Talk:Adolescent sexual behavior

Neutrality questions[edit]

This article, specifically the section "Effects" in the United States, seems very biased against sexual activity. Quotes are stated as fact, and these quotes don't seem like medical fact to me. Stuff like "Teens - and preteens - are too young to fathom the consequences, both physical and emotional, of their (sexual) behavior."[11] As "teenagers are not mature enough to know all the ramifications of what they're doing,"[18] "early sexual activity - whether in or out of a romantic relationship - does far more harm than good."[19] isn't just quoting somebody; it's presenting opinion as fact, and I think the entire section should be rephrased. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The examples you cite are not just opinions, they are statements from experts and are all properly cited. If you think the phrase can be reworded to make it more clear then by all means wp:be bold but there are authoritative and verifiable citations for each claim made.--Illuminato 21:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a statement is made by an expert does not make it fact. I realize that the citations are there, but the context in which the quotations are placed skews the article's tone against sex. The reason I added the disputed tag rather than just fixed the section is because I'm not certain exactly how to do so in a more neutral fashion—it's a touchy subject, and I wanted other views before I forged ahead and made a potentially controversial change. —BorgHunter (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are just worried about the tone then you have the wrong tag up there. The one you are using says you dispute the factual accuracy of something in the article, not just the tone. --Illuminato 23:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not just the tone, though granted that's a big issue. But "When having causal sex teens are "pretending to say it's just sexual and nothing else. That's an arbitrary slicing up of the intimacy pie. It's not healthy."" doesn't sound like fact, either, it sounds like opinion. That's my main thrust, if you'll pardon the horrific pun. —BorgHunter (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It is coming from a recognized expert, so I don't think he is just making it up or giving an uninformed opinion. --Illuminato 04:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but there is disagreement among experts as well. —BorgHunter (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is? Can you provide a source that says it is healthy for teens to have relationships that are merely sexual? --Illuminato 21:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References 26 and 27 in the article appear to do just that. —BorgHunter (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unindent. I disagree that is what they do. Read 27, which is just a book review anyway and probably shouldn't be included here as a source anyway, and it doesn't say anything about casual sex amongst teens. I haven't read Levine's book yet, but she is a journalist, not a doctor or an expert, and her book was considered so "radioactive" that she almost couldn't find a publisher. --Illuminato 16:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Levine's book draws its information from numerous experts. Almost everything in her book is from an expert. The book itself as I recall is a compilation of expert and historical views on adolescent sexuality etc. etc.

Oh yes, Illuminato. It was considered radioactive because of its viewpoint that sexual activity among adolescents wasn't harmful. Don't judge a book based on one potential publishers opinion.

Also, I can't stress this enough. Illuminato, there's ONE paragraph devoted as pro-sex with the REST being anti-sex. That's a huge imbalance in itself.... Nateland 14:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit) 26 is Judith Levines book. Reference number 27 is a review of a book publishing research about sexuality of teenage girls in a pro-sexual manner. That is something we need to try and even out the imbalance of this article. Nateland 15:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nateland, many, many publishers turned her down before she eventually found one. Also, I never said the references shouldn't be in there; I said that they don't say casual sex among teens is healthy. --Illuminato 17:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminato, you've said this multiple times in the past about how I should read Leonard Sax's book and become 'enlightened'. Now how about you read Judith's book :-)))). And its message is a little bit mixed, but basically makes the point that United States attitudes and subsequent policies concerning adolescent sexual activity are damaging to adolescent health as a whole. In other words, it's pro-sex. And don't pass judgement on the books opinions if you've never even read the book itself. And also, so what if many, many publishers turned the book down?. Many nowadays significant cultural and social statements etc. were originally turned down but are now turned up :-). (Remember, people thought Galileo was a fool, but nowadays almost everyone agrees the Earth is roughly a sphere) Nateland 05:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But is it pro-casual sex?--Illuminato 05:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something I just noticed, too—the anti-sex opinions are presented as fact, and the last paragraph devoted to the pro-sex view actually has "So-and-so says foo and bar about baz." —BorgHunter (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you noticed BorgHunter :-). That's one of the major problems with this article. Nateland 05:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are all having a lot of trouble with this set of articles, so I am glad another voice is here. Hi, BorgHunter. --Strangerer (Talk) 05:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why is this article strung together with nearly-exact duplicates of other articles, one of which another editor has termed "an absolute train wreck"? --Strangerer (Talk) 05:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted from Strangerer Also, why is this article strung together with nearly-exact duplicates of other articles, one of which another editor has termed "an absolute train wreck, *looks at Illuminato and frowns*. Basically, I guess when Illuminato created this article he just copied chunks of his 'undisputed indisputable' fact out of his other articles and stuck them here before arming up to defend against other editors..... Nateland 21:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be changed[edit]

I have added ^{[unreliable source?]} and {TotallyDisputed} because I don't know of anything more accurate. The part that says "but not emotionally or cognitively (ready)" should be changed to a more NPOV or removed. It also says "roughly half... have been involved in a casual sexual relationship". So I read this as it's implying halve of teens now are going to some sort of mental problem or post traumatic stress disorder. Not all teens are going to have a breakdown if they have sex like this implies.71.236.194.21 22:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing "Teens - and preteens - are too young to fathom the consequences, both physical and emotional, of their (sexual) behavior."[11] because if you read the article you'll see it cuts of an important beginning of the sentence.71.236.194.21 22:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually just removed the rest of that part because it takes to quotes and sticks them together to make it look like one.71.236.194.21 22:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is all properly cited, so I am removing the tag. It is verifiable. Also, with regards the the "too young to fathom" sentence I checked it and while there is one small mistake (which I will soon fix, it doesn't cut off anything that would change its meaning. So everyone is clear without chasing the link, the full sentence is "Then there are the teens–and preteens–too young to fathom the

consequences, both emotional and physical, of their behavior." I've reverted these changes.

Also, I don't think the article implies half of all kids are going to have PTSD. Finally, what do you think is POV about the emotionally or cognitively ready part? Its a statement by an expert without any indication of goodness or badness.--Illuminato 00:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's implying that no teens are ready and thats not true. There are stupid people that think that just because people are under 18 that there incapable of doing things. This article is prejiduce against people under 18.67.171.254.48 17:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Also, I don't think the article implies half of all kids are going to have PTSD." Illuminato -- I think this is at the heart of the point of view problem with the article. The whole issue is that it reads like the authors of the article believe that all teens are going to end up permanently brain-damaged from running around wildly having random casual sex. You have been met with so much resistance because the tone of the article is so over-the-top. --Strangerer (Talk) 00:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strangerer, when you made substantial edits to another article I applauded them. I thought you did a great job in improving that article. If anyone has a way to improve this article then I say WP:Be Bold! Half of kids today have had casual sexual encounters. There are consequences, both emotional and physical, in doing so. The article says so, but it doesn't come close to saying that 50% of our young people are going to end up permanently brain damaged because of it. Again, if you or anyone else can improve the article then I say great. If your way of improving it is to remove factual and cited material, only then will I have a problem. I really do wish people would make an effort to actually improving these articles rather than just complaining about them on the talk pages. --Illuminato 20:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, and thanks for the compliment about my edit. I hope I will be done being as busy IRL next month and I hope I can work on it more then. --Strangerer (Talk) 22:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted from Illuminato. gain, if you or anyone else can improve the article then I say great. If your way of improving it is to remove factual and cited material, only then will I have a problem. I really do wish people would make an effort to actually improving these articles rather than just complaining about them on the talk pages

Oh now don't go pinning the blame on all of us. What in the hell do you think we've been doing since January 6th?. Over four months. We've BEEN trying to improve these articles!. Yet you go against everyone elses opinion and run around reverting edits inccesantly, fighting in the talk pages, dodging vital questions about the veracity of your contributions, and overall being a big pain in the ass. You use the same defense again and again and again, changing it from time to time of course. And whenever someone poses a counter argument or lodges a complaint that you can't blow off with your 'claims of verifiability' you just all together ignore.

User:Illuminato, you are a thorn to Wikipedia. You've made few contributions to anything other than articles on adolescent sexuality. I tell ya, at least I've contributed to multiple articles from time to time etc. And created new ones. I (and I'm many others hope the same thing) hope you get banned permanently from this website as you've been completely unproductive.

Tell me this. Have any major changes that go against the POV you are pushing been made without you reverting them?. Hell, the only reason the main article on adolescent sexuality is stable is because it took FIVE PEOPLE to constantly revert your attempts at reversion after a proposal was passed by a vast majority and then you immediately after created this article and copied and pasted the same disputed text into it. Although all the editors seem to be doing a good job of handling you (If just barely), major changes have to take place.

And soon. Otherwise we might all begin to push for your removal from Wikipedia. Nateland 15:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment (neutrality and factual accuracy of Adolescent sexual behavior[edit]

Statements by editors (summary, from POV of each editor):

Illuminato: People are removing cited facts, there are emotional and physical consequences of casual sex for teens
Nateland: Illuminato is ruining the article, dodging the questions
71.236.194.21: Article makes it sound like all teens will be permanently damaged by casual sex
67.171.254.48: Article says that all teens are not ready
BorgHunter: Anti-sex opinions are shown as facts, pro-sex opinions are shown as "1 says 2 about 3"
Strangerer: Entire article is cut and pasted highly disputed text from other related articles that are cherry picked to be totally against adolescent sexuality.

Illuminato wants to keep the current (before I reverted it) version, Nateland, Strangerer, and BorgHunter worry about the neutrality and accuracy of the article, IP's worry about factual accuracy of article
Comments:

I fully agree with Nateland, 71.236.194.21, and BorgHunter about this

Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 14:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed this up a bit, added strangerer's opinion in a broad sense. And added in that Me, Borghunter, and Strangerer are ALSO worried about factual accuracy of this article. What we need is a vote on peoples opinion of this article. Nateland 23:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the RfC. There is a bad case of synthesis here. Like Eyu100 I agree with Nateland 71.236.194.21, and BorgHunter. The article is not conforming to the neutral point of view policy.--Cailil ^talk 23:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also responding to RfC. I agree that there is a terrible OR and NPOV problem here. Makerowner 20:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also an uninvolved editor responding to the RfC. There's serious WP:SYN and WP:NPOV problems here, the article needs a major rewrite from the ground up. east.718 18:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another formerly uninvolved editor, responding to the RfC. The article needs to work much harder distinguish opinion from fact (as those terms are defined on WP:NPOV) - essentially it needs to drastically reduce the number of direct quotations from sources (many of which are presented as factual). Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 21:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{totallydisputed}}[edit]

The tag should be {{totallydisputed}} because the facts are disputed. The actual accuracy of the facts does not change whether they are disputed or not. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 18:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{misleading}}[edit]

I've added {{misleading}} since nobody can seem to make the article to a NPOV.Seventhofnine 06:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not that nobody can, its that nobody who complained has tried.--Illuminato 15:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's that Illuminato has repeatedly (no make that countlessly) reverted attempts to fix it. Check his user contribution history if you want. Nateland 02:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Is there any kind of action that can be taken? This has got to be the worst article I've ever seen. Seventhofnine 07:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an effort at improving matters. For the record, I think there is still some way to go - so I am not opposed to tagging either the article or sections of it to that effect. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 18:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SheffieldSteel, I think you did an excellent job of NPOVing the article without removing any of the information that was previously there.--SarekOfVulcan 20:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation request reminder[edit]

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-06-17_Adolescent_sexual_behavior was opened almost a month ago and I still eagerly await to be of help.--Cerejota 03:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are the parties still interested? Thanks!--Cerejota 02:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]