Talk:Adolescent sexuality in the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Age ranges considered "adolescent" apparently disputed

I'm noticing a number of edits coming from Special:Contributions/173.76.85.216 which removes or heavily edits content based on the assertion that "college kids" are not "adolescents." I'm not certain how valid this argument is considering that many dictionary definitions define "adolescence" as the age range of 13 to 19, which includes "college aged" individuals in the United States. I also note that some of the edits coming from this IP address seem somewhat POV to me, as they have removed an important #Recent study multiple times. In any event, I think removal of content on the basis that "college kids" are not "adolescents" is groundless. As I intend to patrol edits to this page on these grounds, I'd like to hear what other editors think of that. --Meitar (talk) 08:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Three sources that say collge kids are to old, dictionary.com, websters dictionary and wikipedias article on adolescents. Adolescents is “the transitional period between puberty and adulthood in human development, extending mainly over the teen years and terminating legally when the age of majority is reached; youth.” Wiki says it “is a transitional stage of physical and mental human development generally occurring betweenpuberty and legal adulthood (age of majority),[1] but largely characterized as beginning and ending with the teenage stage.[2][3][4] According to Erik Erikson'sstages of human development, for example, a young adult is generally a person between the ages of 20 and 40, whereas an adolescent is a person between the ages of 13 and 19.[3][4]” College kids are old enough to vote and adolscents arent. they can go to war and smoke and drink. Big dif between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.172.29 (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

So, none of the sources 24.60.172.29 provided actually said anything about "college kids are to (sic.) old". (Neither dictionaries nor Adolescence.) In fact, they all say exactly the same thing, which is exactly what I mentioned, above. Both 18 and 19 year olds have and do regularly go to college in the United States, which was my point. The legality of activities like going to war, smoking, drinking, and voting has little to do with the distinction between adolescence and adulthood and more to do with the law (which varies even across the United States), and which is only tangentially topical for this article in the first place. --Meitar (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

They all say it ends when you reach legal adulthood which is 18. Whens the last time u saw a 17 year old in college? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.172.29 (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

They say that, for legal definitions, it ends at legal adulthood. They say, for medical definitions, it ends at "maturity." Using legal definitions for medical terms or contexts is nonsensical; consider the context of the studies. The one most recently removed is a medical study, and a psychological one at that. --Meitar (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So, I'm trying to assume good faith here, but the most recent revert by Special:Contributions/173.76.85.216 is close to, if not squarely within, a violation of WP:NPOV. Their edit summary of "Talk shows it doesn't belong," a reference to this discussion, is hardly appropriate, since this edit is clearly still controversial and unresolved. I'll revert the edit one more time but after that I'm afraid I'll have to seek more drastic measures if other editors don't join this discussion to help reach a decision. --Meitar (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

OK so even if adolescnce includes 18 and 19 year olds it doenst include 20 and 21 year olds. that study includes them so it doesnt below here. the older people inthe study will skew the results so that it doesnt apply here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.85.216 (talk) 01:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose if it is the case that articles or studies including 20 or 21 year olds would "skew" the results and therefore not qualify for inclusion in this article, then the article needs to be rewritten to omit all statements sourced by "Non-coital sexual activities among adolescents" (currently ref'ed as "Guttmacher_oralsex"), "The Mating Habits of the Suburban High School Teenager" (currently ref'ed as "boston"), "Seventeen Is the Average Age at First Sexual Intercourse," and "Study: Religious Teens More Likely to Abstain from Sex" (currently ref'ed as "religion"), and quite possibly numerous others, since that's when I stopped looking for studies that included data collected from anyone over the age of 20. While I'm not convinced that your argument is compelling, I do wonder if you would like to work on this large task, since the article does need improvement. :) Thanks for your diligence. --Meitar (talk) 06:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Theres a big dif that you are missing. when counting how old someone is when they have sex then theres just a number and u cant interpert it differently. Its either 15 or 16 or 17 or 26 or whatever. on the other hand saying that someone is ok emotionally hooking up in college is a lot dif than saying they are ok emotioanlly when they hook up in high school or mid school. how they do emotionally is something that can be interpreted dif ways depending on how you examine it. its not just looking and seeing how old u r. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.85.216 (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not missing that distinction at all. That is, in fact, precisely why the age ranges that are considered "adolescent" in a sexual context are disputed, as I'm sure you noted throughout this conversation. :) Anyway, I'm glad you're no longer convinced that this is about strict adherence to numbers. With that behind us, the particular reference in question should stay at least until the wider POV issues are resolved, during which I look forward to your many contributions. --Meitar (talk) 07:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

POV

Concern

This article suffers from severe and persistent bias toward a highly partisan and fringe science pro-abstinence point of view. This "badge of shame", as one editor calls it, is there for a reason.

I may set about soon removing large sections of this article that basically represent point of view pushing on the part of an earlier editor. This article could be much better, but much of it needs to be dumped and started again from scratch. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Honestly, I'm surprised it only says July 2010. --Strangerer (Talk) 10:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Other points of views could be added to "the problem areas" to balance out the already existing points of views. I wouldn't say the already existing ones need to be dumped...unless unreliable or bordering on WP:FRINGE. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the earlier editor did a kind massive dump of every reference they could find to support (or twist to support) their point of view. Unless an equally massive dump of information from a balancing point of view is undertaken (a huge amount of work), this article will suffer from an express undue weight given to one point of view. I think a ruthless purge of fringe and tendentious parts of this article (notably, the section on oxytocin) is a good place to start, along with the addition of balancing points of view, and of course, more emphasis on neutrally-reported findings. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Your suggestions are a good start indeed. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If a source is being twisted or if it's fringe and unreliable, that is sufficient basis for removing it (and whatever it supports). Be careful, however, in not simply doing the reverse of what was done before; replacing one bias with another. Dylan Flaherty 02:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to see a neutral and bold rewrite of this article. I haven't had the time, but have been patrolling POV edits for a few months now. So, +1 from me. --Meitar (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't oppose a bold rewrite so long as, by its own merits, it is an improvement. Dylan Flaherty 00:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think that number one, that this article should be basically *descriptive*, while right now, the article emphasizes hot-button political issues. That can be addressed to, but it should be secondary, and of course, balanced. Several years ago, I suggested one of an academic book chapter, "The International Encyclopedia of Sexuality: United States of America" would be a good template for this article. In particular, sections 4B, 5B, and 6A, which cover adolescent sexuality. In fact, I'll put it under "External links" right now. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that it seems pointless to offer commentary without first giving an adequate description, I cannot disagree. Dylan Flaherty 20:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A list explaining which areas are perceived as problematic would be extremely helpful. The article seems well-sourced, aside from the dead links, and I cannot spot the areas some editors feel there is too much of one POV in. Also, what is the current issue with the Oxytocin section? I have tweaked it a bit and added a few sources to it,[1][2] but I see that some of you have been debating the inclusion of oxytocin mentions for some time, and Iamcuriousblue states above in this very discussion section that it is still a problematic area. Flyer22 (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Iamcuriousblue removed the Oxytocin section. My most recent question about this matter is: Wasn't an agreement reached about an Oxytocin section being in the article but without as much of a certain POV as it had before? And if there is controversy surrounding oxytocin and adolescents, as Iamcuriousblue stated in his or her edit summary, I would say it is more relevant to mention here (in an article about adolescent sexuality) than in the Oxytocin article. In any case, oxytocin is definitely cited by many researchers as the chemical known as "the love hormone" released into the brain to help promote feelings of connection and love, which in turn helps people bond and build trust. That is not WP:FRINGE, which is why we include mention of it in the Health benefits section of the Sexual intercourse article. While an entire section on it may not be appropriate, I see nothing wrong with mention of it. It seems Iamcuriousblue and some others are worried about relating oxytocin to problems in teenage relationships, as the section did. I can see the section being removed for that reason, since oxytocin causing such problems has little support. My point is that all mention of oxytocin on human sexuality does not need to be removed. Flyer22 (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, if the main POV concern regarding this article is that it leans too much toward the negative regarding teen sex, that cannot be helped...other than removing most information on teen sex. I must point out that there is not much research out there saying that teen sex is a good thing. So I wouldn't blame the negative POV on our fellow Wikipedia editors. Flyer22 (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What's truly amazing is that, despite the absence of research saying teen sex is a good thing, teens still seem to like it. Guess there's no accounting for taste. Dylan Flaherty 13:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Well, of course, teens are going to like it. And adults who regret having had teen sex know they liked it then (at that age) as well. I don't have much opinion on whether teen sex is good mentally, except for when the teens are too young or become pregnant. I don't have much problem with late teens (16 to 19-year-olds) having sex, as long as they are taking the necessary precautions/preparations that go along with it. I'm also sure I would object to my own 16 or 17-year-old having sex, if I had one, especially if a girl (due to what I feel are the greater problems girls face). That wouldn't stop me from providing them with safe sex information if they needed it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that I could argue for delaying sex until marriage, but this has never been particularly convincing to teens, much less to young adults who are delaying marriage until they're out of their 20's. The overwhelming majority of women who have abortions are unmarried and not using contraception, so if we're serious about stopping abortion, we have to hold our noses and hand out condoms and pills to the unmarried. Dylan Flaherty 02:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Subsequential edits

User:Dylan Flaherty removed the POV box, but I'm re-adding it. Re-reading this discussion makes it clear that the POV concerns some editors, including myself, have were in no way addressed in this discussion, much less in the article itself. --Meitar (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You are entirely free to re-add it, providing that you open up a discussion that concretely lists your objects, per WP:NPOVD. Otherwise, I will remove the tags again. Dylan Flaherty 02:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion that concretely lists objections is this one, just scroll up in this very section. And contrary to your remark that "six months is too long," this discussion was opened up on 12 December—less than 3 weeks ago. --Meitar (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Great. So what, concretely, do we need to do to remove the tag? Dylan Flaherty 04:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, this article has been reference-stuffed to the point of inanity. Worse, many of the additions were POV-pushing cherry-pickings of sourced material whose content and even headlines, in some cases, blatantly contradicted the contribution itself. Here's one such recent example I patrolled. What do you think of starting by removing all statements sourced by the many references that are dead links? There are probably many more references that need to be more carefully examined, as the prior example shows, but this would at least begin the work of cutting the article down to size, and I suspect would address some editors' POV concerns at the same time. --Meitar (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to remove the statements if the sources can be found at the Internet Archive. Unless the statements are too POVish to be tweaked and are adding up to too much of the same POV. Though, as I stated above, the majority of negativity surrounding adolescent/teen sex cannot be helped. We should try to find replacements for the dead links before removing the statements. And for the ones that cannot be replaced at this time, yes, removing the statements sounds best. Flyer22 (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure; let's use the Internet archive. :) Also, perhaps I've not been clear about my POV concerns: I have no objection to "negativity surrounding adolescent/teen sex" being included in this article, I have a concern regarding the article's own WP:WEIGHT. It makes liberal use of negative sources without doing the same for equally-reliable positive sources, and it does this all over the article, which is clearly a WP:NPOV violation. That can most certainly "be helped." The double-referencing in this heavily POV anon edit I just reverted is a perfect example. --Meitar (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This recent edit highlights some of the absurdity inherent in this article's POV bias. I decided to follow it up with a WP:BOLD edit of my own; I gave priority to removing content in order to address WP:SIZE issues, too, but I couldn't get through the whole thing because this article is now obscenely over size. (And, as an aside, it looks like this article has had size issues for over 2 years now; it was deemed "too long" at 62k in 2008, and after removing several POV portions, it is still 114k after my own edit.) One of the things that struck me, again, while going over some of the references was how incredibly precise the cherry-picking was. A number of sources (such as the one currently ref'ed as "PED media") are way, way more balanced than the statement they purportedly support are. And one that I removed even failed verification. I also fixed one dead link, as well as improved citation style for numerous references. --Meitar (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you're being bold and taking out a lot of clearly biased content. The best approach to much of this article would be to erase it and start again from scratch. Much of the content is reflective of the views of a problem editor who was quite committed to an ideology of sexual conservatism, and was quite convinced that when it came to adolescent sexuality at least, the "overwhelming consensus" of "experts" supported his views. This editor was very prolific in the quantity of text added, making it an uphill battle to change the article, given the entrenched editorial bias in Wikipedia against removing large amounts of content from an article (WP:BLP articles being the sole exception to this). Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Meitar, I didn't say you or anyone objected to negativity surrounding adolescent/teen sex, I said, "if the main POV concern regarding this article is that it leans too much toward the negative regarding [adolescent]/teen sex, that cannot be helped...other than removing most information on teen sex." And I still feel that way, because the majority of research on adolescent/teen sex is not positive. I'm not sure how this article can be half positive and half negative about adolescent/teen sex, to satisfy some editors' concerns of WP:NPOV, when most research on this topic is not saying adolescent/teenage sex is a good or even semi-good thing. I have nothing against your being bold, when it is done well; and you seem to have done an okay job with the boldness. Though I am not sure that some of the information removed from the Psychological effects section should have been/needed to be removed. Flyer22 (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Flyer, we can debate (endlessly and pointlessly) whether or not "the majority of research on adolescent/teen sex is not positive," but I feel the only relevant arguments to be had are 1) whether a particular reference is added to support arguments in this article which match the conclusion and tone of the reference itself (and again I remind you I've seen numerous examples of POV-pushing that fail to do this), which is a valid WP:NPOV concern and 2) whether the article as a whole and its sections individually accurately and concisely represents the views of the communities of relevant subject matter experts, which is a valid WP:WEIGHT and WP:SIZE concern (see also discussion of my prior bold edit). In both cases, this article currently fails. --Meitar (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Meitar, I have read your replies. There is no need to direct me to them again. My point is that whether or not the majority of research on adolescent/teen sex is not positive is the main thing going on here. That's what I mainly see going on here, from past discussions to the current one -- concern that the information is leaning too much toward the wording "adolescent/teen sex is bad because of this or that." And it actually is relevant, as research on this matter leans mostly in one direction. There is a neutrality tag on this article because this article is leaning too much toward negative points of views, with some concern that the sources for such views are slightly misrepresented. Flyer22 (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Flyer, I think there is more solid and unbiased research on this matter than you think. It is an easy misconception to have, given the references used in this article and given mainstream American news coverage (far beyond poor) on the issue. So, respectfully, I disagree, and while your appraisal may be an accurate representation of other editors' concerns, I do not feel it accurately represents mine. That's all I'm trying to get at. :) --Meitar (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

More solid and unbiased information is one thing; equally positive information is another. There is no misconception on my part, and certainly not based off of anything I've read in this article. It is from years of researching sexual topics. You say mainstream, but mainstream implies popular, which still means the popular conclusion among researchers about adolescent/teen sex is that it is generally "not a good thing." American news is just reporting what American researcher after American researcher has stated. There needs to be more non-news sources in this article, though. And I am very open to more positive information on adolescent/teen sex, or just their sexuality in general, being in this article. I am simply saying that when it comes to adolescents/teenagers acting on their sexual desires, there is not likely going to be equally or close to equally positive reports on it. If you can prove this not to be true and have this article present half or close to half positive information on adolescent/teen sex, that would certainly take care of the non-neutral POV complaints. Flyer22 (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Iamcuriousblue, I also disagree that this article should be erased and built up from scratch. When there are POV concerns regarding an article here at Wikipedia, all of the information, if it includes plenty of sourced and reliable material, is not simply erased. Considering the length of/and number of people who have edited this article, doing such a thing would be seen as vandalism before it would be seen as helpful. We are supposed to trade out and remove content. Not remove all of it simply because we disagree with it. You say most of the information in this article is reflective of one editor, but that is not my experience. From my experience in researching sexuality topics, the information here is reflective of most researchers', and the general American society's, feelings on adolescent/teen sex. If it wasn't, there would be equally, or close to equally, positive information regarding adolescent/teen sex in this article...no matter one editor's supply of negative material. And I'm quite certain that one editor did not add all, and likely not most, of the negative material in this article about adolescent/teen sex. I simply do not see a POV problem here, given everything I stated above. In my opinion, the POV tag should now be removed. You and Meitar have made edits that balance out the article a little in your opinion, and I am not seeing what more you are aiming for...unless it's equal representation of positive statements regarding this topic. There is no way this article can be half, or even close to half, positive on adolescent/teen sex, unless most of the positive information is taken from writers found on Google Books who view adolescent/teen sex as either not such a bad thing or rather simply a good thing. Flyer22 (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this article still has enormous problems with bias, though I think that this is mainly found in particular sections. The entire "psychological effects" section is basically POV pushing, and I think as a subject is given undue weight overall. Furthermore, I cannot see any justification for an entire section titled "Girls", and find the whole slant of that section not only carries a pro-abstinence bias, but is outright pro-sexism. I see very little that can be salvaged between these two sections. As I said, this article should be mainly descriptive, with "political" issues around teen sexuality playing a decidedly secondary role, and presented in a balanced way. "He who can add the most referenced content supporting their point of view, wins" is not an acceptable way to put together an article, and that's the way its been edited so far. I believe the majority of the slant in this article represents the POV of User:Illuminato, who originally forked this article from Adolescent sexuality. This is now buried in archived Talk pages that are now buried (I will endeavor to dig them up), but this entire article has its origins as a POV fork after significant disagreement over this content in Adolescent sexuality. "Adolescent sexuality in the United States" was put together as an end-run around this editorial disagreement. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I see the current dispute between you two, and am not sure what else to state. I have mostly stated all I can state on this matter at the moment. There are ways to bring in the larger Wikipedia community on this, if you haven't already. And if you have, perhaps it needs to be done again. Thank you for explaining better, though it would be best to hear from both sides. Flyer22 (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Iamcuriousblue, thanks for reverting User:Illuminato's recent edits; they are emblematic of the problems we've been discussing. I'll support patrolling edits like those. --Meitar (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference style of References section

It needs to change. Having to click on or move down to the References section just to trade out a link or remove a reference is a big pain. No wonder this article has so many dead links. Flyer22 (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Correlation and causation, and bad "studies"

Many of the "studies" cited in this article are actually surveys. Since correlation does not imply causation, these sources are misleading. For example, saying that having sex is correlated with suicide doesn't imply that one causes the other. In reality, both may be caused by a bad environment. There are even more blatant examples of badly designed surveys. For example, saying that a certain percent of people regretted having sex as teenagers only implies that "the grass is greener" since it didn't list the percentage who regretted *not* having sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.171.7 (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I made some edits to the article to make it more NPOV. Some of them sound silly, but this only exposes the absurdity of the current article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.171.7 (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

major deletions

Two users have been reverting back to an earlier version, and I keep undoing it. There are several reasons. First, this is a massive amount of material to delete. If you think something should be deleted, altered, or changed, then by all means do it and justify your change. Not everything being deleted in these changes can possibly be said to add undue wieght though. Try smaller changes with better, directed, and targeted arguments.

Two, some of the changes being made add text that is original research. Three, the massive deletions create big formating errors with information being placed in the wrong sections. I restored the deleted text, but I'm not opposed to changes being made. Just make smart changes that make sense.

The deletions have been "justified," and are being thoroughly discussed above (see #POV, #Article length, #Correlation and causation, and bad "studies" and #Reliable sources and POV). These changes are better described as WP:BOLD edits, rather than "massive deletions," that are not appropriately "directed." As for WP:OR, please be specific about what what text suffers from that problem. I request the same with regards to formatting errors, especially as I've been extremely careful to avoid creating formatting errors, particularly in the references section. I even went so far as to call out that effort explicitly in an edit summary. --Meitar (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that some of these massive deletions can't be justified. All I'm saying is that it's a whole lot of text to removing at once. Try going in smaller chunks, and IDing the reasons along the way. Not only is it a better process, it will avoid the formatting errors IDed below. Also, the claim is made that "The number of teens who waited, but wish they had not, has not been studied," but there is no attribution and nothing to back it up. Finally, info about STDs gets placed in the social aspects section under your reversion. It clearly doesn't belong there.Illuminato (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Illuminato, your methodology forces one to prove a negative. It's precisely the tactic that resulted in such a skewed article in the first place, as the discussions you've archived make clear. If you think that some of these massive deletions can be justified, then why are you reverting the whole edit? Why don't you use your "better process" and go in smaller chunks, ID'ing your reasons along the way? Or you can WP:BEBOLD and make a substantive edit, as I have done. But please don't continue to throw stop energy and nothing else into this discussion. Thanks. As for the placement of the STD section, I think your very valid concern highlights precisely one of the reasons why this article is not very well-structured. Perhaps we could find a way to address WP:SIZE issues by looking at the article outline first and consolidating sections (especially those that use the same references) that have been simplistically or perhaps arbitrarily segregated. As for formatting errors, you have yet to remark on what actual formatting errors occurred, unless you're considering subsection placement a "formatting error." Please, I ask again, be specific. --Meitar (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I suggest you all take this to the wider community. It is not going to be resolved between the three of you, that much is clear. WP:Edit warring certainly is not the answer. Flyer22 (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I just read through this article, and had some POV concerns with it. However, looking at the talk page, it appears that being bold and removing some of the content has the potential to start an edit war, which I do not want to do. As it currently stands, I feel that this article reads like a POV fork of Adolescent sexuality, but it appears from its prior AFDs that there is no consensus for deleting it for that reason. I therefore think that Flyer22's suggestion of community input is a good one, and recommend opening a request for comment on this article, but it seems like a good idea first to know if the people who have been more involved in the controversy at this page agree.--Opus 113 (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, either RfC or one of the related WikiProjects...such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. Or both. WikiProject Sexology and sexuality doesn't seem too active, but that could simply be due to the lack of recent discussion. Enough editors are watching that project, so maybe... Flyer22 (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The information that is being deleted is sourced and has been included for months and years. The burden should thus be on those who want to remove it to explain why, not those who would keep it. I'm also not saying that any of the changes can be justified - just that I'm open to hearing a reasonable argument. The STD and Pregnancy subsections getting removed from the Physical Effects section and placed into Social Aspects was the formatting errors to which I was referring. You made it marginally better by making them their own sections, but I think they belong together in a physical effects section, if for no other reason than they are followed by two more clusters of effects. Illuminato (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. STDs and pregnancy are definitely aspects of the physical effects regarding sexual activity. Flyer22 (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The only reason this content has been in there for "months and years" was because you added the content and zealously guarded it against all challenges. And not, I might add, by making a clear argument, but by simple obstinacy on your part. I will be happy to take this issue through the dispute resolution process, though I will add that in my experience it is very difficult to get third parties involved in article disputes, or the ball rolling on mediation. But in the meantime, I am damn well not going to back down about the multiple and severe violations of WP:NPOV represented in this article and I am going to make every effort to reverse this trend. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• "I am damn well not going to back down"* Who, exactly, is being obstinate? --- That aside, I am reverting. My previous argument stands - the burden is on those who would remove the content, not those who would keep it. Illuminato (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If there's any *burden*, its on the one who is creating the issues with this article. Your ongoing stance that all content you add, no matter how biased, unbalanced, and tendentious, should stand as long as you can provide a citation, and that the burden is then on critics to have to provide a line-by-line justification for removal of each piece of the large amount of unbalanced content that has been front-loaded is patently ridiculous. Your additions to this article have created multiple and *severe* violations of WP:NPOV and multiple factual inaccuracies, and this demands rectification. I will also point out that this went to mediation several years ago, and you have failed to honor any point of that agreement. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You said, "If there's any *burden*, its on the one who is creating the issues with this article." I could not agree more. This article stood for months largely unchanged. I contend that those who would delete massive amounts of sourced, relevant information are the ones who are creating issues with it. Again, I'm not opposed to thoughtful additions, deletions, or alterations. I am opposed to taking huge chunks and deleting them with little or no explanation why. Illuminato (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Illuminato, it is only thinly-veiled petulance to decry a burden one eagerly levies on another. You can not have your cake and it eat, too. According to numerous other editors in addition to myself, your additions over the past two years have created the problems you now claim my recent bold edit created. It is therefore hard for me to take you seriously. Iamcuriousblue's evident frustration with you is rather easy to understand, now. I'd appreciate it greatly if you refrained from selective enforcement of these agreed methods only to benefit your own position while denying others the same opportunity. Thanks. --Meitar (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

As long as Illuminato's operating procedure is to add large quantities of "cited" unbalanced content (no matter how dodgy the source, or how creative the interpretation of the source material), and that its up to those disputing it to argue each and every deletion, then there will be an ongoing edit war.

I just want to add that there is nothing new or sudden about the controversy - it dates back to 2006, when biased material was added to Adolescence article. When this was challenged, Illuminato simply created the Adolescent sexuality article as an end run around it, and when the material was challenged further in that article, this article was created a few weeks later. This is basically one of the longest-running WP:POV fork and WP:OWNERSHIP cases I know of on Wikipedia. This issue is long overdue for definitive settlement, and I'm not going to let it go. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been away traveling for the past few weeks, and returned to discover much had been done. There have been several positive contributions made, and I am glad to see them. I also noticed that the massive deletions had been sustained, which troubled me. Even though I think it is backwards, I restored several of them indavidually. Thus in the edit summary you will be able to see (for most - some are obvious and others my fingers got ahead of my brain) the reasons why I think the information should be included. I was trying to remain sensitive to wp:wieght and thus didn't restore everything. Now, if anyone would care to, we can discuss each point without massively altering the article and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. --Illuminato (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Illuminato, welcome back. Since editors have gone so far as to call for this article to be "burned to a stub," massively altering the article seems a possible point. The more editors who look at this article, the more strongly a consensus seems to be emerging that this baby (WP:NPOV) is very much already quite drowned in this article, largely thanks to your aggressive work. I reverted your most recent series of edits for exactly the same reason I objected to them earlier. Once again, you've been adding contentious oxytocin material, 1-sided POV pushing (also here), study-stuffing (and here), all interspersed with minor edits that appear to be useful more as a tactic for your obstructionism than useful contribution. Simultaneously, you're removing attempts at introducing equal weight by calling them "unattributed," which (considering some of your sources) is an obvious strawman argument; it is WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS, not mere attribution that Wikipedia is built on. Moreover, you seem to be re-litigating (and here) the issues discussed in #Age ranges considered "adolescent" apparently disputed with another strawman: "not about college students." (Article is about "adolescents.") As for the information sourced as coming from Dr. Leonard Sax, there seems to be a dispute (see also [3]) about that information's veracity under WP:MEDRS. I propose a new discussion thread to debate that topic. --Meitar (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The edits may have been made individually, but it amounts to every single point of disputed content being added back in. Including the demonstrably pseudo-scientific claims about oxytocin where I thought there was some consensus for not including per WP:FRINGE. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken, Iam. I went through the article and the recent changes critically, and I did not add "every single point" of content that was once in there back in. If you are going to make sweeping claims, please be sure you have your facts straight.

Thanks for the welcome back, Meitar, but you'll forgive me if it seems as if you are moving the goal posts on me. I objected to the massive deletion of large amounts of text from this article and suggested that they be done individually if people had a problem with any of them. You turned that around on me and said "If you think that some of these massive deletions can be justified, then why are you reverting the whole edit? Why don't you use your "better process" and go in smaller chunks, ID'ing your reasons along the way? Or you can WP:BEBOLD and make a substantive edit, as I have done." Then, I go and made a carefully considered series of edits, explaining my reasons along the way, and what do you do? You undue it all in one fell swoop. Which is it? I am going to revert back to my most recent version. If you would like to discuss the changes individually, I am most open to that. --Illuminato (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see why you'd want to interpret it that way coming from your perspective. In actuality, though, "moving the goalposts" would be if I suddenly had different objections to your edits. The fact that your edits constitute the same problems to which I objected in my original attempt to instigate a WP:BRD process, and the further fact that I called this out explicitly, makes clear (to a neutrally-minded editor, at least) that the issues are very much the same (i.e., nothing on the field has changed), despite your attempt to reinstate the same slanted material under the guise of a process I suggested. You definitely made a nice try at steering this discussion away from content and towards process, though, which I applaud for shrewdness but find highly suspect. :) Furthermore, it seems at least one other editor noticed this, too, for which I'm glad. --Meitar (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC

This page has long been tagged as having its neutrality disputed. Lengthy discussions at this talk page seem to have done little to achieve consensus on how to make the article conform to a neutral point of view. The dispute appears to center on the question of whether the harmful effects of adolescent sexual behavior are being overstated, misrepresented, or otherwise being given undue weight in the article. Several users have asserted that they are, and another user other users has have disagreed with them, with at least one of them saying that the burden is on the editor removing content to demonstrate why it should be removed, and that that burden has not been met. Since this dispute has mostly only involved a small number of users, it seems to me that community comment would be helpful in reaching consensus on this matter. (I have discussed my opinion on this issue in one comment earlier in this section; other than that I have not edited the article or been involved in the dispute.)--Opus 113 (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Just want to state that the one editor is not the only one to disagree with some of the POV/undue weight claims. Flyer22 (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct; I didn't mean to say that he was, but he has been the most vocal in saying so, and has said the thing I went on to mention. I have revised my comment to make that clear.--Opus 113 (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I've disagreed with the heavy weight of the article POV in one direction, and the lack of balance for some time. The view point that adolescent sexuality is bad or negative s being pushed here. The fact that sexuality is healthy and normal at all ages, including during adolescence, is pushed aside here. No citations are given to show how sexual expression by adolescents can help them to be a better and more compassionate partner later in their life. There are a great many potential negative consequences, as the article lists, but those exists for anyone of any age that engages in sexual behavior with others. In my view, the article should fairly balance the good and bad possibilities, and the reader can determine for themselves what behavior is appropriate. From reading this article as it is, you would think that adolescent sexuality is bad, and that no teenager should ever engage in sexual behavior. Considering that every single one of us engaged in sexual behavior as an adolescent, that would seem a rather silly thing. Atom (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

As I stated above: "From my experience in researching sexuality topics, the information here is reflective of most researchers', and the general American society's, feelings on adolescent/teen sex. If it wasn't, there would be equally, or close to equally, positive information regarding adolescent/teen sex in this article...no matter one editor's supply of negative material." Basically, I'm not seeing how this article can be just as positive as it is negative on adolescent/teenage sex, given that most of the research/views out there on adolescent/teenage sex is negative. And if we say, "Well, that's just American research/views," it needs to be pointed out that this article is about adolescent sexuality in America. On the positive citation note, however, the lead does state, All adolescents have sex lives, whether they are sexually active with others, with themselves, or seemingly not at all," and viewing adolescent sexuality as a potentially positive experience, rather than as something inherently dangerous, may help young people develop healthier patterns and make more positive choices regarding sex. And, yes, we perhaps need more of that in this article, but I'm not seeing how there will be enough for it to match the negative information...unless we are using opinions from writers voicing their positive opinions of the matter. Also, it's pretty presumptuous to say we all engaged in sex as adolescents. And even if we did, it doesn't mean it was for the best. Flyer22 (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Flyer, I couldn't disagree with you more that there is some overwhelming research consensus that the effects of adolescent sexuality are wholly negative, and this article just reflects that. And there is plenty in this article that should raise obvious alarm bells, such as an entire section on "Girls", that's basically a rehash of some very dated notions about female sexuality. I'll be generous and say that's a valid point of view, but a POV nonetheless, and needs to be presented as such. And, I might add, a socio-political POV, not one based on any kind of "research consensus". Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I guess my call for an article that is descriptive rather than proscriptive is falling on deaf ears. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I care not if you disagree with me on this, but you cannot disagree with fact. Most research on adolescent/teenage sex is not positive. That is a fact. Especially regarding American research and society. If it were not fact, it would have been quite easy to have equally or close to equally positive information on adolescent/teenage sex in this article. One editor could not have stopped such positive information for all these years. Consensus or not among most researchers, the majority of research that continues to come out on adolescent/teenage sex is not positive. What positive information are you expecting in contrast to all the negative information? You and the others who are actively edit warring are running on personal feelings regarding adolescent/teenage sex, I feel. I am not. I am simply stating what I know about the research. You can continue to call me wrong, but that will not help this article get sourced with equally positive information. If such positive information is out there, then you could have started adding it by now instead of continuing to edit war.

Nothing is falling on deaf ears with me, but I am not the one actively concerned with/editing this article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22 has for some time insisted that there is "no positive research" on teen sexuality. Assuming good faith, I must find that this betrays more about Flyer's ignorance on the subject than anything else, which is precisely why I support Iamcuriousblue's addition of an expert-verify flag. One need not look far for missing information in this article that depicts youth sexuality in a positive light, although it is true that a good deal of this research is not accurately depicted in most media coverage, which may be where Flyer22's skewed perspective is coming from. For example, the book Harmful to Minors provides a good argument for a good deal of research about youth sexuality that may be what Flyer22 would call "positive" (or at least refuting his assertion that the research is "negative") and it's written in such a way laymen can more easily read. Another source that I'm hoping to add to this article after trimming it down to WP:SIZE is the recent National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior, which has a lot of information about adolescent sexuality. Perhaps the most striking "positive" finding from that research is that adolescents, contrary to many of the implications in this article, actually use condoms dramatically more than adults and practice many other safer sex techniques in such a way as to indicate they are actually far more responsible in their sexual behaviors than older generations. Perhaps this is the kind of research Flyer22 is unfamiliar with, and it is similar to the sort of research I've been seeing POV-pushing editors remove time and again. That is why I believe this article is essentially in need of a massive rewrite, and my bold edit, as Opus 113 correctly observed, was intended to start this process. To date, I've been frustrated to notice Illuminato and Flyer22 throwing little else other than stop energy into this discussion. --Meitar (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Meitar, point out where I stated there is "no positive research" on adolescent/teen sexuality? You have time and time again put words into my mouth. I said the majority (read MAJORITY) of research on adolescent/teen sex (not sexuality) is not positive. And you have yet to prove me wrong. You call it "my ignorance" when that is not true and has nothing to do with the matter. I suppose soon you'll be calling me a WP:SOCK of Illuminato. I have no skewed perspective. And it certainly is not based on media coverage. My statements that the majority of research on adolescent/teenage sex is not positive is due to the very real fact that it is not. Again, I state that if there was just as much positive information on it, then this article would have been filled with it by now. But it is not! You and Iamcuriousblue want to prove others wrong, then start filling the article with such information. WP:SIZE is not an excuse. There are good and featured articles bigger than this. Any negative information removed could have been replaced with positive information, if so much is out there. You, or others if you weren't here at that time, could have started adding this "much positive information" years ago. You really had to bring up the controversial Harmful to Minors book, which has been rejected by plenty of researchers? That is an example you provide me with? I am more than familiar with that book, since I deal with pedophilia issues on Wikipedia and plenty of pedophiles have tried to use that book to support their arguments, even though it is about teenagers and not prepubescent children. And that nationalsexstudy you cited is just one study; there are various studies contrasting that one, saying that teenagers are more irresponsible on that front. But if you can find enough studies like that to add to this article to balance out the negative, then fine! I am not your damn enemy on this subject, no matter how much you paint me as one. I simply stated the obvious, even if it reflects Illuminato's stance -- most of the American research/American views on adolescent/teenage sex is not positive. The general American society feels this way. And there are far more reliable sources saying adolescents/teenagers should not have sex and this is why than there are saying that they should and this is why. You act as though I am telling some bold-face lie, when this is quite known to anyone who has studied all aspects of human sexuality (as I have). Hell, it is quite known to anyone living in America. With some topics on Wikipedia, there are simply more negative things to say on the matter than positive. This is one of those topics, no matter how much you and Iamcuriousblue complain about negative POV this and negative POV that. The only "stop energy" I have seen at this article has been between you, Iamcuriousblue and Illuminato constantly reverting each other as though that will get anything done, ignoring my suggestions to take this to the wider community (which would actually move the discussion forward). It took Opus 113 agreeing with me and opening this RfC. So "stop energy" on my part? Please! Oh, and I am female, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Flyer22, first, apologies on my misstating your gender. Thanks for correcting me on that; now I know, and I was wrong to assume. Second, I think I see the distinction you're trying to draw between the "majority" of research available on this topic. You have been careful to include qualifiers. I simply found many of them inaccurate. An example? Here's one, one of the very first you stated: "not much research out there saying that teen sex is a good thing". My point throughout all this is simply to say there there is actually "much" research about that very subject, with at least a neutral perspective (paraphrased, "teen sex is a fine thing, neither 'good' or 'bad' necessarily") and even sources who do suggest it is a "good" thing. Thus, especially in the context of the overwhelming WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT problems with this article, I felt it important to challenge your qualifiers. Also, speaking of WP:WEIGHT-like issues, I find it both insulting and telling that you would, in the same comment, predict I would accuse you of being a WP:SOCK while insinuating that either sources I cite or I myself promote pedophilia. Those are two rather unbalanced statements. I feel such an approach betrays more about your POV than anything else you've said so far, which may be why I find it so difficult to discuss this rationally with you. And for the record, Harmful to Minors may be "controversial," but it is also highly-recommended by numerous sexology experts, including Dr. Charlie Glickman and including Dr. Marty Klein, to name just two very prominent figures. Please refrain from even remotely insinuating that I engage in criminal activity in the future. I'm sure you can understand why I can't take such remarks lightly. Thanks. --Meitar (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Meitar, you continue to misunderstand my comments. I accept your apology about my sex. However, about one of my earlier comments you just cited, I stand by it, because I still have not seen much research out there saying that teen sex is a good thing. Research being neutral or suggesting that it is neither 'good' nor 'bad' necessarily is not the same thing as saying there is much information calling adolescent/teenage sex a good thing. And, again, we are talking about American research and society. As for accusing me of being a WP:SOCK, it seemed to me that you were leaning in that direction by the way you were grouping me with Illuminato, especially since you and Iamcuriousblue act as though Illuminato and I view adolescent/teenage sexuality the same way or that Illuminato is the only one who feels that most American research/views on adolescent/teenage sexuality is negative. Look below to what WhatamIdoing stated. I have only stated the obvious, but you keep attributing it to my having a POV or not being educated enough (which I find hilarious). You now act as though I have the same POV on adolescent/teenage sexuality as you and others claim Illuminato to have. I don't. My stating that most American research on this topic is negative has nothing to do with my personal feelings on the matter. I have stated my personal feelings on the matter higher, and I clearly stated, "I don't have much opinion on whether teen sex is good mentally, except for when the teens are too young or become pregnant. I don't have much problem with late teens (16 to 19-year-olds) having sex, as long as they are taking the necessary precautions/preparations that go along with it. I'm also sure I would object to my own 16 or 17-year-old having sex, if I had one, especially if a girl (due to what I feel are the greater problems girls face). That wouldn't stop me from providing them with safe sex information if they needed it." As for Harmful to Minors, all I said is that it is a controversial book, one that has been rejected by plenty of researchers, and that I am familiar with it due to my work with pedophilia topics. Yet you took that to mean I was even remotely insinuating that you engage in criminal activity? I was not calling you a pedophile! I was saying why I am familiar with that book. Jeez. It seems like you don't read replies carefully, which may be why I find it so difficult to discuss this rationally with you. I do apologize for you taking my words to mean I was accusing you of criminal activity, however. Flyer22 (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

At this point, Flyer22, our conversation feels like a rathole. I'll note I appreciate your clarification of your comments and (at some point soon after some much-needed sleep), will catch up on the other concurrent discussions here. I hope we can call this some kind of resolution between whatever personal conflict you or I feel existed during this thread. --Meitar (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm up for a truce. I may disagree that there is enough positive information out there on adolescent/teenage sex to match or come close to matching the negative information on it, but that doesn't mean I'm against any and all adolescent/teenage sexual activity or that I don't feel that this article needs further fixing up. Clearly, enough people feel that there are POV issues here. Because of these recent comments on the matter, I am seeing unbalanced problems which need not be problems too. Flyer22 (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Meitar, I take exception to your comment that I am doing nothing but throwing stop energy into this process. I recently made as many contributions as my limited time allows, contributions that I thought would be acceptable to all as they were not even remotely controversial, contributions you recognized as being in "good faith," and then you reverted them anyway. In addition, I must also protest my being framed as the editor who is preventing progress from being made. Above Iamcuriousblue made the statement that "this went to mediation several years ago, and you have failed to honor any point of that agreement." If you review the record, however, you will find that is not the case. In fact, after mediation changes were made. After a period of time in which there was no activity, I asked if everyone was satisfied and if we could remove the NPOV tag. Iam objected, but made no further efforts. Weeks went by, and even though Iam promised to "make a point of going over the article... soon," he never did. That was back in 2007. It's true I have added much to this article, but I am far from the only one. I've always been open to anyone who wants to make a positive contribution, but I don't see the indiscriminate deletion of large amounts of information as improving the article, and am thus reverting again. --Illuminato (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Illuminato, aside from an interwiki link, your only contributions to this article since I've been editing it have been reverts or restorations of text deleted due to WP:NPOV concerns. To call these "not even remotely controversial" is, to put it mildly, bemusing. Noting your aggressive defense of such text (see also, the prior sentence about your reverts), I find the fact that you're citing the history of an article that is highly problematic as evidence of your "progress" on it similarly bemusing. Such a historical record does not highlight your willingness to seek consensus, it showcases my observation about the tenacity of your POV-pushing edits (as well as Iamcuriousblue's exhaustion in dealing with that). Wearing down others (and from the historical record you cite, it seems Iamcuriousblue was just one of several editors who objected to the point of view of your contributions) until they throw their hands up in the air, exasperated, is hardly constructive, but it does appear to be your pattern here. --Meitar (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Well, I haven't had the chance to review the article in detail. It is long. However, I saw [this edit] and that did set me to wondering: is it really necessary to delete swaths of material reference to the [[American Academy of Pediatrics? They would seem to be a pretty good source for this sort of thing. And OK, we don't want to go ad-hominum here, but is User:Atomaton really a good choice to be making these decisions? Based on his userpage, he's an enthusiastic participant in some pretty interesting behavior. Fine, no problem. Based on his editing history on other articles, though, I infer that he's also an enthusiastic advocate of the idea that young people should be encouraged to follow this path and that the Wikipedia is an excellent place to provide this encouragement. I don't think that User:Atomaton is really able to keep a clear head on this matter, and I think he shouldn't be editing articles like this. So I would tend to take his editing with a large grain of salt. Herostratus (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • So people with a strong social conservative or "abstinence education" agenda are perfectly OK as editors for this article, but somebody like Atom isn't? So basically, you're throwing WP:AGF out the window, along with WP:NPOV by implication, since editors who strongly hold one point of view are OK to edit, but those who hold an equally strong opposing point of view are not. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Replying to this comment by Herostratus: It's quite possible that the American Academy of Pediatrics has good information. My objection to its inclusion in this article, as stated multiple times now, is not as much about them as a source as the fact that the editor who added citations from them and many other sources to this article misrepresented the source's views, contributing to WP:WEIGHT concerns. Feel free to add certain references back in with a more accurate representation of the sourced views so we can actually advance a WP:BRD process. --Meitar (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is an old argument for sure. @Herostratus, when you see that I add edits to this article that are not cited or are not within the bounds of Wikipedia policy, please feel free to point them out. You stated: "I infer that he's also an enthusiastic advocate of the idea that young people should be encouraged to follow this path". I wonder if you could cite where you gather that inference from? I don't think I have stated it elsewhere, but I do advocate people being able to pursue their rights and liberty in a free society. Adolescents have those rights too. What I have stated before, and do advocate, is that all people are better prepared when they have more accurate information and education regarding sexuality and sexology. People who choose of their own accord to be more sexually adventurous are better knowing more about sexual risks and safety than knowing less. I am polyamorous, which is a minority practice in the United States. Although I try to make sure people have accurate information about that lifestyle, you will not be able to say that I suggest that everyone should be polyamorous, or that most people should be polyamorous, or even that more people should be polyamorous. Being polyamorous successfully requires an incredible amount of time, energy, emotional maturity and communication skills. Most people do not have the capability to succeed at that, which is why I do not advocate that others should follow my path. Getting back to the topic at hand -- Regarding Adolescent Sexuality, the more information that adolescents who choose of their own accord to participate in sexual activy have about sexuality, the safer and better prepared they can be. Nowhere have I advocated that sexual activity should be pursued by anyone of any age. As the article accurately points out, there are a number of risks faced by people who choose to be sexually active. What the article does not accurately point out, is that people who learn about and practice sexuality, relationships skills and communication before choosing to be sexually active are better prepared for success with their future relationships, and in avoiding the pitfalls that all sexually active people face. This article needs to be balanced in its POV. It needs to offer useful, constructive and accurate information to those that read it, regardless of their age. The basic facts are that a majority of (most if not all) adolescents are sexually active to one degree or another. It is not illegal or immoral or unethical. In fact it is perfectly normal and part of being human. Adolescents, of their own accord, seek out to learn more about the things that interest them in this area. If they can't or don't get information from their parents, they will find other sources (or sometimes engage in activities without information). Finding out accurate information from Wikipedia is better than learning from their other adolescent friends. Atom (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Another point that Herostartus failed on was the "but is User:Atomaton really a good choice to be making these decisions? Based on his ... I don't think that User:Atomaton is really able to keep a clear head on this matter, and I think he shouldn't be editing articles like this." You will recall that there was an RfC posted. As yet another editor, I responded to it and offered my editorial opinion. Being the subject of a not ad hominem attack should not be the outcome when an editor contributes when asked. AGF indeed. Atom (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

First, I should note that it was Meitar who made the edit that Herostratus linked to, not Atom. Second, I think there is some merit in the statement that some of those references should have remained there, but the edit appears, from its edit summary, to have been an attempt at starting a WP:BRD. The problem with how that has worked on this article so far, as near as I can tell, is that the article development has become a loop rather than a dialectic. (That is why I thought it was more useful to request comment than to attempt to revise the article myself.) Third, I'm not sure that there's a problem with Atom editing the article or trying to be involved in this discussion. He has a POV, but so does everyone. The fact that he is open about it makes it easier to evaluate whether his editing is neutral or not. Regarding the article itself, I think one of the goals of this should be to determine how and why the general tone of this article differs from Adolescent sexuality. I also think it would be helpful if people would come up with specific changes they would recommend making to the article, so that those can be discussed individually. --Opus 113 (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding the Academy of Pediatrics comment. The article as a whole needs to be balanced in its POV. Adding another good source to a long list of sources does not necessarily make the article better at being balanced. It may be a good source that empasizes a point already made well, then giving undue weight to that point. We aren't trying to debate, or sell one position as correct, or better. We want to accurately document all of the Points of View that exist on the particular topic, giving those views appropriate weight, and let the reader, given their situaiton background and experience, use the information as they choose. Atom (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • My point exactly. With the additional point that I think the article should mainly describe physical and social aspects of adolescent sexuality, with the political issues around adolescent sexuality being secondary. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • No matter the design of the article, there is still the fact of negative information vs. positive information. Unless there is just as much positive information out there on adolescent/teen sex, most of this article will have negative information. Flyer22 (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure framing it as "positive" information vs "negative" is really a helpful way to look at it. There are sources, data, and information out there. It should be compiled according to Wikipedia standards to produce the most complete and accurate article possible. Whether that means it includes information that encourages or discourages sexual activity among adolescents is irrelevant. --Illuminato (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I was speaking in simple terms, because negative vs. positive information has been the main issue at this article for the longest now (from what I have read). It leaning more one way than the other is what attracts calls of POV. Even when there are some Wikipedia articles that are simply going to have more negative/discouraging information than positive/encouraging information, due to the topic, the information that is available or easily available. I would give examples, but since the examples I have are mostly things like rape, serial killers, etc., it wouldn't be for the best. I surely do not compare adolescent/teen sex to those things. Flyer22 (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've taken this matter to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. This revert war stuff is not going to solve anything, and has become ridiculous. If administrators were watching, all three of you would have been temporarily blocked by now. Flyer22 (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

 Administrator note I have come to this article after seeing the notice placed on WT:MED. I have told Iamcuriousblue and Meitar that their edit warring is unacceptable. Furthermore, I have blocked Illuminato for 48 hours for his or her excessive edit warring over the past few weeks. NW (Talk) 23:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I am probably the least promiscuous person I know, but this article is written from a sexually repressed world view that I would not have thought possible. Absolutely amazing. This is going to need a lot of clean-up work. Hans Adler 23:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Well, any help you can provide that will move things forward in a productive manner would be much appreciated. Maybe the question is not whether there is just as much positive information on adolescent/teenage sex, but rather whether so much of the negative information needs to be in this article. This has been brought up before, that some of this stuff is given too much weight. Flyer22 (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Hans, the American approach to sexuality among teenagers is rather different from the Austrian approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was about to state (what I meant to state in my previous comment to Hans) -- that people do call America one of the most sexually-repressed countries there is; some consider it "the most sexually-repressed." Flyer22 (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that America is fairly sexually conservative on the surface. Things are changing though. I certainly agree that this article needs cleanup. As for "most" sexually repressed, that would not make sense. Certainly the viewpoint held in most Islamic influenced countries is more conservative? Even in India, known for the Kama Sutra, is much more conservative than the U.S. (from years of being dominated by Britain.) Atom (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see how it's the most sexually-repressed compared to those other countries. I was even thinking that as I typed it. I wouldn't simply attribute the American sexually-repressed issue to conservatism, however. Plenty of liberals feel the same way. Flyer22 (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The cultural view regarding sexuality in the U.S. is complex, you are right. Involving victorianism moving to the America, Christian Fundamentalism, openness of the 60's, HIV/AIDS and the media. I admit my dislike for conservative politics, however my use of the term in mt statement wasn't regarding political conservativism. The two sources (of many) I meantioned above -- Islam, is religious fundamentalism and British Imperialism (Victorianism) are both conservative in nature, but nothing to do with U.S. conservative versus liberal politics. Although the frequent bickering on this article does seem to be more about U.S. conservative versus liberal politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomaton (talk • contribs) 15:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Please be more careful with your talk page edits. [4] I don't like it when I return to a talk page only to discover that I have apparently written a paragraph that I was not aware of! Hans Adler 17:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between forbidding something because you can, you can get away with it, and you think it's in your interest, or because the exterior circumstances require it – and cherry-picking research in order to create the impression that it is harmful. Amputation of an arm in a medical emergency is just sad. Amputation of an arm as a punishment is sick. Amputation of an arm as part of a body modification lifestyle is creepy. This article is creepy in much the same way. Hans Adler 08:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether the topic is harmful or not harmful. We all need to step back and see the broader picture. Adolescents do have sexual desire and most if not all pursue that (to some degree -- not necessarily as far as intercourse.) There are perspectives (POV's) on the many aspects of that topic from what the positive and harmful effects are to who it affects our culture, etc. There is no doubt that there are prospective negative effects of sexual interaction, just like there are prospective negative effects of playing football. The article should not give the view that adolescents should have sex, or should not have sex. It should accurately document the topic in a balanced manner. Where there are multiple views on a sub-topic, it is not a matter of choosing which one is right and prohibiting other views, it is a matter of accurately documenting the views, making sure they are cited with reliable sources, and making sure that none of them have undue weight. Temporary and long term sexual interaction between one or more people has been one of the primary aspects of human nature since the beginning of humanity. In the past 50-100 years it has been fashionable to treat younger humans as different than older humans. Prior to that (for tens of thousands of years), humans of all ages, often as young as 9 or 10 were bonded (hand fasted, married, whatever -- recently) and before that, mating and having children. In the middle ages it was quite common for 12 year olds to be married. I am not advocating that, I think a person waiting until they are emotionally mature before forming a long term relationship makes more sense (often the late 20's). But, trying to rewrite history to suggest that adolescents are not sexual, and should not be sexual, and should be prevented from learning about sexuality until they figure it out on their own does not make sense to me. I think more pragmatic would be a culture where adolescents learn about sexuality in the same way that they learn about everything else -- by seeing role models and healthy examples of the kind of behaviour that they will some day emulate for themselves. Atom (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

From past discussions, including this one, it seems that has been the main issue -- that the article leans too much toward the view that adolescent/teenage sex is harmful. I understand what you're saying, though, and I sometimes think of how 12-year-old girls used to be married off, once they had hit puberty, often to much older men. In my personal opinion, which has nothing to do with how I perceive this article, that wasn't a good thing...because I don't feel that those 12-year-olds were ready. What kind of sex education did they have back then? My impression is that it wasn't talked about much (if at all), and not as openly as it is talked about now. With today's society, most don't say adolescents/teenagers should not learn about sexuality until they figure it out on their own. There is sex education, after all. I think a lot of societies, not just American society, are protective of the young when it comes to sex because the young are still developing, cognitively and all that, especially if under 16. Let us not forget that some definitions of adolescence include 10-year-olds, as some 10-year-olds, especially girls, hit puberty at that age and adolescence is often tied into puberty because of the changes one goes through during it. I cannot imagine too many American or British, etc. researchers saying that 10-year-olds should have sex (and I'm not counting stuff like masturbation). With 10 to 15-year-olds, not only is there the cognitive development issue (though there is research out there saying that the cognitive area of the human brain is not complete in development until ages 24 or 25), there is also the worry of adolescent/teenage pregnancy. That seems to be one of the biggest concerns regarding adolescent/teenage sex (if not the biggest), right beside sexually transmitted diseases. Would 10 to 12-year-olds realistically use a condom? Where would they get one? If pregnancy occurs, how would they take care of the child? Would they seek an abortion? How would they get one? What effects would that have on someone so young? At least 16-year-olds (and up) can get a job and do not have to be entirely dependent upon their parents/other family members. This is what I mean about most research/views on adolescent/teenage sex being negative -- the negative possibilities/outcomes outweigh the positive possibilities/outcomes. Adolescents/teenagers face some of the same problems that older adults do regarding sex, but not all. Most sources do in fact say, "Adolescents/teenagers should not have sex because of this or that" than they say "Adolescents/teenagers should have sex because of this or that" or that "I'm neutral to it." So the question is...how do we go about tackling that in this article and making the research/views seem more neutral? Flyer22 (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

One of my questions is whether this article is intended to be primarily about "teenagers engaging in sexual activities with other people" (=sexual activity among teens) or about "teenagers being sexual creatures (regardless of what they are acting on that state of being)" (=teen sexuality). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point, WhatamIdoing. Which is why I have been careful to state adolescent/teenage sex (not sexuality) when speaking of what direction most of the research leans in. Right now, this article is more about the sexual activities than sexuality itself. If it is going to continue to be that way, it should be tilted Adolescent sexual activity in the United States. Otherwise, it needs to somehow become more balanced on both aspects. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone else want to express a preference about the ideal scope of this article? There's no wrong answer to this question, but it would be helpful to figure out whether we're writing about the narrow topic of "US teens having sex" or a broader topic that includes this as one (major) component. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. For various reasons this may be simply a subject that the Wikipedia is not equipped to handle at much level of detail. While Wikipedia is not paper and so handles many subjects at high levels of detail - List of villains in The Land Before Time, for instance - we are a general encyclopedia and aren't able to well handle some subjects in depth, especially some contentious subjects. What I would suggest is:

• The article should be retitled Adolescent sexual activity in the United States. (It's hard enough to figure out what people actually do without getting into motivations and politics and forth.)
• The article should be short.
• Only AAA-level references should be used. (By AAA-level I mean reputable peer-reviewed scholarly journals, highly respected journalistic entities with reputations for vigorous fact checking - and nothing else, or very little else.)'
• The article should stick basically to detailing established facts.
• The article should be as even-handed and neutral as possible.

A possible course of action would be to burn the article down to a stub and rebuild it from scratch using only AAA-level refs. I had to do this years ago with Child sexuality and it worked fine. Not saying that this is necessary, but something to consider. Herostratus (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with some of these things. The things I differ on are: 1) The article should follow Wikipedia policies on citations and reliable sources. The suggestion that the citations all be "AAA" is well meaning, but then limits alternate viewpoints. Our goal is not to produce one view, or the most researched or most common viewpoint, but to express all viewpoints that meet the criteria of having reliable sources. Those viewpoints in balance with proper weight. 2) It is possible to go into more detail in Wikipedia. The method is to break the topic into many articles that follow a hierarchy and work together. The top level article has more high level and less detail, and then refers to other articles that have progressively more detail on sub-topics. Also, I feel that the series of articles should, indeed, be about adolescent sexuality. One of the articles in that hierarchy could be adolescent sexual behavior in the U.S. Each of those articles should not be short but should meet the Wikipedia standards on length properly. If properly cited, the articles can give citations to very detailed sources outside of Wikipedia for those who need that level of detail. Atom (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

On your second point: Adolescent sexuality already exists, so we already have the basis for the series you describe. The question here, though, is what the subject of this page should be: the broader picture of teens in the US being sexual creatures, or the narrower picture of teens having sex in the US? Do you have a preference on that specific question? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

On Herostratus's suggestions, how short are we talking? Small sections for each aspect, like the Child sexuality article? Below a certain number of kilobytes? And how would we make sure the article stays a certain size, given that it will always be open to contributions?

On Atomaton's suggestions, yeah, I wouldn't say this topic should be split off into various subarticles, especially since it can all be handled in one article if we are addressing more than just the sexual activities. And as WhatamIdoing stated above, we do have the main article. Flyer22 (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Adolescent sexuality is the main article in the series, and as top level should have more high level and less detail. This article, apparently is a second level article in that series. As there is too much detail here and it is too long, other sub articles should be generated from this. If we were only addressing sexual activities of adolescents in the U.S. in this article, then it might fit into one article. As the topic is adolescent sexuality in the U.S., it is broader. Right now, it covers, Sexual behavior, Motivations, Social, Psychological legal issues, STI's, and correlation with risky behavior. If Sexual Behavior is the topic of pone article (or sexual activity) then where are the other things covered? Not the main article, so, sub articles, or not at all? Atom (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not really that long. WP:SIZE is about more than just kilobytes. If it's relevant enough to stay, WP:SIZE is not exactly against it. And some of the stuff in this article can be cut down anyway. I'm just not seeing subarticles, especially if several, as being a good idea; the same type of issues would likely arise with those articles as well. One or two articles covering American sexuality/activity is enough to deal with. And why should the American issues get more articles on these same issues than other countries? That's how I feel on those points. Flyer22 (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The only reason sub articles were brought up is because some person suggested that the article was too long, and that information should be cut to remedy that. Atom (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I also agree; as Flyer22 notes, creating sub-articles from this article seems like fodder for more POV forks rather than substantive contributions. While I would support burning this article down to a stub to purge its incredibly propagandistic perspective, I don't think doing so with the intent to repopulate other articles with the content herein (at least, not without thorough review) will be helpful. --Meitar (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(←) Atom identifies the information currently on the page as:

• Sexual behavior
• Motivations
• Social issues
• Psychological issues
• Legal issues
• STI's
• Correlation with risky behavior

My question is whether these topics should be addressed as (for example):

• Social issues related to teens being sexual creatures or Social issues related to teens having sex?
• Psychological issues related to teens being sexual creatures or Psychological issues related to teens having sex?

Most of the topics are obviously and directly related to sexual activity, since, e.g., being a sexual creature does not expose anyone to any STIs, but having sex does. So, again: Do you want this page to deliberately focus on teens having sex, or do you want to deliberately broaden it so that "US teens having sex" is not the main focus? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a good point. I would be inclined to have it address the broader issue, but the important thing is that its scope be clarified.--Opus 113 (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Atom - thanks for bringing up the topicality issue. There is a whole lot here that in terms of subject matter belongs under Adolescent sexuality rather than in this article. This article should actually be a small subset of what's in the other article, focusing on facts and issues particular to adolescent sexuality in the United States. In fact, this article is several times longer than the parent article, and covers a lot of general topics.

This has to do with the fact that this article began as a POV fork, and while much has been added since then, the problems that have been at the core of this article from the beginning remain. The core content of this article actually was included in the Adolescent sexuality article in January 2007, but repeated edit warring by User:Illuminato finally led him to simply take the content and deposit it here as an end-run around dealing with other editors about the appropriateness of the material he was adding. Note that this article was the subject of an Article for Deletion debate on one occasion, and was saved by lack of consensus. There was some agreement that an article on "Adolescent sexuality in the United States" could potentially be an appropriate article topic, but significant disagreement as to whether this article covers the topic it claims to cover. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

A +1 from me for broadening the topic. I don't think there's something wrong with including information about sexual behavior, but sexuality is by definition broader than what one puts where and the various speculative conclusions about the chain of cause and effect events that results from such activity, so to speak. --Meitar (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the wp:size of this article certainly calls for it to be trimmed into sub articles. I think everything covered under the scope of this article is appropriate, but sections can and should be summarized and placed in their own articles. --Illuminato (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Propaganda 101

My opinion was solcited, so yeah I agree with Hans Adler, this article is propaganda 101. Obvious examples: Gail Dines [5] or the Heritage Foundation cited for un-attributed or mis-attributed statements of fact, etc. Sorry, I don't have time to work it. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in, Tijfo098, even if you cannot help out with the editing right now. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)