Talk:Adolescence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For older discussion see the archive.

Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Contents

[edit] Psychology of Adolescents

This section does not seem to conform at all to NPOV; the sweeping generalizations and lack of citations are all of great concern. I agree with 202.2.32.27 that the input of an expert is necessary here; unfortunately, the corresponding section in Adolescent psychology has the same problem. I've put neutrality tags on both of them - anyone else think these need to be rewritten? Abigali 08:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes... i do, i removed a chunk of the most biased info including the part on teenagers 'emotional insecurity' and the unproven parts of teen sexuality and teen sexual behaviour. I put in a few statistics from a January 2005, centers for disease control study on teen sex that at least has some data, although info on foreign policy, data, statistics on teen sexual behaviour is widely varied. (I especially found the part which said 'teens usually have sex or make sexual contact out of a 'hook up' was quite.... shall we just say. DOWNRIGHT WRONG! PUT IN SOME DMAN EVIDENCE DAMNIT!!!!.

Although this section still needs A LOT OF EDITING!.

http://www.history-of-rock.com/teenagers.htm

Is a link on the references and when i visited it i found HIGHLY BIASED completely unbacked opininated information. When i tried to find this link to the offending page I couldn't find it in the edit code where it was supposed to be. Although it still shows up on the page and is an active link, if someone could help with locating the link and removing it that would be much appreciated.

That source is used as a reference backing up the fact concerning when the word "teenager" came into use. None of the other information on the History of Rock page is used in this Wikipedia article. Jecowa 06:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Chinks of Garbage cleaned and the whole summarization rewritten in the Psychology section of Adoloscence, also cited all resources to statements. I hope its all good now Correctus 16:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adolescent sexuality not same as adolescent psychology

The secion on adolescent psychology should summarise that article and present a global (not US centric) perspective. An article on adolescent sexuality, again with a global perspective may be justified, there is already an article on teen pregnancy. Paul foord 07:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

damnit.... could someone PLEASE EXPLAIN why they restored the text i deleted IWTHOUT CITING A GOOD REASON?. It was entirely backe4d up, the websites listed as reference are of a right wing nature and themselves contain unproven facts, and the centers for disease control data. WHICH IS LEGIT AND I POSTED WITH A LINK! HAS BEEN DELETED.

I'm restoring the CDC data and deleting the text until someone comes up with viable information, please note iwill also try and contact an admin to put protection on this article.

 66.212.201.26 20:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • First of all, you deleted more than what was simply pertaining to sexuality. If you are going to edit and delete, please be more careful. Secondly, your data (at least part of it) was included. My first revert yesterday included the piece about contraception. I accidently missed the part about the birth rate dropping, but it has been restored. See footnotes 19 and 21. As to the other points, US News & World Reports is hardly a right-wing publication. There are other sources listed in there from the CDC, the US Dept of Health & Human Services, the Journal Pediatrics & the Medical College of Wisconson you deleted as well. If you would like to refute Dr. Sax then by all means WP:Be Bold, but don't simply delete it because you don't like what he says. Also, be sure you can offer evidence to back it up. Sax has an MD and PhD, so I am sure he would not get published if he did not have evidence to him back up. Finally, please calm down a bit. There is no need to get all excited, nor to use profanity. We are all friends here. --Illuminato 22:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] teen sexuality seperate article... my ass

also.... if there should be a seperate article on teen sexuality WHY IS THERE AN ENTIRE MINI ARTCIEL ON IT WHICH IJUST CLAIMED WAS NON NUETRAL AND FALSE???!!!

deleted biased information.. again!, highly request protection ASAP. Leonard sax's info is highly biased and weakly backed up. The KFF/CDC info i put in was replaced with older outdated info which contributes even more to the biased and unscientifically proven materials that seems to be hypocritical of the articles own words....

The links are also FILLED with antisexual information that would not be helpful to a parent or teenager looking for a good reference on teenaged sexuality.

If a seperate article is to be then i think it'll need discussion as there is too much trolling the info to fit into particular relegious political ideologies.

Nateland 21:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what concerns me the most.

What ocncerns me the most is how the article says that teenagers are incapable of dealing with the emotions etc. that come with sex, how it does far more harm then good, and how it says teenaged sexual relations are usually hook-ups*.

*how do you define hook-ups?
* has there been a reasonable study proving this?
*has leanoard sax EVER gotten the opinions of teenagers themselves?

I myself havn't been able to find any of his books, although Judith Levine's book, harmful to minors: the perils of protecting children from sex will tell you exactly the opposite.

Plus, CDC data stating STD rates are now at 88 per 1,000 HARDLY seems to be an 'epidemic', except in the hispanic and african ethnicities where it tends to be a little bit higher. If you can i'd like to see some studies to back up the above points WHICH are preferably not from Sax, if they are then PLEASE give me the source of the study....

(note that the CDC study link had been removed and i'd like it to be reinserted, also. I'm going to move the CDC data up towards the top of adolescent sexuality/psychology because of the multitudes of data saying sex between teenagers is dangerous.

This should help to balance it out in case some parent reads it and doesn't even get to the bottom having decided (MY daughter can't have sex!!, this data says she'll become depressed!!!) I'd prefer the links to studies proving the depression as well.

PLUS we need a world view and studies from at least more countries then the United states, as this presents a problem to people visiting this page who are from other but english speaking countries.

I'll also try and find some data on european views on adolescent seuxal activity (I have some and can get some more), and i must say the house-of-rock page is itself heavily biased and deriving the origin of the term 'teenager' might seem, upon close inspection.... a bit unreliable.

P.S. sry for the shouting, but I really DO consider this information to be biased and completely un-nuetral as well as opinionated.

  Nateland 22:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S.S.

I would REALLY appreciate it if more sources backing up the claims of harm done to teenagers from sex/ intoxication causing it/reducing embarrasment could be provided 'hopefully' in internet form that are seperate from Leonard sax's theories as a LARGE amount of ther references are from Leonard Sax and it would be gratefully acknowledged if you could come up with more sources to back up Sax's claims due to his ideas and facts filling up a lot of the topic of teen sexuality.

Oh yes... I'm wondering about a seperate wikipedia article SPECIFICALLY for teen sexuality and activity/behaviour due to the fact that it is a bit long and if info about other countries are included the length might be increased DRAMATICALLY.

Thus warranting another article based solely on this.

Nateland 23:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My thoughts

The entire section is poorly sourced and highly subjective. It is obviously biased because any intro Psychology text will tell you that this teenage crisis thing is not known in many parts of the world, so many of the problems discussed in the passages can be debatable.

However, we must have a civil debate. It's best to avoid sweeping generalizations, and to cite every controversial statement you make. Let's start doing that. Xiner (talk, email) 02:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Guidelines to be kept in mind: Unsourced statements may be deleted; opinions should not be stated as facts (even if an expert said it); credibly sourced statements should not deleted (do not throw the baby out with the bathwater). Xiner (talk, email) 21:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree, and that is why I have reverted the edits made by Nateland. I am sure he is well intentioned, but his writing leaves much to be desired and it has been pointed out here and on his talk page that he can not simply delete material he disagrees with. He does, as you say, throw the baby out with the bath water. The older text may be biased, but at least it is readable.
      • Biased text does not belong in Wikipedia, and if Nateland's edits are not written well, please try to polish it instead of reverting. Also, please sign in if you have an account, and sign your messages. If you believe anyone's removed properly sourced material, please give me the diffs. Xiner (talk, email) 21:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't want to take sides here, but Nateland's offered to discuss his text here. I urge the other side to do the same. Xiner (talk, email) 21:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Psychology of adolescents" and "Adolescent sexuality"

The sections on "Psychology of adolescents" and "Adolescent sexuality" consist mostly of biased commentary, and mainly pertain to the United States. Many of the statements seem to be supported by an appeal to authority rather than actual data. Moreover, many of the citations do not provide links to easily-accessible peer-reviewed studies which can be scrutinized for accuracy.

I think it would be best to scrap most of these sections and stick with objective quantitative data that can be verified in a peer-reviewed journal. --Uthbrian (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps someone can move the passages to this talk page and work on it until it's good for publication. Xiner (talk, email) 16:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
In the Psychology section, everything is in place now, all the biased stuff is removed from the article and is replaced with more neutral and informative stuff backed up by facts and reliable sources (.edu and .gov websites) :) - Correctus 16:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ok... here's my twenty bucks... again --___--

I hope this can be used as a temporary replacement for the section on teen sexuality due to it's easily verifiable and trustworthy nature. (The Centers For Disease Control are pretty reliable in my opinion and many others) Plus it's layout would EASILY allow for inclusion of information on adolescent sexual activity and sexuality in other countries.. oh yes i'm thinking. Could someone come up with some internet sources to show that adolescents have as diverse sexual orientations as adults?, that would be a given and add some more info other then statistics on pregnancy and STD transmission.

I myself KNOW that teenagers (I myself am a teenager, a little over 14) have varied orientations both homo, heterosexual, and paraphilic, but do ont know of many good studies or surveys to prove this point which aren't under hot debate.

below is my idea of a good temporary replacement, i've also contacted an admin a few days ago to see if they can help out in this matter. 9Not sure if they'll get back to me though)


http://www.cdc.gov/STD/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm

http://www.ashastd.org/hpv/hpv_learn_myths.cfm

While a highly controversial topic, both sides of the issue for and against this activity have been fighting fiercely to prove their points on both relegious, secular, scientific, and statistical grounds.

This section deals with....

Adolescent Sexual Activity In The United States

Research (Shown in the paragraph below) HAS proven In The United States however that pregnancy and std transmission in sexually active teens has gone down dramatically over the past 10 years, both of which have been leading secular reasons for stopping adolescent sexual activity (For pregnancy this is vaginal intercourse and for STD's like HIV it is anal, oral, or vaginal sex that counts towards the statistics, other STD's like syphillis etc. are available at the reference page)

Centers For Disease Control study On Rates For STD, and Pregnancy in United States teens

Of US teens aged 15-19 who are having sexual intercourse almost all (98%) use at least one form of contraception. The most popular form, at 94% usage, are condoms and the birth control pill at 61%. [4]

U.S. teen pregnancies had decreased 28% between 1990 and 200 from 117 pregnancies of every 1,000 to 84 per 1,000 by the year 2,000.[5]

Plase note however that WORLDWIDE: "Genital HPV infection is a sexually transmitted disease (STD) that is caused by human papillomavirus (HPV). Human papillomavirus is the name of a group of viruses that includes more than 100 different strains or types. More than 30 of these viruses are sexually transmitted, and they can infect the genital area of men and women including the skin of the penis, vulva (area outside the vagina), or anus, and the linings of the vagina, cervix, or rectum. Most people who become infected with HPV will not have any symptoms and will clear the infection on their own."[6]

Also, in the case of HPV condoms DO NOT completely stop the risk of contraction oh HPV, however the use of condoms has been shown by studies to lower the risk of getting this Disease[7]

Some of these viruses are called "high-risk" types, and may cause abnormal Pap tests. They may also lead to cancer of the cervix, vulva, vagina, anus, or penis. Others are called "low-risk" types, and they may cause mild Pap test abnormalities or genital warts. Genital warts are single or multiple growths or bumps that appear in the genital area, and sometimes are cauliflower shaped. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nateland (talk • contribs) 21:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] well....

I waited a couple of hours after I made the proposal.. then i proceeded to post them. however they were soon reverted (Somehow the person who did it isn't on the log) And i'm formally asking the people interested in this article to come and try to reach a decision as it has multiple dubious and POV sections which i've been trying to combat for the past few days to no avail really....

help is appreciated. Article in question: adolescence

Other articles in question: sexual addiction pornography addiction psychology of adolescents

NOTE: We are looking for people willing to help out WITHOUT any kind of point of view, bias, or anything that would worsen the off balance neutrality for these articles.

[edit] attention!

due to no input having been given for over 12 hours, i'm consider that all parties hereby consent to the temporary replacement of the sexuality section with the text as shown above.

Yours truly, Nateland 20:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Nateland, you may not have anything to do on a Saturday night/ Sunday morning, but plenty of us did. 12 hours is not a sufficient time period to achieve consensus on something like this. In general, several days is a good rule of thumb. Most of us don't hover over WP constantly, so you can't assume that since no one raises any objections within a few hours that we all agree. Further, what was on there contained good info on health & pregnancy, but you deleted much on psychological issues. I did like creating a subsection about US teens. Finally, again, don't simply delete material you disagree with. What is posted is from experts in easily verifiable sources. Find other sources to back up what you believe if you want. I've reverted to the old text. --Illuminato 03:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC) PS - The note you added is not part of the WP style. Please find an appropriate template to use, if you feel it is needed.--Illuminato 03:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed passages

"Genital HPV infection is a sexually transmitted disease (STD) that is caused by human papillomavirus (HPV). Human papillomavirus is the name of a group of viruses that includes more than 100 different strains or types. More than 30 of these viruses are sexually transmitted, and they can infect the genital area of men and women including the skin of the penis, vulva (area outside the vagina), or anus, and the linings of the vagina, cervix, or rectum. Most people who become infected with HPV will not have any symptoms and will clear the infection on their own."[1]

Also, in the case of HPV condoms DO NOT completely stop the risk of contraction oh HPV, however the use of condoms has been shown by studies to lower the risk of getting this Disease[7]

I didn't see what the above had to with the article, so I deleted it. Xiner (talk, email) 22:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with deleting this section. It doesn't have anything directly to do with adolescence, but rather with sexuality in general. --Uthbrian (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] this is what it was for.

Due to the dispute about the leonard sax information being filled in on the sexuality section I put in just general STD info until it could be resolved.... (I was thinking it would be neutral enough just as a basic filler until this dispute could be fixed)

Although now that it's al lback to the old junk I'm thinking the same thing Xiner, adolescent sex should be relegated to the MAIN topic of sexuality (Maybe the portal or something?, or inside the article on human sexual behaviour?), and then once it's there we can all argue and fuss over what goes in it.

Anyone with me on this? Nateland 21:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] oh yes i almost forgot!

If it was in human sexual behaviour then we could link off into the various other subjects of sexuality as teenagers DO have a diverse range of sexual behaviours including homosexuality and paraphilia's and thus it would allow for GREATER expansion of this topic which needs much information.

And to Illuminato, I know i shouldn't have deleted it. But it's ALL from Leonard Sax!, THAT'S the problem, we need info from BOTH sides of the debate and if it's all LEONARD SAX!, then well.... maybe we should have a for and against section. But I think that what i stated in my post above would be quite fitting as it IS general sexuality.

Then we'll let the larger audience shred it to bits and feud over the content. Although I think that BEFORE we even THINK of sticking it in the sexuality portal we'll need to create a NEW section that is acceptable to the 4 of us as i see it.

That means once it's as neutral as WE and any OTHER people who join in think it ought to be THEN we can discuss amongst ourselves the issue of merging it with the sexuality portal or one of it's subarticles.

What do you think Illuminato/people?

Nateland 21:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • WP is not a place to have debates with for and against sections. You did not place those new sections in the sexuality section, so please be more careful in the future. A lot of the info you had was duplicated, so I removed what was in there twice. Also, please get a full cite for the Levine source. Your original text said she was a journalist, is she also an expert in teenage sexuality? If she is not, I question whether what would only be her opinion should be included. I left it in for the time being, until you get the full cite. Finally, there are 18 cited sources in this section, and only 5 of them are from Sax. Thats a far cry from "ALL."--Illuminato 00:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
A few random thoughts about the edit war:
We don't always have to break things out into pro/con terms. That often isn't the best way of presenting different opinions. In this case, I think we can come up with something more nuanced than "for" and "against" sections. You can't look at a study and decide whether the study is for or against adolescent sexuality, so these sections won't work. We should also be careful to say that a study has proven its conclusion. We can say things like "according to a study by..." or "researchers at xyz wrote that..." but we should not say "Research (Shown in the paragraph below) HAS proven". With that said, the quotes from Leonard Sax are excessive, placed too highly, and the way they are used is a violation of the NPOV policy. There are even opinionated statements which are written in Wikipedia's own voice - absolutely prohibited by NPOV. For example, the sentence "The harm done to teenagers who engage in sexual activities is especially true for girls" must be removed. I am placing an NPOV tag on this section and I hope that we will hear from people other than Illuminato and Nateland here. Rhobite 00:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Is that really a source we want to be using here? From the wikpedia page on Harmful to Minors: "Because of its controversial nature and content, it was nearly impossible for Levine to find a publisher — one prospective publisher even called it "radioactive." A book that was nearly impossible to publish because it was so extreme doesnt really sound like the type of sources we should be using here. POV isnt good in either direction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.91.115.201 (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
It's a pretty well-known book and it got a lot of press coverage, not all of which was negative. Joycelyn Elders wrote the foreword. It's an opinionated source, but it is a good source for describing the opinions of those who believe sexuality is normal in teenagers. Please re-read the WP:NPOV policy. While Wikipedia articles do not express opinions themselves, there is nothing wrong with describing the opinions of others. Rhobite 05:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
True, it got a lot of press but only because it was so controversial. I don't think anyone is arguing that sexuality isn't normal in teenagers, just whether or not it is healthy for them to be acting on those instincts. Anyway, from the quote provided, this book seems to argue that sex is good for children. I haven't read it, but the only other people I know making that argument in NAMBLA. --Illuminato 03:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] yes i know

Yes, i was just trying to make a compromise that wouldn't be reverted by making for and against sections.

Because.. due to the controversial nature of this topic I think that it requires views from both sides AS WELL as general info (which was deleted multiple times by illuminato) Yes, i recognize i am biased FOR teenage sex and that's the reason i am contending it's current state so much.

I was thinking that with for and against sections as well as a general info (probably statistical and scientific) it would be more informative due... as i said earlier there might be people coming to this page (As it's #1 on googles search for adolescence) for advice and I am worried that the current constantly reverted to section on sexuality WILL cause possible confusion and misguided ideas about the adolescent sex that will NOT be in the interest of the person affected by it.

YES, my FOR section was pov, i was going to add more info and statisttics from the book (Of which there are many), although since I think that judith's book is like a highly liberal version of leonard sax's highly conservative book it's not a very good book for use in wikipedia.

But i DO think that accurate, straight information WHICH tells EXACTLY what the effects and/or consequences of teen sex as WELL as info on contraception, and views of various organizations on this perhaps, WITH some polls of the views on teen sex from teenagers myself.

Well, this my word!, Nateland 02:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] P.S.

Oh yea, and by straight i mean accurate information (Sorry if it came across to you as being homophobic... kind of a bad choice of words for this topic, just realized :D

[edit] Photo: Not high school students

The photo URL is dead. But I find it hard to believe that the completely bald man in the backgrund is under 40, and the mustache guy in the foreground looks at least in his 30's. And why are there so few high-school-looking males? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.43.141 (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Photo Changed Correctus 16:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced: preteens maintain preferences???

"Preteens are increasingly a specifically targeted market segment by business, because they tend to maintain the preferences they develop at this age."

Is this really true? How many adults enjoy "boy bands" and "tween" movies? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.43.141 (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Ok, still some problems.

Now, a minor concern is that the Part on HPV. WHICH can be partially prevented via condom usage (A Centers For disease control link was PLACED within EASY clicking distance to prove this point that it can lower it's risk and yet....

It keeps getting changed to (Oh it cannot be prevented by condoms or anything blah blah blah)

Now what arouses my suspicions is that people against sex among adolescence would do ANYTHING to make sex seem dangerous no matter what.

Even if it's just a little virus, and Illuminato.

HPV can lay dormant for YEARS. So if you get it before you marry, you marry, and you have sex. you can STILL contract HPV!, so EVEN MARRIAGE isn't any good when faced with what you term 'unpreventable diseases' I think i'll add in that part.

Also, the article seems to be doing ok. BUT!, even though most of Leonard Sax's quotes have been removed. There are still parts which i find, oddly unverifiable. I'll check them out though just to make sure.

And thanks SO much Rhobite, Xiner etc. for helping make this article a little smoother!, i'm glad.

Nateland 00:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] these sentences in question.

teens - and preteens - are too young to fathom the consequences, both physical and emotional, of" sexual activities.

How is that able to be PROVEN?, that's not a very provable point. Comes from world news.

impersonality of twenty-first-century adolescent sex victimizes girls" and "plenty of harm" is done to boys as well.[9] When taking part in hookups "the kids don't even look at each other. It's mechanical, dehumanizing. The fallout is that later in life they have trouble forming relationships. They're jaded.

I have sources to indicate that sex ACTUALLY HELPS relationships form later in life by giving teens the tools to make love, negotiate, and more.

, 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.'

This came from World news too. In fact BOTH of these are from a 2005 article that i doubt ANYONE can easily get to. I'm requesting that the person who posted this PROVIDES THE ARTICLE ON-LINE ALONG WITH IT'S SOURCES.

Otherwise it breaks a wikipedia policy (Can't remember which one though), but WHO keeps year old newspapers?, not many people would have the article on hand to verify judging by that. AND newspapers don't usually list sources except random or 'specially picked' scientists who might not have A CLUE what they're talking about. I'm HEAVILY in favor of removing the US and world news report paragraphs and checking into the statement that teens become 'jaded'.

Nateland 00:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think all of the quotes should be removed, especially if their statements are not supported by data. Just because J. Random Person says something doesn't make it automatically true. --Uthbrian (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gender specific terms??

Any proposed gender-specific terms?? Just like "boy" and "girl" are for "child"?? Georgia guy 00:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think there are any gender-specific terms for adolescents in English. They're not quite children (boy/girl) and not quite adults (man/woman). Spanish, for example, has muchacho/a, but not English. --Strangerer (Talk) 20:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed lines about HPV

I have removed the following text from the "Adolescent sexuality" section:

One STD that can not be prevented with condoms or the birth control pill is the human papillomavirus (HPV). HPV may lead to certain types of cancer and genital warts.

The first sentence is overstated. There is evidence that condom use may reduce the risk of HPV [1]. --Uthbrian (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too much (text about) adolescent sex!

It's sloppy, redundant, and an invitation to a POV fork, to have so much material in the "Adolescent sexuality" section when there's also a main article about it. When a sub-topic has its own article, there should just be a brief summary paragraph in the parent article. 69.3.237.3 20:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the material to Talk:Adolescent sexuality. Please integrate any material that is not redundant into that article.
69.3.237.3 20:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I see the material's been restored as my version was "not a summary." This is strange, since what I kept was what was there before -- I barely changed any wording, much less content.
But whatever, it's not my work -- I'll give you some time to summarize it yourself. But the work does need to be done, as the section as it stands is bloated and redundant with Adolescent sexuality.
DanB†DanD 21:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
What the...I've just checked, and the section is identical with Adolescent sexuality. The entire article is simply printed twice, once as an article and once as a subsection. That's ridiculous.
(The anon above was me not logged in, by the way, sorry -- I was merrily typing four tildes and not checking hwo they came out.) DanB†DanD 21:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Illuminato! I, uh...I still think it's too long -- it remains twice the length of any other section. But that was really good-faith-y of you. DanB†DanD 21:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I agree with you guys.

Yes, the topic of adolescent sexuality is WAAAYYY to trolled. The part on HPV has been reverted AGAIN and the main article on Adolescent sexuality IS a identical copy.

We've got a MAJOR problem with trollers and I think that we should try and keep the adolescent sexuality part OUT of this article and in the main article on that topic.

EVEN if it means a never ending edit war, we can always try and call in an administrator.

Now... with the main article on adolescent sexuality, I'm up for some revising of it to get rid of any POV statements and try to present all major sides of the debate in a clearly visible manner (This to me is a big problem as I myself am an advocate FOR allowing teenagers to have consensual sex with the use of contraception and whenever I've managed to introduce that side of the debate into the article and it wasn't reverted... well, it was shoved down at the bottom and out of sight basically. )

It looks like we'll need to put in a lot of effort for this. In the meantime I'll check over the main article, add some neutrality tags to the section on this adolescence article.

And I think I'll delete the section here as it's already in the main article on adolescent sexuality (Whomever created it... probably that annoying pest Illuminato when he/she/herma :-) was looking for a way to sneak in a few POV statements, I apologize if i was wrong about Illuminato making it.. but he's given me A LOT of trouble in the past with this topic.

Anyways, good luck to making this a wikified article HOORAY! Nateland 19:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming. Wikipedia:Five pillars Jecowa 00:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Spinout

I reverted a recent edit by Nateland where he completely removed a section of the article because another article covered the same topic. However, to quote from WP's guideline on spinout articles, having a summary of a main article is a "completely normal Wikipedia procedure." The Summary style guideline in a nutshell says "When articles grow too long, longer sections should be spun off into their own articles and a several paragraph summary should be left in its place. Such sections are linked to the detailed article with a {{main|<name of detailed article>}} or comparable template under the section title." That is what was there, and what I returned.

Edit the summary to improve it if you like, Nateland, but please do not delete it again. Also, when you make a change of more than 10,000, it is not a minor change. I will assume good faith and consider it a mistake, but please take care not to misuse the minor change button in the future.--Illuminato 04:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The sexuality section was really long - three pages of text. It is now summarized in the Adolescence article as one and a half pages of text. I think that is still kind of long. Maybe it would be less time consuming to delete this section for now and focus efforts on the Adolescent sexuality article. Then when that article is acceptable to both parties, create a summary from it on this article. Jecowa 06:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a couple passages from WP:NPOV for article improvement

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#A_simple_formulation says

We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight says

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority).

Jecowa 06:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and I don't know how it is in the Christian-extremist USA, but here in Europe sex by adolescents is perfectly normal and nothing to worry about, so these opinions have way too much (even serious) text in the article about them compared to the general POV. Salaskan 16:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree that this doesn't represent a worldwide viewpoint, but to be honest, I'm not even sure that this represents a US viewpoint. Since when is it abnormal and horrible for adolescents to explore their sexuality? It seems that many on this talk page raised their eyebrows a bit while reading this section. It moralizes too much and really ought to focus more on facts about adolescent sexuality rather than opining on whether or not adolescent sexuality creates psychologically-scarred people. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 22:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] illuminato...

Several paragraph summaries?

Ok.

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 .

-|

Nateland 20:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Repeditive Sentence

hey guys i removed

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."[5]

because it shows up twice in the sexuality paragraph and its just the exact same thing as the first sentence.

Repitition sentence was removed not the original sentanceMaverick423 21:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] O_O! high school students? EXCUSE ME??

The picture which is supposedly of American high school students...

Well, like another person said, on closer inspection it seems there are like 30, 40, and 50 year old men and women in the background or upper row of desks i should say. (This seems to be more like American COLLEGE students, it's not a retarded class as any 40 year old man I'm pretty sure who was still in high school would be in some form of whatever)

Could someone PLEASE find a different picture? I think i'll take a quick look for some on the CC picture search and perhaps the internet archives lists upon lists of pictures... ok that's all for now,

more to come later

Nateland 22:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

ya know what he actually got something here i see bald people and everything here this is not a high school class picture. however i don't know if this means that a new picture is going to have to be found Maverick423 14:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This picture is from NASA. NASA visited Oñate High School of the Las Cruces Public School district and took some photos. Those older people probably include the guest speakers from NASA, the teacher of that class, and other interested faculty from the school. I don't think NASA would lie about this being a picture of high school students. Jecowa 15:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you know what?, state it as such! YES!, just mention it in the picture caption. Nateland 21:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. Jecowa 00:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who wonders, we are referring to this image which is located at commons at time of writing. Jecowa 00:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adolescent sexuality section needs revising, read below

The section is in desperate need of revising. I have placed proposals on the talk page for the main article on adolescent sexuality for how to revise, although I think that the adolescent sexuality section should be kept as a summary which it currently is not... It's highly biased as well.

I've already moved on pretty much from trying to edit and improve this particular article to the main one on adolescent sexuality so maybe some other people can step up to plate?

Nateland 22:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This section reads like nothing more than a collection of vaguely pov quotations. It's unencyclopedic. Manderr 02:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Completely biased and full of untrue information

Especially the section on teen sexuality- sounds like someone had a bad relationship at 15 and decided to make up a load of rubbish. This whole "hook-up" thing is nonsense, and teenagers can be just as emotionally developed as physically developed, although some may not be. I changed it to make it a bit more subtle a while ago (but not necessarily emotionally, for instance) but the edits were removed; this information is completely biased and incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.67.162.83 (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

  • Yes, I agree completely! I previously didn't want to say anything about that, but it does seem like someone was hurt in the past, has come up with a hypothesis based on their own emotional disturbances, and then tried to find opinions that corroborated with the hypothesis (rather than the other way around). I am frustrated about it, though, because I feel bad removing a section that someone has clearly gone to so much effort to create. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 21:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Illuminato was the user who created this section. And his record of using reverts to keep favored POV inside of articles. Then creating spin-off articles to try and ward away complaints or when his favored materials are in danger of being removed and kept removed due to consensus by more than 3 wikipedians. As well as using varying tactics to try and validate his actions. Makes me think he is a simple POV-pusher who, even if he DID have bad experiences shouldn't act this way on such a simple website.

Also, the main article on adolescent sexuality has been updated and thus the current section should be updated. The section itself seems irrelevant to the article on adolescents worldwide as a whole and I say it should be removed and a link at the top of the article saying 'for the article on adolescent sexuality see adolescent sexuality. There is strong opposition to the current and the exact same data has been literally copy & pasted into numerous other spin-off articles.

I'm removing this section. And I hope i'll get support when doing it. Nateland 20:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I removed all the external links apart from one which I nearly removed. This is because all of the others linked to teen help articles and the such, which isn't the kind of website this article should be linking to. Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 06:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What a load of rubbish!

"All teens have sexual lives". That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I myself am 13 years old and I have no sex life at all, real or fictional (not that I want one). Why did they invent such a stupid thing? There are many teenagers like me around the world, and in my opinion, one of the writer's next statements "Sexual life is important for teenagers" is also incorrect as we see that many of the teenagers with sexual lives are rude, irresponsible and very noisy, a trait which most of the teenagers without sexual lives do not possess. You may think I am inventing this, but I have my sources as I have moved a school in the last year and I've been researching the behaviour of the 2000 (approximately) students in my school and of the 3500 (approximately) in my old school by doing surveys. I have finished explaining my point.

87.69.217.141 14:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

All teens DO have sexual lives, but some develop them later than others. 81.79.29.194 22:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Perhaps the meaning of "sexual life" ought to be clarified. Obviously, not all people have sex as adolescents, but all teenagers are involved in some aspect of sexuality. What does this encompass? --Strangerer (Talk) 23:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qoutations in the adolescent sexuality section

Directed at Illuminato.

When I edited the section on adolescent sexuality I removed the phrases by ponton lynn saying sexuality is a vital part of teenagers lives. (Sexuality is important to people, but not neccesarily vital, and the phrase seems out of place. Especially considering ponton lynn's views are U.S. centric).

And the phrase saying adolescents might not be psychologically mature enough to have sex and could face emotional distress. I'll need clarification. What kind of emotional distress?, how can willingly having sex make you emotionally unstable?. I thought if people had a sexual drive strong enough to make them initiate sex they'd be emotionally capable of withstanding the pleasures sex can bring them.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but I need some clarifying.Nateland 03:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that Dr. Ponton's quote there is US centric. If anything, you have made the section more US centric. The words "United States" did not appear in that section before your recent edit. It is well documented that distress can result from sexual activity before a teen is ready for it and you can find it on the other articles on this topic. Your brain does not fully develop until you are into your mid twenties and having a strong sex drive does not mean you are emotionally prepared for sex. All the evidence is to the contrary, in fact. If you can find a source that says physical capability means emotional readiness I will certainly look at it, but I don't think you will be able to find one. --Illuminato 04:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Illuminato, first off. There are adults who have the maturity of a ten year old and adolescents who are wise beyond their years. Saying they're not emotionally mature, (when in the context of your revert stated it as universal fact that all adolescents are harmed by sex) is a broad statement to make. Maybe not brain size wise etc. But in the context of sexuality that can only serve one purpose. POV. And POV is what started this whole 3 months long debate...
Also, saying adolescent sexuality is of concern to the wider society inside of an article on adolescence worldwide is a pretty big statement to make. Can you back that up with worldwide facts, quotes, statistics, and proofs of consensus among all classes and races and peoples?. (That's how you'd have to reasonably prove such a statement )
And no Illuminato, proving your facts is up to you. Wiki policy says that the poster of a controversial statement has to provide the proof for it. Don't just dump the burden of proof on me.
That's all for now. And please refrain from edit warring so much. It's causing many people trouble and grief. (Don't you have other things to do then just patrol a small category of wikipedia articles looking for changes not to your liking?). Nateland 04:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


First, please do not edit my comments, even if for typos. Formating is one thing, changing text is quite another. Secondly, there is loads and loads of research that says teens bodies mature far faster than their emotional or cognitive abilities. Just pick up a copy of any medical or psychological journal, particularly one dealing with young people - Adolescence is excellent. If you want specifics from that journal try "Adolescent Sex And Mass Media: A Developmental Approach" by John Chapman at Penn State, or if books are more to your liking read "Today's children: Creating a future for a generation in crisis." by David Hamburg. Its a cruel irony, in fact, that while teens bodies are maturing faster than ever we are prolonging their adolescence. I don't envy you being so young in this day and age. --Illuminato 05:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Illuminato, you've critisized me and claimed immaturity on my behalf because of minor typos instead of fixing them. I simply fixed a few typos on your behalf as a courtesy. If you don't want me to show you courtesy then fine. Say so and I won't. Also, stating that adolescents aren't mature enough to have sex is not a small or even proven statement. The burden of proof is on you. And in case you didn't realize, back a couple centuries ago people went out into the world around age 14 and had children at even younger ages almost regularly in some parts due to much shorter average human lifespans...

Yet, despite young sex the world continued on. Nowadays with modern technology people live longer and thus it seems the expectation to have sex later has popped up or just simply increased due to this fact. Trust me, if your statement is true then about 200-1,000 years ago the world would have been frought with emotionally devastated people. Now which is truer?.

  • Thousands of years of history.
  • Or the opinions of a few dozen scientists in narrow scoped fields that were formed within the last 50 years or so?.

I'm not saying life back then was necessarily fun for the average person. But it was filled with much more evil then today. War, death, rape. Yet even young children saw and normally lived through it if disease didn't get them first. And back then it seems no one thought twice about having children as soon as possible or as soon as necessary.

I'm reverting your edits User:Illuminato. And if I have to, I'll go all the way up the ladder to get you blocked. P.S. the burden of proof is on you. Did you read all of the above?. Or did you just choose to 'conveniently' ignore parts of what I said?. 20:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Nateland, changing text in an article is one thing, doing it on a talk page is another. In an article the text belongs to WP and anyone can edit it. On talk pages what I said is mine. It is my thoughts I am conveying, and should not be be changed by others. There is a difference. Also, please read WP:MOS and you will see that the word "sexuality" in the in section title should be lowercase. Just look at the other sections in this very article. All multiple word titles only have the first word capitalized. Finally, the sentence said that teenagers are not emotionally or cognitively mature yet. Our brains our still developing into our mid-twenties. This is not the opinion of a few rouge scientists, this is fact. I have cited two sources saying it is true - where are your sources saying it isn't? Show me good science saying a 14 year old is emotionally mature and I will read it with an open mind, but I don't think you will find one. You can't delete cited material simply because you don't like it. If it is untrue, thats one thing, but you have not shown me anything that says it isn't. --Illuminato 03:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Illuminato, maybe that statement is fact. But its placement in that section gives a tone saying adolescent sex is going to harm adolescents psychologically in the least. And saying it's particularly of concern to people. WHAT people?, people in the united states?. Sure, there's a big enough culture war over adolescent sex in the US. Worldwide?, I don't think so.

Because of this placement of your facts it violates WP:NPOV. I'm reverting your edits for neutrality. They belong in the part on culture or social aspects of adolescence. NOT in a section where they make sexual activity look inherently damaging. OH yes, Illuminato. Can you quit going on about spelling and punctuation?, people make mistakes. THat doesn't mean their views on a subject are meaningless.... Nateland 15:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adolescence Psychology Section Edited

I just edited the Adolescence Psychology section and cited all the references, I also made the section neutral, earlier it was just referring to the Adolescent Psychological process as being mostly negative. I have now added factually verified information and have removed the phrases which didn't really mean anything and/or were just misleading and most of all, were unsourced.

Do not revert the changes, you could visit the references to verify all the information I have added. Correctus 14:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Picture added

Added a new picture to the article of a few teenagers in Nicaragua, the image itself is public domain and was found in the "Boys" category of Wikipedia's public domain images. There are no old people in the picture so I dont think there would be any more problems regarding the introductory image. If you want to comment on my change please do so! Correctus 15:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/d/o/Talk%7EAdolescence_0486.html"