Talk:Adolescent sexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sexuality Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.

This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Assessment comments

Archives
1

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Merge proposal/state of article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Start it over

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

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

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

Merge proposal/state of article

A new plan to take this article forward.

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

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

Think. Answer this question. What is sexuality?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] POV sentence.

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

What do you mean by Emtional Intimacy?

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

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

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

Nateland 21:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Recommendation for adolescent sexuality

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

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

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

Illuminato, Admit it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nateland 01:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Merge from Adolescent sexuality in Britain

Support Britain faces similar problems to America's, so I think whatever difference there is can be contained in this article. Xiner (talk, email) 01:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Support The information in the two articles is essentially the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Illuminato (talk • contribs).
Support Splitting up articles into seperate countries only makes sense when there are large differences in the issues between the different countries; this is not the case here. Though there are certainly cultural differences, human sexuality is human sexuality. Simxp 23:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mergefrom Adolescent sexuality in the United States

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Proposal of a complete rewrite

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's been just about 2 weeks with no apparent objections against replacing the current article with my proposed rewrite on this discussion page. I will now do so, the spin-off articles AS in Britain, and in the U.S. and in India will have to be dealt with on an individual basis. Nateland 15:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new version is awful

Talk:Adolescent sexuality/new version

the new version is awful. i can hardly read it - its so poorly written. i was trying to incorporate the new stuff into the old one when i got an edit conflict. the old one was far superior. try rewriting it, not deleting it and putting jibberish up in its place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.160.192.10 (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Please see the discussion above. Xiner (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

i see it and it says it needs a lot of copy editing, and it does! maybe when that is done it can go in, but until then its just not even close to wikapedeas standards. plus, there is a lot of relevant data thats nto included in the new one. how can you delete info about how often teens are having sex from an article on teen sex??

Teenage sexuality != opinions about whether the move towards oral sex is dangerous. Xiner (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not gonna revert anymore on this article until I see what other people think about this revert war. Xiner (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In the article as it currently stands there are only 4 paragraphs in the effects section, and one of those says adolscent sex is a positive thing. The vast majority of the rest of it is numbers. x% of 15 year olds have done this, y% used a condom last time, etc. I think the amount on effects in there currently is appropriate. Plus, the version Nateland put up was in desperate need of a copyedit. The best way to proceed would be to incorporate his material into the current version, using correct grammar, etc. I liked the addition of a section on sex ed. --Illuminato 06:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Adolescent sexuality != condom usage, which belongs in something like sexual health or something. Illuminato, everyone else on this page agrees that sexuality is something entirely different. Sexual education belongs in a "See also". Please look up the term "sexuality" in another reference. Xiner (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, i agree with that. I wouldn't be opposed to separate articles on ad. sexuality and ad. sexual behaviors. --Illuminato 22:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

And you can't just disappear for two weeks to avoid debate on the issue, then return as soon as we made the change. Xiner (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was agreed that the Nateland version needed significant copy editing before it would be in a state ready to be put up. I had nothing additional to add to that conversation, so I didn't. I said above that I agree the article on there is more about behaviors than adolescent sexuality itself and should probably be renamed. Still, the Nateland version is very difficult to read and shouldn't go up until someone has really gone through it to clean it up. --Illuminato 02:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We all agreed that while it needed copyedit, it was better than the version before. Xiner (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I created Adolescent sexual behavior with the information that was formerly on this page. I also cleaned up the Nateland version and put that in place here. For some sections i took info from the main article as it was simply easier to replace it that try to clean up the fractured English. Still, I think the general ideas are all still expressed. --Illuminato 02:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As a Recent Changes Patrol editor, this deletion caught my eye on the screen. Checking the user's talkpage reveals that it does not seem to have consensus there or on this talkpage. Recommend restoration to the revert just done by this user. Morenooso 02:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As a newpage patroller, the creation of Adolescent sexual behavior caught my eye as a potential point of view fork. Illuminato explained to me that he/she had consensus to rename the Adolescent sexuality article in that way but now this is listed as a main subarticle. I'm awfully confused and I'm tempted to recommend redirecting Adolescent sexual behavior to Adolescent sexuality for now until the discussion here reaches a consensus. Pascal.Tesson 02:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And as an old participant in this whole saga, I'd welcome new input so as to prevent another edit war. Xiner (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Pascal.Tesson. I stand by my post that Illuminato does not not have consensus for the edits/deletions/creation. Morenooso 03:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So what happens when every editor but one agrees on something? Xiner (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that there is only one user that does not agree to consensus that other users are agreeing here. Normally on any page I have on Watch, it is customary that once consensus on an issue is discussed on its talkpage, graduated citations should be given to a user that reference the talkpage; i.e., if a revert is necessary, use "rv pls see talkpage discussion" and work the user up the message template warning system. Morenooso 10:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What is it we don't agree on? We all agree that nateland's version is a more accurate description of ad. sexuality than what was there before. we all agree that it needs some major copy editing. I thought I was putting up a version that got the gist of what nateland was going for, without the tortured grammar and syntax, and putting it into wp style. I'm happy with nateland's general premise, i just want it to be readable. --Illuminato 04:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it needs copy-editing. But Illuminato, to say that mine isn't readable?. The rewrite in place now is a DRAFT!. For crying out loud!!!. Everyone accepts mine as draft form and doesn't accept yours after 3 three months or work. I think you really have little right to say mine isn't 'readable'. Not to insult you or anything, but your actions are becoming increasingly rancorous and desperate to Push POV. I just think that POV should stay out of this article. LIsting out the controversy has only so far caused major edit wars and grief on both sides of the fence. My version is short, concise, and stays to the point of WHAT adolescent sexuality is. (I included sexual education and age of consent info because they tie in fairly closely to the article itself. And the intro on redirects for otherk inds of sexuality was getting a bit long).

And now you've created another spin-off called adolescent sexual behaviour. I tell you what Illuminato. How about you make an article called 'views on adolescent sexuality'. You can pov-push there and the rest of us can actually build this article into something even better than it is now!. Seriously Illuminato, I know you think your POV is correct and right and all. Maybe you're some evangelist or born again Muslim. I really don't care. This is Wikipedia, if you want to spread your views then start a pressure group or something. And let the larger outside world evaluate and either choose to fight or join it.

But don't push your views here. It's an encyclopaedia. And your actions only keep wikipedia from nearing its ultimate goal.

To be THE FREE encyclopedia. Nateland 05:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh and Illuminato. Adolescent sexuality COVERS Sexual behaviour. But I agree with Xiner the sex-ed part needs to be made into a 'link to main article'. And maybe the AOC part too. You guys can decide what to do with the two snippers on sexual education and ages of consent. I was thinking that it added to the article. Because if we put everything that didn't exactly fit into the main articles then we'd be left with a stub. (Although I kinda guess a definition of sexuality can be fit into a few paragraphs. Maybe this article should be a simple 'correlated topics redirect page' and adolescent sexuality could be fitted as a definition into wikitionary?)Nateland 05:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Natland, I've already said I agree your version is a better idea of what AS is. Try showing it to your English teacher though, and I am sure there will be red ink all over it. I tried to make your version better and you simply reverted back without considering any of the changes I made. I always try to incorporate your material when I make changes to a page. I think I made a good faith effort to improve the page. Since I think my page made progress, I am going to add a link to a new subpage at the top of this comment section, and ask people to make any changes they think are appropriate so we can put a clean and readable article out there. --Illuminato 05:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary unindent. Xiner, as much as I understand the need for new outside input in the debate, I'm afraid I don't want to get too involved here. I don't have the time or the expertise on the subject. However, I still think it's a good idea to redirect the newly created article here to avoid a POV fork. You can debate the wisdom of splitting the page further but Illuminato's initiative seems premature at the moment. As for resolving the dispute, maybe you can all contact a relevant WikiProject to get an outside opinion. Pascal.Tesson 14:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Pascal. I just want to suck people in, that's all. Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Xiner (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You Terell Owens you [1]. :-) Pascal.Tesson 16:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! Xiner (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we do need some outside opinions. All i want for this article nowadays is to say what adolescent sexuality is and have a little on closely correlated subjects. (Like sex education, and age of consent laws. Which I included). As for Illuminato's remarks. You seem to be trying to debunk my opinion based on minor spelling errors etc. The version you substituted was substantially rewritten. Check the history, it says something to the point of. Revert then adding more of Natelands article. But anyways, what to do about the main article on adolescent sexual behaviour?.

Anyways, i'm off to create an article on yet another book :-)Nateland 18:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It was not substantially rewritten. Take a look at the version that is currently up there and my proposed version. Tell me what is missing from your version. I moved some of the see alsos out of the lead and into their own section where they belong, but other than that and expanding the lead a little, it is primarily your version, just cleaner and without the tortured grammar. --Illuminato 19:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, well, well. Your proposed rewrite of a rewrite does include most parts of the current article as it stands. Except for stating WHAT adolescent sexuality is and shoving in the same lightly to medium POV'd paragraphs in the beggining original article. (One of the substantial factors that brought my proposed rewrite to replace the article itself). Also, you changed a few pictures from the original you put and maybe added / deleted a few paragraphs. But i'm sick of arguing with you over every little thing.

My final view on your current rewrite. Very little difference then the current article except one or two trivial sentences, the nonexistence of saying WHAT adolescent sexuality is. And the use of debated paragraphs from the old article into your proposed 'rewrite'. In my eyes it's just a meek attempt at forcing even the tiniest drops of POV into the current article. Blaugh! Nateland 20:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you think there is very little difference - we should be able get a better version up soon. Which two sentences do you object to? If you point them out we can work on them. Both versions now begin

Adolescent sexuality refers to sexual feelings, behavior and development in adolescents and is a stage of human sexuality.

I think that says pretty clearly what it is. Also, Nateland, when you only bring up past grievances and don't cite specific problems with the new version I have no idea what to correct. Saying "Blaugh!" is not helpful. --Illuminato 01:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes and Illuminato. You said that your article on adolescent sexual behavior was a proposal for ANOTHER rewrite of a rewrite or this and that. If it's a secondary proposal of yours then please stick that on a talk page for that particular proposal and not as an article in itself. Historically considering your literal copying of disputed data on adolescent sexuality into numerous other articles such as us culture, sexual education, pornography addiction, adolescence (where it still stands), psychology of adolescents, adolescent sexuality in the united states, adolescent sexuality in Britain, adolescent sexuality in India, and now the extremely heavily POV filled spin-off article on adolescent sexual behaviour that could very well be covered in the current article without the lines of heavily debated material in your spin-off all serve to make me and others think you're just pushing point of view onto the rest of us instead of doing something constructive.

Where does it all end Illuminato?. When will you realize you cannot have your way against most everyone else's wishes?. (True you had a few people on your side which were IP addresses that never signed up) Think carefully, you're damaging wikipedia and most likely putting increasing strain on the servers with every unwarranted spin-off article you create. Nateland 20:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As per my earlier remarks, I've redirected Adolescent sexual behavior back to this article. If the three of you (and any other party involved) can't come to an agreement I suggest ~~counseling~~ dispute resolution or, more simply, a request for third opinions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexuality which should have plenty of editors interested in helping out. All it takes is a little bit of calm and good faith and I'm sure you'll find plenty of moderating influences at the project to help you sort it all out. Also a note to Illuminato: I don't want you to misconstrue this merge as a support of Nateland and Xiner's opinion. I haven't read through enough history to have a solid opinion on the dispute but I do think the creation of the fork creates more problems than it solves. Cheers to all, Pascal.Tesson 22:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a lot of data that you erased and put a redirect in its place. It belongs somewhere, and I believe that it's proper place is Adolescent sexual behavior. If you or anyone else has a better suggestion for a name, I'd like to hear it and we can discuss it. --Illuminato 01:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I now promise that this will be my last bit of participation in this debate. Illuminato, as you are quite likely aware "data" has not been erased and it can be recovered whenever one wishes to do so. This is exactly what the 'history' tab is for. I'm sure you're also aware that the question here is whether anyone but yourself believes it's pertinent data that is presented in a suitably neutral way and whether or not it constitutes a POV fork of the content of the present article. I am not attacking you by creating this redirect but simply trying to make sure nobody goes ahead with a rash idea for a fix without trying to construct a consensus to do so. Once again, I urge you to seek a neutral but competent third opinion. Pascal.Tesson 07:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No need to worry Illuminato, I am sure we can find all of the 'erased' data inside of the spin-off articles you created a while back titled Adolescent sexuality in the United States, Adolescent sexuality in Britain, and Adolescent sexuality in India. Besides, wouldn't sexual behaviours among adolescents fit into adolescent sexuality as a whole?. And the current revision of the article pretty much covers that scope for now. Your 'spin-off' contains a lot of data, yes. But it's all the heavily debated widely considered to be POV material that was in the article which got replaced by the current version and in those three spin-offs as well as numerous other places you stuck that 'data'. Nateland 04:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm out of town at the moment, so I can't get knee deep yet. I'll have more to say when I come back. Xiner (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very Good Source

I just came across a very good source for information on adolescent and other sexuality – The International Encyclopedia of Sexuality.

Information in it is broken down by country, so its particularly useful for "Adolescent Sexuality in..." breakout articles. In particular, sections 4B, 5B, and 6A of The International Encyclopedia of Sexuality: United States of America would be an excellent source for a proper "Adolescent sexuality in the United States" article, and a much better example of what such an article should look like, as opposed to the ultra-biased screed that's there now. Iamcuriousblue 16:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Seems good, although it is from 1997-2001 (but at least it seems unbiased on first glance :-) Good job 'lam Nateland 05:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed new version

Talk:Adolescent sexuality/new version

Does anyone have any comments or objections to using the version linked above in place of the article that is currently there? I feel it gets across all the points of the current article but is cleaner, easier to read and more in line with WP style. --Illuminato 03:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some fundamental problems.

A. It still' violates WP:NPOV
B. It is fairly disorganized and even had 'citation needed' marks. Something not present in the current article.
C. While it is a major improvement over your last attempts at a proposal it still has that vague teen sex is bad tone to it. And while the current revision might be purely informational and thus end up being able to be construed as positive about adolescent sexuality it has facts. This is just a bunch of copied text from my revision and some other text from your previous revisions Illuminato.

Nothing new, and definitely nothing worth taking the time and trouble to implement.

P.S. since this proposal contains worldwide information it obviously wouldn't be implemented into adolescent sexuality in the united states so you must be planning to stick it in adolescent sexuality. Please move this proposal into its proper spot. Nateland 16:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur w/ Nateland. --Morenooso 17:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the fact that there are still major problems with the article. To be blunt about it, the writing is just not good. Lots of sentances like this one: "his section is about a subject that can be closely tied in with the main article." (EEK!) I tried starting a copy edit the other day and its a bigger job than I thought it would be. Another problem is that it that the article doesn't seem to be based on any verifiable references, so any given sentence in the article might just be somebody's unsupported "quoting from memory" rather than solid facts that we should find sources for. I'm going to go over the article and get rid of some of the more egregiously unneccessary sentences, but its still going to need a lot more work. Iamcuriousblue 19:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if i didn't include any quotations. It's just that the information inside of it that wasn't from Wikipedia (a.k.a. the sex education section) itself and verifiable seemed fairly commonly accepted. (Such as how teenagers can have a variety of sexual orientations.) And the part on Age of Consent was a brief broad covering description of age of consent laws and their reasons. The reason I made this such a 'broad covering' article was because in the past people have complained about narrow views.

However, I don't think the majority of the current information in adolescent sexuality is original research, and I think that what is not citated by an expert in the field is commonly accepted enough to not need a quotation. Anyways, sorry about some of the mistakes :-S (The tied in with subject part was in in response to a merge proposal or something. I can't remember exactly what it was though). Although in my opinion the article on adolescent sexual behavior is a simple attempt to push POV and has to go. (Be deleted or made into a redirect to this article, since it fits within the scope and is fairly well covered but the article itself is filled with the same heavily debated material that got my rewrite put into place).

Just my thoughts on the matter. Nateland 20:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree, even a minimal article beats the hell out of a longer one that's just simply POV-pushing. Iamcuriousblue 20:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reverts by natleand

I made several changes today, mainly fixing grammar and bringing the article in line with WP:MOS. Nateland reverted them all, not just the new additions, and placed a 3RR warning on my talk page even though they were the only edits I had made in 2 days. I am reverting them back as almost all agree that the writing needs work. To quote another user: "To be blunt about it, the writing is just not good." The article was in desperate need of a copy edit and that is mainly what I have done. --Illuminato 03:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Illuminato, you lie. You made major edits and placed in highly debated material. People, if you don't quite believe then check the edit history. Also, Illuminato, you've been constantly reverting for ages, I had a decent right to place that on your talk page. You made at least 2 if not more reverts to at least one article.

Now let me get one thing straight. Illuminato, what are your views?. I'm guessing the views you so badly try to put into the article right?. Well, despite however informative you might consider books by Leonard Sax. They're heavily debated enough to warrant them not being in here. Don't make major edits without consensus. Nateland 11:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Nateland, the types of changes I made were mainly along the lines of this: in the "Overview" section I changed "adolescent's" to "adolescents" because in that context the correct word is plural, not possessive. In the same section I changed "Asexuality" to "asexuality" as that word is not the first letter of the sentence, or a proper noun, or anything else that would require it to be capitalized. I also reorganized the "See also" section so that they are alphabetized and so that the capitalization is consistent. These were not major edits by any stretch of the imagination. I did add some new information in as is my right, but you didn't just revert that, you reverted everything - including the grammatical fixes. Secondly, I spent Easter with my family, and I didn't touch my computer once, so I know that I didn't make a single edit between Saturday and Monday. No chance of a 3RR violation there. Finally, there is no information from Leonard Sax in the article, either in your version or mine, so I don't know what you are talking about there. There is plenty of talk on this page about how the article needs copyediting and there is even a tag on the article that says it is written so poorly that it needs a cleanup. That is what I have done, and that is what I am reverting back to. --Illuminato 16:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Then explain the addition of the below two quotations. Which have been heavily disputed and were excluded from the current revision for good reason.

Particularly for adolescents, who are not emotionally mature[2], there are added risks of emotional distress or future poverty from teenage pregnancy.

Sexuality "is a vital aspect of teens' lives."[1]

The other changes I'll leave. But these two sentences I'm going to remove. Also, whether adolescent sexual behavior is just a spin-off or not and is a valid article is under dispute. I'm removing the link to that article, you have also reverted 3 times in 24 hours against the vast consensus. I'm reporting you for violation of the 3RR rule if you revert a fourth time. Nateland 18:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the first sentence, I think you are objecting to the not emotionally mature part. However, that is cited with a reference from a peer reviewed journal. That means an expert on a topic writes an article, and a committee of other experts reviews it and makes suggestions. The author makes any recommended changes and only then does it get published. As to the second quote, it is from a Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at UC San Fransisco. I am far more inclined to believe what I read in a respected journal or in one of several books written by an internationally recognized expert than your uniformed opinion. Again, can you provide me with scientific evidence that adolescents are emotionally mature or that sexuality isn't a vital aspect of teens' lives? I would be happy to review it if you could. --Illuminato 20:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Illuminato, I have explained this before. And many other things before, yet you insist on acting like I never did. The dishonesty and POV pushing put aside. Saying adolescents are not emotionally mature in that context makes it sound like sexual activity among adolescents will 'be emotionally distressing' as the end of that quotation puts it. Which is the main problem and opposed part about the edits you've been reverting to recently. In simpler terms, if put into that context it makes it POV and violates WP:NPOV. Journals and expertise aside, that section of the article is supposed to be NPOV. And you destroy that neutrality with that addition.

Also, while sexuality might be a big part of any persons life. Saying it's a "vital aspect of teens lives" in the begginning

A. doesn't make sense. What point is that trying to prove?, any old fool knows sexual drive is no small thing. You don't need to put it awkwardly into the start of the article.

B. "Sexuality is a vital aspect of teens lives", was part of a quotation by that same person, Lynn Ponton, with negative connotations about sexual activity among adolescents.

Also, there are added risks of emotional distress or future poverty from teenage pregnancy. I agree, teen pregnancy in the modern world can and usually will lead to lower income etc. through loss of education. However, saying it can lead to emotional distress is the main factor, when combined with the 'maturity' part of that sentence which destroys the NPOV.

Tell me, has it ever crossed your mind that if two adolescents have sex it might be consensual, intimate, and enjoyable by both partners. Like sex between adults. I know you think these opinions about emotional distress are undeniable truths. But this is wikipedia, it's supposed neutral because otherwise it wouldn't be a very good encyclopaedia.

We'll put this up for discussion if you must insist. But Illuminato, perhaps an article on views about adolescent sexuality would be best. There's enough information from both sides of the debate to foster a standalone article. and the core subject matter (like this article) would be all the better. Fight it out someplace other than the center of a fairly important article. That's all I'm asking. Nateland 01:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It says there are added risks. It doesn't say there necessarily will be emotional distress. I fail to see the POV violation. I also fail to see the negative connotation in "sexuality is a vital aspect of teens lives." It is a statement of fact without any any indication of rightness or wrongness, goodness or badness. I also don't think that every time an adolescent has sex that it will be a bad experience, and I don't think that is what the article says. I do think you are reading way too much into my motives, but not closely enough at the article. --Illuminato 02:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

first off, did you not read this part? A. doesn't make sense. What point is that trying to prove?, any old fool knows sexual drive is no small thing. You don't need to put it awkwardly into the start of the article.

Secondly, in the history you said reverted edits by Nateland as per talk like there was consensus to restore your edits. Guess what?, there isn't. Also, your edits are disputed. Journaled or not, that doesn't make them valid enough to overcome nonconsensus. You just added these disputed statements in without even asking!. I'm reverting, AGAIN. You have no consensus, no support, and no etiquette in terms of honesty, fair play, and no respect of WP:NPOV. Nateland 20:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Maturity quote is from an unnamed adolescent psychology journal sometime in the year 2000. That's not exactly peer reviewable. Find a better source and maybe I'll negotiate. Remember, the burden of proof is on the poster. Not me, you. YOU prove your point. And I'll listen to it.

Nateland, again, you need to read more carefully and double check before you make claims like this. There was a full cite, not "an unnamed adolescent psychology journal sometime in the year 2000." See for yourself:

John R. Chapman (2000). "Adolescent sex and mass media: a developmental approach.". Adolescence Winter.

There you can see the author, the publication, the tile, the year, and the issue. To quote from someone you brought into the discussion below, "If something has been scientifically studied, and results published in a reputable science journal are widely accepted, we can indeed present that as fact." Unless you can find something that says Dr. Chapman's findings were wrong, or his methodology was flawed, or some other reason to discredit his findings, this source is good enough to be put on Wikipedia. Please read WP:Attribution. --Illuminato 22:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it was a yearly issue. And adolescence winter was the magazine/journal?. Ok, well. That' nice, but as I said above. Your placement of that statement construes adolescent sexual activity as more likely to be dangerous. That = bias, bias= POV. POV = unacceptable. Place it in a views section. That statement might be true, but remember. This article presents a worldwide presentation of the subject.

I highly doubt Chapman's POV is a worldwide point of view, as not nearly all countries and cultures believe adolescent sexual activity to present a risk of emotional distress. Take Europe, for example. And like I said above, present worldwide statistics, quotes, surveys, etc. and I'll believe you. Otherwise, don't say one man speaks for the world. That is foolery. Nateland 00:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, whatever. Disputing every trivial thing with you is becoming very, very tiring. Illuminato, All I want to see is a good, bias free, Wikipedia article with chances of becoming a FA status someday. Nateland 00:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion about creation of article on views about adolescent sexuality

Ok, due to the controversy over this subject. and with the blatant bias etc. being injected and reverted into the article. (See above discussions).

I'm proposing the creation of an article titled Views on Adolescent Sexuality. That article could be home to the debate over is it bad or good?. While this article could contain solely proven scientific or common sense fact. (Such as the fact that Sexuality is the expression of, or having sexual desire). That's commonly accepted fact. NOT

"Teen sex is a sin"

Nor

"Teen sex is beneficial to the human race".

These two types of POV have been plaguing this article and other articles for months. I say we create the proposed article for POV'S. Then put ANY POV into that article. While this article can actually flourish and perhaps become a FA someday.

Remember, what do you think is more important for an article on a subject?.

For it to describe what the subject is. Or for it to just be a listing or simply a gaggle of views on the subject. (Let's think in terms of someone doing research or just wondering 'what is this?). Nateland 02:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That's called a POV fork, and we do not do those. While I'm sure you came up with the idea with the best of intentions, that never works, it just splits the problem between two articles rather than one. The solution here, as always, is attribution. If something has been scientifically studied, and results published in a reputable science journal are widely accepted, we can indeed present that as fact. If there's widespread disagreement over something, we attribute. (For example, "The New England Journal of Medicine published findings indicating something.^[1] However, a recent study in Science, stating that the methodology in that study was flawed for X reason, came to the opposite conclusion.^[2]" The solution, as always, is to stick to the most reputable, scientific sources available, and when there is a dispute, attribute and frame the dispute without "taking a side" ourselves at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll note, however, that even with attribution, its possible to still produce a very biased article by cherry-picking facts that support one's conclusions. That's exactly the problem with some of the earlier versions of this article and "Adolescent sexuality in the United States". Iamcuriousblue 03:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

True. But if you believe this has happened, your best bet is to find sources of your own, of equal reliability, and add material from them. Working from sources is the solution even then. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree about this – POV forks are not allowable. That's one of the major objections I have to Illuminato's version of "Adolescent sexuality in the United States" is that its essentially a POV fork of this article. I think the way forward is to ask that Illuminato participate in WP:Mediation over the issue. This will require this editor to defend their version of the article and their absolute protection of it in an open forum. If Illuminato flat-out refuses mediation, there are other steps that can be taken. But I'd like to try mediation first. Iamcuriousblue 03:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I keep meaning to help out here and keep forgetting to do so. I have two "textbooks" from a psych course entitled Adolescence. I'll add some stuff where I can, which might or might not help with the discussion. --Searles2sels (PJ) 15:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps a POV fork. But think, if we create a section in adolescent sexuality titled controversy it'll probably blossom to fill the entire article. And a single seperate article might create a POV fork, but It'll at least make sure that adolescent sexual behavior, adolescent sexuality in the united states, and adolescent sexuality in Britain will have their loads of intercopied more easily forcibly shifted off into that other POV fork and those articles can be deleted. (The value added by those spin-offs is very minimal).

although, I think there are some current issues with the statements Illuminato has recently put back into the article. (See above discussion) and his numerous spin-offs. We'll need to deal with those first. However, I'll create a section on the controversy and hopefully we can contain the explosion of POV'd bias.... P.S., I've tried to come up with equal material in the past and place into this article, but Illuminato reverted my edits repeatedly. I gave up... anyways... Meh Nateland 20:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The solution

Rather than make assumptions, I want to see what has been happening to this article. Last time I looked at it, this article was overloaded with quotes. Thankfully, that has been replaced, yet an edit war has since arose. I submit we should communicate about this issue. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 20:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The assertion that adolescents are not emotionally mature is meaningless since emotional maturity is not a clearly-defined concept. Evaluating someone's emotional maturity is more a matter of personal opinion rather than fact, and as such, this should not be included in an encyclopedia. --Uthbrian (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Uthbrian. (Good point :-). Maturity isn't able to be based on age. There are and can be 13 year olds who have more wisdom and insight then 40 year old politicians. The same goes for emotional maturity. Saying 1 age group (Ages 13-19) is emotionally immature and stating that as fact is... well....

Cette Sont Stupide (That is stupid). My other concern is about the quote in the beggining of the article saying sexuality is a vital aspect of teens lives. Seeing as,

A. Vitality of a sexuality is in the eyes of the beholder.
B What purpose does this quotation serve the article?. does it improve it?.
C. It's from an American woman with anti-adolescent sexual views. Why put such a narrowly sourced quote in the beginning of a worldly article?.

This about covers my current concerns with the article. Good day all... Nateland 00:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I would really like an article that is based solely in indisputable fact. The whole problem with the old article was that the excessive quotes made it a collection of opinions. I don't particularly have an opinion on the maturity level of teenagers or whatever, but I WOULD like an article with minimal point-of-view pushing. I want just facts, and I'd like to avoid quotes (like the Lynn Ponton one) that don't seem to add anything to the article, aren't well-known, and appear to promote one viewpoint over another. --Strangerer (Talk) 01:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 14 in Canada

"being age 13 in Japan, age 15 across Canada"

It's 14 in Canada

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.158.189 (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Your right, I created a section with the info on Canada. I'll request to have it rephrased to '14 across Canada' . Also, there are close in age exemptions across the United States for adolescents aged 15-17 normally. So when this gets unprotected we'll have to fix it. :-)Nateland 05:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AoC for Canada

Although Canada is a federation, the criminal law (including the definition of the age of consent) is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, so the age of consent is uniform throughout Canada. The age of consent in Canada is generally 14 (see below).

Where an accused is charged with an offence under s. 151 (Sexual Interference), s. 152 (Invitation to sexual touching), s. 153(1) (Sexual exploitation), s. 160(3) (Bestiality in presence of or by child), or s. 173(2) (Indecent acts), or is charged with an offence under s. 271 (Sexual assault), s. 272 (Sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party, or causing bodily harm), or s. 273 (Aggravated sexual assault) in respect of a complainant under the age of fourteen years, it is not a defence that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge. {Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, section 150.1 (1), link continuously updated as Act is amended.}

There exists a close in age exemption in cases where the partners are within two years of age of each other (Section 150.1(2)) or where the person who would be charged is under 14 (Section 150.1(3)).

Section 153 Sexual exploitation mandates an age of consent of 18 years in cases where a person is in a position of trust;

"Every person commits an offence who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person..." {Sect153}

Additionally, section 159 of the Criminal Code sets the age of consent for anal intercourse at 18 years, with an exception if the two partners are married. Section 159 ostensibly sets an unfettered age of consent for male homosexual activity at 18.

However, courts in Ontario (1995) and Quebec (1998) have independently declared Section 159 of the Criminal Code of Canada (Anal Intercourse) unconstitutional.

I don't know why they ruled that, ruling against anal sex isn't discriminatory against homosexuals. Beyond simplifying sexual reactions to the ridiculous need to penetrate a crotchhole, it ignores the fact that anal sex is much riskier than traditional sex, oral sex or outercourse, and has a lot of risks that probably take a much more mature mind to evaluate. I'm still not in favour of age-based discrimination regarding it though, maybe people who pass a biology exam showing their knowledge of the human coccyx and large intestine can become qualified to do whatever it is. Tyciol 19:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adolescent homosexuality

I am happier with the article's current state than past states, except for the quote. I feel the page protection has calmed people down effectively. As I noted on Adolescent sexuality in the United States (currently involved in a different dispute), I would like more information about adolescent homosexuality. Issues that could be discussed include coming out and sexual behaviors. I don't know how far we should delve into this and how far we should just summarize it/link to main articles. Any comments? --Strangerer (Talk) 23:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolutionary perspective

Would the info from this paper be relevant to this article?

Quinlan, R. (2003). Father-Absence, Parental Care & Female Reproductive Development. Evolution & Human Behavior. 24(6): 376-390. Full text EPM 00:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge content

As the previous discussion of this was in mid-March, I am re-opening this discussion. At present, this page reveals that we have the following articles -

- Firstly, all three are in a bad state, and there are strong concerns about POV on all.
- Secondly, it is unneccessary to have a Adolescent sexuality in <Name of country> for every single country on the globe.

I propose that all relevant information from the above three be merged into this article. Sub-sections can be made to deal with notable findings/points/content in each of the three countries (adhering to NPOV), and all three articles be redirected to this one.

Regards,xC | ☎ 10:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overview adjustment

{{editprotected}} The line "heterosexuality, to homosexuality, to monosexuality, to sexual fetishism, or even asexuality" needs adjusting to "heterosexuality, to homosexuality, to bisexuality, to sexual fetishism, or even asexuality". It seems odd to ignore a major sexual orientation and to cite monosexuality as a sexual orientation when it's acctually a classification under which hetero- and homo- both fall.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See Also: Zoophilia?

The current See Also list: "Age disparity in sexual relationships, Child sexuality, Religion and sexuality, Romantic love, Sexual abstinence, Sex education, Sexual revolution, Teen pregnancy, Zoophilia". That last one seems rather out of place in the rest of the list, being one, specific, er, affinity rather than an article relevent to general sexuality. Either it should deleted, or if it is believed to be relevent then surely there are many others of the same category which are no less relevent (there's a long list at Human_sexuality#See_also). -- Simxp 00:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, while I guess teens can be zoophiles too, perhaps moreso since they might spend more time alone with pets after school before parents get home, it's not even mentioned in the article and is too focused, not related directly to the issue like the others are. But the page is locked so it can't be removed yet... Tyciol 19:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Blaise Joshua 12:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When is an external link such as this inappropriate?

I posted an external link "devoted to providing you with the latest news pertaining to studies and crimes involving pre-adult sexuality in the USA." It was removed hours later by user Hurtstotouchfire. This user's reasons for doing so consisted of his/her claim that the link was not an adequate source. However, I maintain that that opinion is mistaken, since a great majority of the article itself relies on news reports and articles found in peer-reviewed academic journals. Furthermore, I cannot help but suspect that the reason behind the stunning lack of external links in this particular article is due to similarly suspicious removals of posted links.

I would like to consult the authors of this page for group consensus regarding this matter: why should a web page consisting exclusively of the very sorts of news reports and peer-reviewed articles used in the article itself not be accepted as an external link? I am well aware that I am in the right, and will not hesitate to alert higher Wikipedia authorities if I must. Let me add that I am quite aware that user Hurtstotouchfire and at least one or two of those who agree with him will quickly respond to this. However, I am requesting a group consensus, not the consensus of Hurtstotouchfire's inner circle.

Ok, I might check into it. Next time, plz remember to WP:sign your articles with the four tildes!. Nateland 03:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emotional Maturity

I know that 'certain authors' have argued this point. But the following text-

Sexual activity generally is associated with a number of risks, including sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV/AIDS) and pregnancy through failure or non-use of birth control. Particularly for adolescents, who are not emotionally mature,[2] there are added risks of emotional distress or future poverty from teenage pregnancy.

More specifically the quote "who are not emotionally mature,[2]" which is strung up with "there are added risks of emotional distress or future poverty from teenage pregnancy."

Seems POV to me. I've fought over this with the editor in question User:Illuminato many times as it's one of the few remaining quotes from a far earlier (and far more POV) version of this article which me and multiple other authors managed to replace with a prototype of this version.

Now while it is indeed true adolescents 'are not emotionally' mature. It can be argued that no one really is truly 'emotionally mature' and the average user should know your average 15 year old 'isn't emotionally mature'. Making it seem erroneous. But despite this the way it's strung up with the following sentence about future poverty and emotional distress gives it a POV slant that was present in the older revision which was full of these slants in a more extreme way.

I propose we delete this quote and edit the strung piece "there are added risks of emotional distress or future poverty from teenage pregnancy." to. "there are added risks of possible emotional distress or future poverty from teenage pregnancy."

I emphasize 'possible' because the whole debate over 'old enough for sex' is a seemingly recent and US/UK-Centric debate. I think doing this would be a good move that not only me. But a few others editors have given slight to medium complaint about over the months.

Since a 'certain user' has insisted so much in the past that this stays but considering my proposed revisions would be very minor I'll let this run a week and then make the change.

P.S. Illuminato, I suggest that if this passes you don't go and try to desperately revert it like you've done with other vastly-agreed-upon proposals in the past. Because I really don't want to deal with you. Nateland 00:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me rather silly to specifically point out any brand of immaturity among adolescents. Adolescent really just means "not yet adult", doesn't it? So, of course, it would be wrong to expect any particular area of maturity.

OTOH, there aren't all that many generalizations which can be made about both 12-year-olds and 18-year-olds. Hordaland 18:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theories

A suggestion: There should be a section about the most prominent theories of adolescent sexuality. This should be easy to do in an NPOV way, saying "X said adolescent sexual behaviour should be encouraged" rather than "Adolescent sexual behaviour should be encouraged" stated as fact. I would expect as a minimum:

Sigmund Freud, Erik Erikson and other early psychoanalysts
Margaret Mead and her detractors such as Derek Freeman
Modern conservative commentators such as Leonard Sax
Modern liberal commentators such as Judith Levine

Fionah 10:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. We have many (too many in my opinion) Dobson quotes. We had a few Levine quotes until a certain 'editor' sneakily removed them saying 'they were pedophilic because blah blah blah'. But I might be able to get them back. There's a whole damn article on Freud. But his opinions seem to be deprecated in the modern world outside of the study of sexual fetishism (somehow the field has advanced very little in over 60 years). Don't know about Erik Erikson, I know about Lief Erikson (the viking who saw the north american shores) nor Freeman, i've heard Margaret Mead mentioned somewhere.

Anyways, I ain't doing this all myself. Let's wait and see if we get any other ppl willing to contribute and help out on this type of extension (in the past these have turned into one sided moralist nightmares that swallow up the whole article) while keeping it NPOV. But overall it'd be good to have an opinions section. Voila! Nateland 17:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)