Talk:Adolescent sexuality in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Deletion?

Might as well rename this article "negative effects of adolescent sexuality in the US"...
I agree with this statement. This article has a lot of editorializing and propaganda surrounding relatively few undisputed facts... I don't know much about Wikipedia but I can tell that this article is below Wikipedia standards. It almost sounds like a Conservapedia propaganda page, to be honest.M4390116 (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intact Homes

The phrase "intact homes" has been used in scholarly literature going back to at least 1957, and was the phrase used in the SAM, a respected publication. Others who use the phrase include the American Bar Association, and organization that can hardly be considered conservative, an adjective I don't use to describe myself. It is commonly understood to be a home where both parents live as a married couple. I've removed the fix tag, now that I have defined the term. --Illuminato (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources and POV

I have removed references from SADD.org. According to their website, they are "peer leadership organization dedicated to preventing destructive decisions, particularly underage drinking, other drug use, impaired driving, teen violence and teen depression and suicide." As such, op-ed pieces on sexuality that appear on their site strike me as questionable based on WP:V. There are plenty of peer-reviewed, fact-checked articles on this topic, and the article cites them generously. I suggest we stick with such sources to avoid violating WP:NPOV. The same is true of an article cited to Access Hollywood, which doesn't strike me as a reliable source as it relates to this article, so I have also removed quotes and cites from that article. --Sfmammamia (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted these changes. If it were you or I just getting up on Access Hollywood and spouting our opinions then yes, I would agree with you, they wouldn't be appropriate for this article. However, the real attribution is not to a trashy TV show, but rather to Dr. Gail Saltz, a respected doctor. From her website: Psychiatrist, columnist, bestselling author, and television commentator Gail Saltz, M.D., has been called "a voice of wisdom and insight in a world of confusion and contradictions" by Tom Brokaw. Dr. Saltz is a regular health, sex, and relationship contributor to the Today show for which she hosts the weekly "On the Couch" segment as well as participates as the expert guest in a range of other related discussions. In addition, she writes a weekly "Relationship" column for MSNBC.com, is a regular contributor O, The Oprah magazine, is the emotional wellness expert for ivillage.com and serves as a frequent contributor to A&E’s Biography programs. ... An Associate Professor of Psychiatry at The New York Presbyterian Hospital Weill-Cornell School of Medicine, Dr. Saltz is a psychoanalyst with The New York Psychoanalytic Institute and has a private practice on the Upper East Side of Manhattan." That should be good enough to keep her quotes in. Also, SADD is a nationally recognized organization dealing with issues pertaining to teens, and the author (also the CEO of SADD) is a professor of psychology. The article quotes experts from newspapers and magazines, so quoting one from his organization's website doesn't seem to me to be inappropriate. --Illuminato (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If Gail Saltz is as prominent as you say, and I have no doubt that she is, then surely there is a more reliable source that quotes her than the one cited in this article. SADD is biased, in my view, and has no specific expertise in this area, so I'm reverting both of these as unreliable. This article has ample reliable sources, in some cases these references only amplify other statements already cited, so in my view you are amplifying and adding these only to push a POV. --Sfmammamia (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I will note that Illuminato's article ownership and POV-pushing has long been a complaint of mine and several other users as well. Basically, he seems to be of the school of thought that he who dumps enough of "their side's" references into an article wins. As a result, this article remains unbalanced in the extreme. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand why you don't think these are reliable sources? It can be proven that she was on that TV show on that day and said those words. I fail to see why that doesn't meet WP:V or WP:RS, especially since the latter says "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed..." NBC is certainly a mainstream news organization. As for SADD, I'll agree that they are biased, but biased against destructive decisions. They do have an expertise in issues relating to teenagers; indeed that is their entire focus. Both examples cite experts in their fields and are properly cited. Revert. --Illuminato (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As stated before, and reinforced by Iamcuriousblue's comments, my sense is that you are insisting on adding these disputed sources not because they add anything particularly unique to the article, but merely because they amplify points already made by other, more reliable sources. As such, I see them as POV-pushing, which is why I just tagged the article as being under a neutrality dispute. Illuminato, I suggest we try to work out consensus here. I have no interest in continuous reverts; I think I have proven by my ongoing edits on this article that I'm willing to work with you toward balance. However, statements of opinion by individual psychologists should be labeled as such, not stated as fact. Narrow studies (such as the one you recently added from UCSF) should be portrayed neutrally and factually. Sources that are obviously biased or lacking in credibility do not serve the article, when there are so many better sources already included or available. --Sfmammamia (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As I come across new information in my travels, I add it to the article. Sometimes it is unique and new, other times it does amplify something already said. I would be happy to work with you to get it to a state acceptable to all. I don't believe either of the sources are biased or lacking in credibility, but to resolve this impasse can I suggest splitting the difference? Let's cut out SADD but keep Dr. Gaitz. --Illuminato (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but your "splitting the difference" proposal doesn't quite work for me. I have no objection to including the views of Dr. Saltz, even though the quotes you included from her are not uniquely her views, and could probably be attributed to more scholarly sources. (I happen to disagree with the whole "frontal lobe is not fully developed" line of thinking, but that's another issue). However I insist that, if we must quote Dr. Saltz, we do so from a more credible, verifiable source. I will look for such as my time permits. Also, the Mark O'Connell quote should be attributed; you did not explain why you removed that attribution, and it may have just gotten swept up in the other reverts, so I suggest that be handled separately. --Sfmammamia (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the O'Connell quote so that it is properly attributed. I still don't understand why you think the Gaitz quotes are not verifiable. They may not come from her more scholarly works, but it can certainly be verified that she said those things. I've removed the tag because of this. --Illuminato (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(undenting) And I've restored the tag. My sourcing objection remains. If Dr. Saltz is as prominent and well-regarded as you claim, then surely we can find sources for her ideas and quotes that meet Wikipedia's higher standard for reliability. Access Hollywood may bring people on who make good television, but no one is fact-checking what they say on the program. Quoting Dr. Saltz from Access Hollywood undermines the credibility of what she has to say and brings up the "cherry-picking" criticism that other editors have leveled at you in the past. Find a better source. Thank you for restoring the O'Connell attribution. --Sfmammamia (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would respectfully point you to WP:V. There, in the very first sentence we read that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Her statements do not need to be fact checked before they can be used here. Her prominence and biography is more than enough for them to be considered reliable. --Illuminato (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And I would respectfully direct you to the section below that, WP:SOURCES, which states in its first sentence, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and then expands on this standard of reliability thusly: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is." Access Hollywood, in my opinion, does not meet this standard. Dr. Saltz' "prominence and biography" are not well-represented by Access Hollywood, in fact, they are not even part of that source. --Sfmammamia (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the article does rely on the many scholarly sources already cited. It is not as if the whole article hinges on the inclusion of this single source. There are nearly 100 sources in the article, so I think the proper consideration here is "inclusion" not "rely." With that in mind, I don't see the problem of including one or two from a respected psychiatrist in a broadcast program as opposed to a print publication. --Illuminato (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You wrote "It is not as if the whole article hinges on the inclusion of this single source." I agree, which is why there should be no problem deleting quotes from a disputed source. --Sfmammamia (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

But you skip over the standard for inclusion, which is verifiability. The quotes meet that standard. --Illuminato (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As I understand the standards, they work together. Verifiability, reliability, and NPOV are all to be taken into account, and consensus is to be respected. My objection stands. --Sfmammamia (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] class

The criteria for an A Class article is:

Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from the "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard.

Aside from being illustrated (now that could raise some problems) how does this article fail that? --Illuminato (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The article does not provide a broad overview of the topic, has serious problems with bias, and is not well-written (it is overly reliant on quotes rather than having an encyclopedic tone.) Also, A-class and "good article" ratings should not self-awarded. This yet another example where you are in serious violation of WP:OWN. Its unfortunate that the Wikipedia system of checks and balances against problem users like yourself isn't in working order, because you're behavior should have gotten you blocked long ago. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Iamcuriousblue, how about WP:SOFIXIT? --Sfmammamia (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Sfmammia. You do a lot of complaining, Iam, but when was the last time you made a substantive contribution? I know I don't own the article, and when others make positive contributions I don't object. I think you just like to complain. --Illuminato (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't particularly care what you think, mister. I do have a few things I'd like to contribute, but whatever I add will be buried under your cherry-picked sexual abstinence propaganda. You shamelessly POV-push and you know it. Where I think you doubly cross the line is that you not only that you heavily weight the article to your POV, you also reserve the right to be your own source of evaluation. You routinely have removed NPOV tags, judging yourself the sole arbiter of your own neutrality, and have now set about grading your own work as well. Well, sorry, even if I'm not contributing to the article, I sure as hell can evaluate it. As for "being bold", what do you think I'm doing by changing the article grading? Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Newsweek?

New article out, also deceprating allegations of teen oral sex epidemic. Suggestion: Add as source on teen oral sex section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelica K (talk • contribs) 23:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Adolescent sexuality in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Deletion?

[edit] Intact Homes

[edit] Reliable sources and POV

[edit] class

[edit] Newsweek?

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search