toll on teens' mental health. The result, she says, can be 'dependency on boyfriends and girlfriends, serious depression around breakups and cheating, [and a] lack of goals.'"[4] As adolescents are not mentally or emotionally prepared to handle feelings and emotions that come with sex, nor financially able to support children, "early sexual activity - whether in or out of a romantic relationship - does far more harm than good."[5]

A minority, including journalist Judith Levine, believes that sexual activity among adolescents and even children is natural and causes little to no harm if contraception is used. She believes that since humans are sexual beings that even the smallest children will most likely end up taking part in sex rehearsal play with other children out of their own explorations and that it causes no harm.[6]

_________________________________________________________-- Human sexual behavior generally and adolescent sexual behavior in most individuals is typically influenced, or heavily affected by norms from the culture in which the individual lives. Examples of such norms are prohibitions on sexual intercourse before marriage, against homosexual sexual activity, or other taboo activities, because the religion or culture to which the individual belongs forbids them. Sometimes individuals choose not to ascribe to culturally or religious imposed norms.

The text inside the dashed lines is a MAJOR thing i think we need to clean up ASAP. You see, that is a U.S centric gropu of opinions from both sides of a U.S. centric issue with U.S sources. If this article is on world adolescent sexuality (As I think it has been consensually declared as such)

Then I think we need to go along with my earlier post which you reverted and put that in a general United states section like i had on my edits before you reverted it.

THEN underneath we put in the 3 categories, experiences of adolescents during sex If applicable, (this might be a bit hard to gather data on as easily peer accessible sources for this subtopic, are scarce), motivations for engaging in sex can be explained in part by the KFF/Seventeen Magazine survey and by Leonard Sax's stuff (I'll not argue over the Saxion data, but i want to see some sources as you agreed you'd do), and then lastly, Frequency of sex among adoloscents, (I think that CDC and.or other VERY well known sources should be used for this.

Oh yes, and a subsection on contraception usage, I have the CDC data and can find some more, this again should be added to with easily accessible VERY well known sources (Preferably in internet form).

And the Britain section (Well, now it's not totally US centric because its got 2 countries, although we should try and add data from other ocuntries as well) The opening though should comprise of THIS, it seems nuetral enough and worldwide applicable.

Human sexual behavior generally and adolescent sexual behavior in most individuals is typically influenced, or heavily affected by norms from the culture in which the individual lives. Examples of such norms are prohibitions on sexual intercourse before marriage, against homosexual sexual activity, or other taboo activities, because the religion or culture to which the individual belongs forbids them. Sometimes individuals choose not to ascribe to culturally or religious imposed norms.

The above seems pretty good, then in the general adolescent sex in the united states section we can add in the dashed paragraphs, and if you don't mind i'll put in my brief summary of organizations (Or just the advocates for youth one) And perhaps we can try and format it so that the two major opposing viewpoints can be put into General info subsections like FOR and AGAINST in order to reduce the problem of inequal formatting that has occured in the past.

That should clear it up, and we can add in other countries as we go along. (OR make a stub-like general info on adolescent sexuality that has links to articles on adolescent sexuality in other countries.

And... I think that we should include how Adolescent sexual orientations can differ etc. etc. (So it's more than just statistical and represented viewpoint data), I once did thata couple of hours ago, but it got deleted. I hope that it can be kept inside.

Maybe then.. (Yes i know. this is a FULL summary of fixes and additions that i think should be made) We can add links to sexual fetishism LGBT homosexuality heterosexuality asexuality or whatever.

So what does everyone think of this proposal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nateland (talk • contribs) 22:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Nateland, having read Ponton's book, and reviews of Levine's, I don't agree that this text is US centric. They are making sweeping claims about the appropriateness and readiness of adolescents and children for sexual activities. Their claims do not simply focus on teens in the US. I agree that it probably won't be possible to find data on experiences of adolescents during sex. I do think the frequency that teens engage in sexual conduct would be a great addition to this article. More information on contraception usage and on how adolescents determine their sexual orientation would be most welcome if you can find it.

As others have said, this really doesn't lend itself to for and against sections. Most of the experts quoted in this section have a much more nuanced view than that and it would be a disservice to them and to the article to pigenhole them like that. Overall, these were some good sugestions, Nateland. --Illuminato 03:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would there be sweeping claims in wikipedia anyway?, unless she has data and concrete evidence (Which I highly) doubt, to prove that this is true for All Adolescents WORLDWIDE. Then it's centric to SOME place!, and since she's from the United states, and seems to have US views, and used a Us publishing house i think that it would be quite reasonable to keep her views in the main united states section, and leonard saxs... he doesn't even claim that to be true for ALL adolescents, so he's DEFINATELY in the United States Section by my standards.

Hope this clears it up Nateland 05:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yes i know that....

The only thing is that with the high volume of views which can easily be construed as 'against' when compared to those that can be construed themselves as 'for' it is in my opinion a good idea to sort them out like that so that people can get both sides of the issue with ease.

I mean, the current article is a MESS if you don't mind me saying... (AT least father down in it), just one big jumble of words with everything mixed in, now i won't argue the 'trying to get more spotlgiht for your views' viewpoint.

But with it in such a jumble it's bound (In my opinion) to be Really really hard to read it through and get the sources etc....

I mean, we should at least sort the article out by who claims what. And I still think that the Advocates For Youth reference should be included to help equalize the article as i said before. You might not be obligated to give 'minority' views much sunlight, BUT as the FOR side makes up literally half (or a third counting the inbetween) due to the huge volume of people in this country whom have either a for, against, or inbetween viewpoint.

It DOES make up a significant portion of this article. Anyways, we cannot I repear Cannot have the ponton lynn etc. quotes at the START of an article on the worldwide views of Adolescence... i'm sorry if this goes against your views, I understand how you must feel right now.... but for a brief summary of worldwide views I SERIOUSLY think that keeping it to the first paragraph explaining possible cultural & relegious norms etc. is a good idea and that we relegate the Judith Levine, Leonard Sax, and Ponton Lynn opinions down to the section from the United states and seperate them into the 3 categories.

Also, a user had included a brief few words in the article about muslim views on adolescent sex that got deleted in your revert, check out his talk page, his username is Paul Foord, I gave him some suggestions for adding the brief mentions in it and I think that this might end up branching off into other articles....

But anyways, in summary here's what I plab to do NOW.

A. Add the AFY (Advocates for Youth) mention and description IN the main United states part.

B. relegate ALL paragraphs and citations WHICH are POV or come from the above mentioned authors and not a basic description of possible worldwide views of this subject to their respective country sections (Namely the United states section), and before you revert this illuminato, PLEASE discuss it here. We should wait AT LEAST a couple of days and get peoples consensus on the above proposal etc.

C. try and sort out the jumbled text and fix some refs i added early on in editing this article when it was still only a section of adolescence

And what I request be done in or at least SERIOUSLY discussed in the immediate future (within a week).

A. making sections for various authorities and so called experts on the subject OR making for and Against sections for the reasons i mentioned above.

[edit] U.S. centricity

Oh.. sorry i didn't read that part about it not being US centric... :-)

No, what i mean is that these authors etc. are MAINLY FROM the US, Reside in the US, and as far as I know... have United States views...

Basically, NOT a SINGLE source is cited from outside the United states, now I know that the odds of a knowledgable frenchie (What?, it sounds more interesting than frenchman or 'native' french person) coming across and suddenly filling this page with world wide views of the subject is.... Slim.

But, we CAN and I hope WILL eventually get some views of people from outside, but until then, I say put the current 'garbage' (Sorry, but it is basically garbage until it gets put in the correct section, namely. The United states section :-))

And even then... Even then!, we should have seperate sections and/or articles for each region.

I have a dozen shmozen klachigij-e-shillion ideas, bnut I'm going to bed soon, so i'll the above and be finished for the night.

[edit] Note to illuminato.

The title you used to replace one of the sections is not really clear, anyways...

You reverted the title section, although I repeatedly posted See talk page for details in Your talk page, the history, and the other editors talk pages.

This message will be placed in your talk page just so you know. And YES the opening IS U.S. centric.

PLEASE discuss it in talk, remember, not everyone agrees that a sweeping generalization about Adolescences worldwide IS valid, If someone edits it to fix it up, then leave it until the morning so people can discuss it.

I hate being dragged into edit wars...

Nateland 06:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Nateland, There are three doctors quoted in the lead with four medical degrees. If they say something about the psychological health of adolescents I am going to believe them before I believe a kid without even a high school diploma. Just because they all live in the US does not mean they focus all their attention on the US. They do not qualify their remarks by saying "this only applies in America." I suggest you read WP:Lead. In addition to deleting this text, you also deleted two paragraphs of material by anon which all are sourced. Now I am going to revert it back to his/her revision as it contributed to article. As I have said many times, you really need to be more careful in your edits, Nateland. --Illuminato 06:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Although remember, You yourself admitted they were sweeping generalizations, and as far as I know generalizations are NOT supposed to be in Wikipedia, and YOU might not believe ME over THEM, but that doesn't invalidate what I have stated again and again and again, No evidence has been brought up about HOW it applies to ALL adolescents WORLDWIDE.

And Ponton Lynn was the only to say it applied to ALL adolescents, it's simple logic, if there is a sweeping GLOBAL generalizxation on a highly controversial topic such as this, then it should have data to back it up, if not, it should be put in it's rleative section.

I see nothing wrong with putting the POV's in the start of the US section. I myself am willing to allow my Advocates for Youth and Judith Levine data to be put in the same place, BELOW Sax's, Anna's and Lynn's own 'evidence', now if i'm going to make allowances such as that.

Why can't you just allow it to stay that way for ONE DAY!. Until people can give their input etc.

And trust me, don't i repeat DON'T use my age against me, some people know more than others, and I believe what I believe, And I think that based on the above. Just the SUMMARY, That's what the start of an article should be!, A SUMMARY! (The rest comes later if you go by widely used article guidelines)

I think it's quite reasonable, and your ONLY support for keeping that in the top is because of a sweeping generalization made by one of FOUR doctors.

So be a mench, and don't just go about reverting etc. i think this issue should get some hearing time, (People HAVE complained about thsi in the past.. so it's not just me)

Nateland 06:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[User:Illuminato, you state

"Nateland, There are three doctors quoted in the lead with four medical degrees. If they say something about the psychological health of adolescents I am going to believe them before I believe a kid without even a high school diploma. Just because they all live in the US does not mean they focus all their attention on the US. They do not qualify their remarks by saying "this only applies in America."

I asked earlier at Talk:Adolescent_sexuality#Ponton_book_-_research_of_a_global.2C_western_culture_or_US_specific_focus.3F about whether Ponton addressed a US or global situation. You responded that "She uses case studies from her work with San Fransisco teenagers to highlight larger points in the two books I have read from her. I think most of what she says relates not just to the US, but to all of the developed world.". This does not give me confidence about global applicabiliuty. I also asked if Talk:Adolescent_sexuality#Maybe_better_title_would_be_.22Adolescent_sexuality_in_the_United_States.22 . You have reverted my attempts to address this issue without any real discussion. Paul foord 07:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul, I'm sorry I didn't see your comment on the name change. I guess I would say no to changing it, only because I think most of what is going to be written applies worldwide. I think Dr. Ponton's statement that all teens are either having sexual contact with someone else or fantasizing about it applies to 16 year old kids in Seattle as well as Shanghi.--Illuminato 07:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I take that back...

Ok, so it should comprise the major viewpoints...

then feel free to edit my revision.

BUT PLEASE do not edit the part on the 'culture shift' as i reworded that to fit better with its potential implications.

And try to leave the HPV rewording alone if you don't put it into the STD article where i think it belongs as it seems less condescending and more towards the truth (A tiny switch can make all the differrence in readibility and accuracy)

And yes... if we keep the beggining as is. Then we'll need to shorten it down so that the reader can see ALL major viewpoints in a short amount enough of time so as not to be unduly influenced by an overdose of certain views.

Well, that's my proposal, i'll fix it ASAP. (Sorry, i didn't get the WP:Lead part, still am learning about the guidelines as i go along... although i know a fair amount of them)

Nateland 06:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I take back my last post.

The current revision should be an acceptable compromise to you Illuminato, and since we're the only two people 'on' this article tonight I say we quit bickering and let it rest?

Agreed?

(I'm going to bed now, I'll place a copy of this in your talk page) And i read the guidelines for leads, but since there are so many potential (And i'm sure existing worldwide views) on this subject that we should simply put those in each respective countries section.

But I must point out, THERE IS NO debate like this about sexual activity between ANYONE over 18 (Even for homosexuals it's not as much as this). It's like the day you turn 18 BOOM!, most controversy and government intervention stops... --___-- seems a bit needless to me considering adolescents are normally sexually mature by the late teens or earlier and EVERYONE makea mistakes and learns from them.

Nateland 07:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A proposal

In order to remove the protection currently imposed on the page, we are going to have to show an administrator that we can resolve our differences peacefully. It seems as if the lead is causing the most disagreement right now, so below I have proposed a new lead section. I have reviewed WP:Lead again, and point your attention to where it says "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Let me know what you think, and hopefully we can develop a consensus on what should be included. When that happens, we can request the protection be removed.

In an effort to give the article a more global focus, I have found more data on adolescent sexuality in India. The text I want to add can be found at User:Illuminato/india. I included that data in my proposed lead below. Please give me your thoughts.

Adolescent sexuality refers to sexual feelings, behavior and development in adolescents. All "teens have sexual lives, whether with others or through fantasies."^[1] Sexuality "is a vital aspect of teens' lives. ... The question is whether they are going to have healthy experiences, at any or every level of sexual activity."^[2] In developed countries, both boys and girls are now "entering puberty at least two years earlier than previous generations. This means they are ready for sex earlier physically, but not emotionally or cognitively."^[3]

Adolescents run many risks when engaging in sexual activities including sexually transmitted diseases, HIV/AIDS and emotional distress. In the United States, most sexually active teens use at least one form of contraception, but in India most do not. In the United States the number of teenagers who have had sexual intercourse has dropped, and in Britain most teens are waiting longer beore having intercourse for the first time. In India, the number of teenagers engaging in sexual activities is on the rise, but still far less than in Western countries.

When teens engage in sexual activities that are separate from emotional intimacy they develop habits which will cause them to have trouble forming adult relationships in the future. Legal issues, such as age of consent laws, the media, religious teachings and cultural norms also influence adolescents' decisions regarding sexual activities.

--Illuminato 00:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In-dee-ah

Well, that's a Bare Bones start, But as I posted on your talk page.

my gripe is that the START of the lead is someones (edit: a group of peoples) own moral and/or scientific opinion on adolescent sexuality. But that opinion probably doesn't apply to whole globe a lot, or even most!!!. You see, the sentence that got relegated to the bottom pretty much layed out the stuff, and a summary of such a highly controversial subject (At least in the middle east, and North America and britain) is going to make it NEARLY IMPPOSIBLE to fit in a good summary without exclusivising it.

Which is what happened, so that's why I wanted the basic generic summary of how cultural norms etc. affect activites etc. etc. to stay in the lead, and a note saying issues specific to each country and/or region /relegion etc. etc. be placed in the lead so that people would KNOW where to find them.

It's just too specific and biased to keep it the way it is. The rest i can focus on later (Except if you don't mind i want to fix the survey from, 17 magazine and the KFF so that it says something more to what it could indicate, because saying a cultural shift is happening in that context is like saying Adolescents already DO practice unsafe sex habits, which is clearly biased by mine and i'm sure YOUR means. So i would restate it saying

However, earlier research done in 2000 by ___ & ___ could point to an already cultural norm not recognized by the mass media

(It IS quite obvious that in the MM adolescent sex is viewed with distaste 99.8761% of the time and that leonard sax and lynn ponton THEMSELVES are in the mass media. THEN we could maybe say after the NPOV part,

or it is indicative of a shift in sexual behaviour among adolescents from an existing culture norm. (See what i mean?, human language is VERY easily switchable as you know... and we could very very easily make it POV Like that statement is now)

Other then that... I'm ok with what's in their, a bit of reformatting is needed, and a subsection in the U.S., britain and other countries to be added should be placed inside detailing sexual diversity among adolescents (not just HOW they discover their orientations but saying that sexual orientations among adolescents is as diverse as that of adults (Which it is, as they're sexually mature if not emotionally as you so stubbornly put it :-)

Although liquid sexuality is ALWAYS a possibility (But let's not be nit picky ok?)

Cheers Nateland 01:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Does the sex education article cover the topic better? Certaily has better global coverage. Paul foord 03:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, How is this? I have tried to incorporate some of your concerns, Nateland, and stay within the guidelines of WP:Lead.

Adolescent sexuality refers to sexual feelings, behavior and development in adolescents and is a stage of human sexuality. Sexuality "is a vital aspect of teens' lives"^[2] Sexual behavior for adolescents is influenced by cultural norms, the media and legal concerns such as age of consent laws.

Adolescents run many risks when engaging in sexual activities including sexually transmitted diseases, HIV/AIDS and emotional distress. In the United States, most sexually active teens use at least one form of contraception, but in India most do not. In the United States the number of teenagers who have had sexual intercourse has dropped, and in Britain most teens are waiting longer beore having intercourse for the first time. In India, the number of teenagers engaging in sexual activities is on the rise, but still far less than in Western countries. When teens engage in sexual activities that are separate from emotional intimacy they develop habits which will cause them to have trouble forming adult relationships in the future.

--04:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basically what've wanted for the lead all along.

My ideal and VERY NPOV summary is below. (With notes)

NOTE: For issues, and peoples opinions specific to each country and/or region please look below. For relegious views on sexuality and sexual behaviour please see relegion and sex (I can't remeber the exact name of the article but it's in here somewhere)

Human sexual behavior generally and adolescent sexual behavior in most individuals starts with puberty and is typically influenced, or heavily affected by norms from the culture in which the individual lives. Examples of such norms are prohibitions on sexual intercourse before marriage, against homosexual sexual activity, or other taboo activities such as pedophilia, because the religion or culture to which the individual belongs forbids them. Sometimes individuals choose not to ascribe to culturally or religious imposed norms or will protest against the norms. social movement

I think this is quite fair, and then below is the index and ALL the chaos can begin, and be sorted out.

Think it's good? Nateland 01:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nateland, take a look at WP:Lead. The lead section should be a summary of what is in the article. Pedophilia, religion and some of the things you talk about in your lead are not included at this time in the article. Also, the note you have there isn't part of WP's WP:Style. If people want to find out which individual countries are included they can look at the table of contents. I have tried to summarize the article in my proposed lead above. What do you think of it? --Illuminato 01:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit suspicious about those quotations in statements above. Who are they attributed to? ★MESSEDROCKER★ 01:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Disregard the question, but still, I'm suspicious about the use of the quoted materials. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 01:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As you seem to have discovered, they are from Lynn Ponton a medical doctor, psychiatrist and professor. Would you be more comfortable if it were paraphrased instead? --Illuminato 02:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What do I think about it? Very little. Hardly anything was done to improve it... no offense but it's, like I said BARE BONES. It's only one countries info, and in case you don't realize, the sexuality section in adolescence has been suffering from BIAS for weeks now!, It's time we fix that as well, but enough of that, and onto my proposal.

I think that my proposed lead is quite good, and it seems you're just sticking and sticking and sticking to it, i don't NEED to know about WP:Style, WHAT we need their is WP:fairness and WP:global view...

Just re-read what i posted, the brief summary

Human sexual behavior generally and adolescent sexual behavior in most individuals is typically influenced, or heavily affected by norms from the culture in which the individual lives. Examples of such norms are prohibitions on sexual intercourse before marriage, against homosexual sexual activity, or other taboo activities, because the religion or culture to which the individual belongs forbids them. Sometimes individuals choose not to ascribe to culturally or religious imposed norms on their sexual activity and thus may start a social movement.

THIS is fine i think, what about you messedrocker?, and i only suggested a note because i'm guessing you want your data wayyyy up top!. Well, links to get it are there and like you said,

If they want the country specific info, they can just scroll down to the TOC, click on a country, and VOILA!, a (hopefully) ever-improving catalogue of accurate information and facts.

P.S. rocker, I second you like i have seconded many other people about Illuminato's 'facts' (Sorry but to me and others it is HIGHLY dubious), I think that they are biased, POV'd, and until someone can produce the book, and give LINKS to easily peer reviewable sources for Leonard Sax's claims they should be excluded from the article (Claims like that DO need the basic source of the evidence if there is any existing).

Call me extreme, but this is an EXTREMELY controversial subject, and ALL claims should be able to be easily verified for accuracy, validity, and usefullness.

Nateland 01:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nateland, the lead is not supposed to have bare bones, and it is not supposed to have structural notes. It is supposed to be a summary of what is in the article and right now there is nothing in the article about homosexuality or culture or social movements. It would not be appropriate to include it at this time. In the future perhaps, but not now. --Illuminato 02:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Bare bones?, i'm not suggesting the lead be bare bones OH NO SIREE!. I'm saying that your proposed additions are a barebones start to improving the article, not to brag but when compared to the PAGES of proposals i've made (Look further up this discussion for my most recent proposal with list of fixes a etc. etc.)

And the opening is simply a NPOV summary of what adolescent sexuality IS, and a brief summary of what cultures think of it etc. and possible norms affecting it.

It mentions homosexuality as an example of cultural prohibitions on sex, if you go by that then we shouldn't include ANY mention of sex before marriage in a negative way OR positive because that not 'connected' to the article.

Explanations of sexual diversity are VERY USEFUL in my opinion in an article all ABOUT adolescent sexuality, due to most adolescents, unless you are lina medina discovering their own orientations etc.

And do you REALLY think that simply summary I proposed contributes to a 'structure'?, now i'm not saying that structure is BAD, but to go by your words and take them to their logical 'logicity' (so as to say), ONE or TWO paragraphs briefly explaining WHAT adolescent sexuality IS. NOT the views of it, this is about adolescent sexuality in itself, I think that over the edit wars we've lost that the Whole POINT of the article is to explain what adolescent sexuality IS.

NOT just the views, and If we include them, NOT to give them precedence over all the other topics and issues related to this.

Judith levine, Leonard Sax, and Lynn Ponton's views are not part of adolescent sexuality in itself.

It should be in a seperate article (And it would settle a LOT of these conflicts and allow for the progression of a MAIN informational article in itself).

I think that this branching off would also allow the various parts of a subject to be less subject to edit wars, and we can simply include linksd to the in dividual topics from the main page.

Waddaya say?

IS WHAT should be in the lead. Come to think of it, we should put all about adolescent sexuality in a seperate article, as its being in here is kind of derogatory to the advancement of the article.

THEN it would fit. Adolescent sexuality in itself is NOT, I state again NOT a debate, it is a PART OF LIFE!.

[edit] A totally radical new idea to almost COMPLETELY settle almost ALL conflicts

SUMMARY: This article IS about adolescence, and YES I know that saying it should just be a detailed reference for info on adolescent sexuality, orientation, and contraception.

It would EASILY get rid of the problems presented by respresenting Major points of view in the article.

Instead, they could branch off to a seperatere subarticle WHICH was ALL ABOUT individual opninions worldwide.

Plus I think that it would cut down on article length over time as more countries were added.

This could also be applied to other articles of particular debate, however without opinions in the main articles themselves, but easily accessible with plentiful links to the articles CONTAINING THOSE.

It would probably ease off the load of edit warring and disputes that plague wikipedia to this day?

Think it's a good idea?

Nateland 03:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• i think its a bad idea. u cant have POV forks. also, can you write in paragraphs and read over what you write before you click "save page' please? i cant understand a thing u say.

There are at least 200 countries. I don't think each one deserves its own separate article about adolescent sexuality because it assumes that everyone in one country is of one mind. There are bound to be many different view points in one country. There will still be disagreement because everyone in a country does not have a unison opinion. If there is a point of view that is unique to a certain part of the world, that might be worth mentioning, but I think many views are going to be shared by people in more than just one country. Jecowa 04:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There are already things like Christianity which is splintered off into things like Christianity in Albania, Christianity in Bangladesh, etc. It's been done before. I think this article should explain what adolescent sexuality is, what it constitutes, medical studies and such, and then a small bit of coverage on what everyone thinks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Messedrocker (talk • contribs) 11:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Support split article There are a number of articles that needed separation of detailed specific country information to achieve balance. Among them are Child support with the US material going to Child support in the United States, and Fathers' rights and Fathers' rights movement in the UK. The US information currently here is important, but creates a biased article here, having an article on Adolescent sexuality in the United States would allow a better article here, and allow US distinctive features to be addressed around the Culture war, and how the issues of the sexual revolution and family values are addressed there. Paul foord 20:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think having one for and about the US (and separate ones for other countries) is a good idea, but I think if we start having one for each different viewpoint then I think we will run into some POV fork issues, not to mention the fact, as Jecowa pointed out, many people in each country will have different views, and many views will overlap between countries. --Illuminato

Illuminato, we're talking about a MAIN ARTICLE for pov's on this subject. And not as a POV fork... no, it would be to reduce edit warring in THIS article and allow things to actually get done such as inputting scientific data and such which to me hold more precendence than how many and whose POV'S are in the article.

It is not meant as a POV fork, it's meant as a POV compromise. I think that Jecowas usage of the term is simply mean't to try and detract from what I have been saying for weeks now in order to push his OWN views into the article.

Besides, your creation of the other articles IS a POV fork that would allow much easier POV'ing and crookedness of articles due to their immensity once a bunch of countries are added.. Nateland 21:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC) As Tom Lehrer said in his song 'smut', "Smut, i'm for it" Just thought i'd half randomly include that phrase (I like it it's kind of funny)

Anyways, i'm glad so many people agree partially or in whole with this.

I REALLY do think however messedrocker that even a SMALL section at the end listing views could and probably WOULD develop into an edit war... It seems a good idea to make an article such as... Controversy over adolescent sexuality

Or such, however, i've said this MANY times before. Even IF we fix it here, the main article on sexuality Still has a ravaged and biased section in it that seems to be struggling just to get by. I say that (On a side note) After we decide on this articles fate, then we delete the adolescent sexuality section and provide a link to this article as this is the MAIN article on adolescence and this whole adolescent sexuality article was created by Illuminato in what I STRONGLY percieve as a duplication of efforts, say what you wish Illumina.. but you gave NO reference to this article when you made it, and the Only reason I founds it was by a comment in talk:adolescence.

So whatever happens here, we should soon after turn to fixing the adolescence article.

Oh yes, messedrocker, would you mind adding a link to sex education?, it wouldn't cause any controversies in all likelyhood and it would help bolster the article a bit while we debate what happens to it.

Anyways, on a closing note. I think that a 'pov' fork as Jecowa put it... (I don't mean FORK!, i mean make a seperate article for views on this subject to decrease disputes). is a good idea, believe me.

If IDENTICAL text from this article is trickling into other similar articles than something needs to be done (Before the entire sexuality portal or at least a good portion of it erupts in edit warring and disputes galore)

Now I have very little experience with the flow and 'joe' of wikipedia but doing something about fixing this article SOON could very well help to stop this from spreading out.

Well, I hope you listened to what i have to say, and also, perhaps we could get more people involved?, just from people who've contributed to this article or have Some extra knowledge of the subject so we can come to a more accurate decision)

Cheers, Nateland 22:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Adolescent sexuality in the United States & Adolescent sexuality in India articles have been created by User:Illuminato Paul foord 10:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Also Adolescent sexuality in Britain, though it is no more than is what was in the main article.--Illuminato 18:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Adolescence also Category:Sexuality and age

This category needs to be added to this page. Pink moon 1287 ^{(email • talk • user)} 14:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Also Category:Sexuality and age Paul foord 10:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'd like to apologize if i sounded 'crazed' in my last post.

After I posted i realized that i kinda.. well, never mind.

Although, Jecowa. I find it REALLY insulting how you immediately denounced my proposal with a tap of your enter key and the statement "It doesn't make any sense"...

It makes PLENTY of sense, how ELSE would two other people have responded legibly, clearly, and readily stated their thoughts and feelings.

Now as a clearer overview of my last post.

A. including even a small section for views could turn the article into another battleground.

B. If we make another article specifically for views in the US and not world wide views (Maybe we could make an index article that this page would a link to, the index article could list various view points by country and/or relegion) It should be called something like 'adolescent sexuality controversy in the united states' Paul you're naming proposal was good but it would be a bit unexplanatory to call it that.

Call me nit-picky but it would be a quick way to show what the article is about.

C. we should soon turn focus to the main article on adolescence and try to fix the adolescent sexuality section OR delete it and make a link to the MAIN article on the subject.

D. that's about it, i've got homework to do and i'm waiting for some magnatune WAV files to download (I would've used flac had i known it's benifits...damn is WAV still proprietary?)

Nateland 00:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I've created an article titled Controversy over adolescent sexuality.

it can be found here controversy over adolescent sexuality I thought that it could potentially be linked to this page and would hold major POV'S etc. from different countries on adolescent sexuality.

As Illuminato's adolescent sexuality in the united states is Already included in this article as this is the main article for that topic and adolescent sexuality in other countries.

My main problem with him making that article is its potential to be used as a kind of pov get-a-round by stemming off from this main article and essentially creating TWO topics on adolescent sexuality 'three counting the adolescent sexuality section in the main article on adolescence'.

I think that we should use the conteroversy article to keep pov's as making individual articles for each country would spread out a coordinated attempt to easily edit and improve articles on this subject and again.. it concerns me as Illuminato created this article in itself.

And now... he's making ANOTHER article and including basically the same text as when I first began to work on the topic.

Just my thought's, i'll forward this to ALL major players.

Nateland 20:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] update

The article i created appears to have mysteriously dissapeared.

And no record of its creation can be found ANYWHERE on wikipedia.

Sigh... anyways, could the protection on this page be removed?, as the MAJOR people who were against changing this article have either not responded when they had the chance and simply created a different article on the same subject (Except centric) or they are not in the majority.

Hopefully editing can begin soon.... i'd like to get some stuff done.

Although i'm willing to hear a final round of what people have to say.

Nateland 20:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns over article length.

After I posted some messages over POV forking articles which are already or were meant to be covered by this article. Illuminato raised some concerns of his in this response. AND while I didn't really believe this to hold any standing whatsoever, I thought that it would be a good way to decide if the 'spin-offs' such as adolescent sexuality in Britain adolescent sexuality in the United States and adolescent sexuality in India should stay or not or be incoporated into the MAIN article, with those pages being converted to redirects to this page.

His concerns are below.

Nateland, When I created the articles on the separate countries they were not POV forks. They were spinouts from the main article, much like the Adolescent Sexuality article is a spinout of the main adolescence article. Please check out the WP guidelines on spinouts. It says:

Sometimes, when an article gets to be very long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique.

I hope this clears it up for you. --Illuminato 22:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think some discussion of this matter would be greatly benefiting to wikipedias integrity due to MY own concerns and the probable concerns of others on this site.

Server strain: multiple articles which could easily be covered by a single article can cause server slowdown.

Easy Weasel-wording/POV'ing: Multiple articles reduces chances of catching biased and/or weasel words and/or unsourced and unbacked up statements etc. and allows people to more easily add in those undesirable things.

If we simply made a seperate article for POV we could easily cut the article by two-thirds... then it would be even SHORTER!. allowing for more expansion etc. etc.

Triplication of efforts: When Illuminato made THIS article after the debates over the sexuality section in adolescence kept on going another series of debates arose and further up this page is a comment saying basically.

"Sounds like a duplication of efforts to me"

Now, with these NEW articles being made i'm tempted to call it a 'triplication' of efforts.

Well that about sums it up? A vote perhaps? Nateland 23:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The original page was not informative enough. I don't believe the split is appropriate. Xiner (talk, email) 21:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

I think you'll find that this line:

The average age a teen lost their virginity was 17.13 years. Girls lost theirs at 17.44 years on average and for boys it was 18.06 years

is not quite right, overall average cannot be lower than partial averages. I've made a similar note at Adolescent sexuality in Britain, which has the same line, but the source doesn't have a weblink, so I couldn't check the numbers. Jeodesic 00:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we find a source that gives the distribution instead? --HappyCamper 15:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice catch, Jeodesic. The article, says the 17.13 figure was the age Britons lost their virginity in 2002. The higher numbers are from 2006. I'll correct in the other article. This one will have to wait until protection is lifted. --Illuminato 18:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a contradiction -- what that says is that for both sexes, the average age for loss of virginity is 17.13 years. When only counting the girls, it's 17.44, and when only counting the boys, it's 18.06. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 22:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It may not be contradictory, but it is wrong. It is slightly confusing in the article as they give the aggregate number for 2002, and the breakdown between the sexes for 2006.--Illuminato 23:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm a bit confused

So it appears there has been conversation going on, which is always good. However, I'm still confused. At this point in time, what are the editorial issues that remain? If any? I've heard forks have been made regarding views in countries about adoloscent sexuality, but do we have a method about how to deal it in this article itself? ★MESSEDROCKER★ 06:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed a new lead above to move the discussion forward. There hasn't been any further suggestions to it. If you look at the edit history you will see that seemed to be the cause of the edit war. I'd welcome any further suggestions and revisions to it. --Illuminato 22:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My main proposals for this article.

Well, mainly if the article is too POV'D. If it gives equal sunlight to all POVS. And whether it should be split into TWO articles.

One for the MAIN article on adolescence with GLOBALLY PERTAINING information. Which would essentially be the existing one with a definition of adolescent sexuality, different possible orientations, a little bit about contraception. Etc.

and another one for POV's on adolescent sexuality. With a brief explanation on the global controvesy over this topic and sections for each individual country, with major POV'S in each sectino which pertain to that particular country etc.

My idea is that this would GREATLY cut down on the ARGUMENTS and EDIT WARS. And although a few people oppose this, Me and others think it's a good idea.

Especially with cut&pasted pov's being taken out of

adolescent sexuality and put into.

sex education adolescence teen pregnancy and a few others. Mainly by the User:Illuminato. Anyways, this is my proposition. Once the controversy over AS article is created, i'll leave it alone. But with the current off-shoots being justified by editors concerns that the article is long enough to warrant spin-offs due to extreme length.

I think that putting the POV'S, in another article would be a GREAT idea!! :-) Hell, i just want'a finish up this argument, repair this article to an acceptable state. And VOILA!, I can put my energies into other things on wikipedia instead of a senseless edit war over a topic such as THIS!.

Nateland 18:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)