Talk:Adolescent sexuality/Archive 3

A totally radical new idea to almost COMPLETELY settle almost ALL conflicts
SUMMARY: This article IS about adolescence, and YES I know that saying it should just be a detailed reference for info on adolescent sexuality, orientation, and contraception.

It would EASILY get rid of the problems presented by respresenting Major points of view in the article.

Instead, they could branch off to a seperatere subarticle WHICH was ALL ABOUT individual opninions worldwide.

Plus I think that it would cut down on article length over time as more countries were added.

This could also be applied to other articles of particular debate, however without opinions in the main articles themselves, but easily accessible with plentiful links to the articles CONTAINING THOSE.

It would probably ease off the load of edit warring and disputes that plague wikipedia to this day?

Think it's a good idea?

Nateland 03:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * i think its a bad idea. u cant have POV forks.  also, can you write in paragraphs and read over what you write before you click "save page' please?  i cant understand a thing u say.

There are at least 200 countries. I don't think each one deserves its own separate article about adolescent sexuality because it assumes that everyone in one country is of one mind. There are bound to be many different view points in one country. There will still be disagreement because everyone in a country does not have a unison opinion. If there is a point of view that is unique to a certain part of the world, that might be worth mentioning, but I think many views are going to be shared by people in more than just one country. Jecowa 04:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There are already things like Christianity which is splintered off into things like Christianity in Albania, Christianity in Bangladesh, etc. It's been done before. I think this article should explain what adolescent sexuality is, what it constitutes, medical studies and such, and then a small bit of coverage on what everyone thinks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Messedrocker (talk • contribs) 11:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Support split article There are a number of articles that needed separation of detailed specific country information to achieve balance. Among them are Child support with the US material going to Child support in the United States, and Fathers' rights and Fathers' rights movement in the UK. The US information currently here is important, but creates a biased article here, having an article on Adolescent sexuality in the United States would allow a better article here, and allow US distinctive features to be addressed around the Culture war, and how the issues of the sexual revolution and family values are addressed there. Paul foord 20:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think having one for and about the US (and separate ones for other countries) is a good idea, but I think if we start having one for each different viewpoint then I think we will run into some POV fork issues, not to mention the fact, as Jecowa pointed out, many people in each country will have different views, and many views will overlap between countries. --Illuminato


 * Illuminato, we're talking about a MAIN ARTICLE for pov's on this subject. And not as a POV fork... no, it would be to reduce edit warring in THIS article and allow things to actually get done such as inputting scientific data and such which to me hold more precendence than how many and whose POV'S are in the article.

It is not meant as a POV fork, it's meant as a POV compromise. I think that Jecowas usage of the term is simply mean't to try and detract from what I have been saying for weeks now in order to push his OWN views into the article.

Besides, your creation of the other articles IS a POV fork that would allow much easier POV'ing and crookedness of articles due to their immensity once a bunch of countries are added.. Nateland 21:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC) As Tom Lehrer said in his song 'smut', "Smut, i'm for it" Just thought i'd half randomly include that phrase (I like it it's kind of funny)

Anyways, i'm glad so many people agree partially or in whole with this.

I REALLY do think however messedrocker that even a SMALL section at the end listing views could and probably WOULD develop into an edit war... It seems a good idea to make an article such as... Controversy over adolescent sexuality

Or such, however, i've said this MANY times before. Even IF we fix it here, the main article on sexuality Still has a ravaged and biased section in it that seems to be struggling just to get by. I say that (On a side note) After we decide on this articles fate, then we delete the adolescent sexuality section and provide a link to this article as this is the MAIN article on adolescence and this whole adolescent sexuality article was created by Illuminato in what I STRONGLY percieve as a duplication of efforts, say what you wish Illumina.. but you gave NO reference to this article when you made it, and the Only reason I founds it was by a comment in talk:adolescence.

So whatever happens here, we should soon after turn to fixing the adolescence article.

Oh yes, messedrocker, would you mind adding a link to sex education?, it wouldn't cause any controversies in all likelyhood and it would help bolster the article a bit while we debate what happens to it.

Anyways, on a closing note. I think that a 'pov' fork as Jecowa put it... (I don't mean FORK!, i mean make a seperate article for views on this subject to decrease disputes). is a good idea, believe me.

If IDENTICAL text from this article is trickling into other similar articles than something needs to be done (Before the entire sexuality portal or at least a good portion of it erupts in edit warring and disputes galore)

Now I have very little experience with the flow and 'joe' of wikipedia but doing something about fixing this article SOON could very well help to stop this from spreading out.

Well, I hope you listened to what i have to say, and also, perhaps we could get more people involved?, just from people who've contributed to this article or have Some extra knowledge of the subject so we can come to a more accurate decision)

Cheers, Nateland 22:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Adolescent sexuality in the United States & Adolescent sexuality in India articles have been created by User:Illuminato Paul foord 10:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also Adolescent sexuality in Britain, though it is no more than is what was in the main article.--Illuminato 18:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Adolescence also Category:Sexuality and age
This category needs to be added to this page. Pink moon 1287 (email &bull; talk &bull; user) 14:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also Category:Sexuality and age Paul foord 10:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize if i sounded 'crazed' in my last post.
After I posted i realized that i kinda.. well, never mind.

Although, Jecowa. I find it REALLY insulting how you immediately denounced my proposal with a tap of your enter key and the statement "It doesn't make any sense"...

It makes PLENTY of sense, how ELSE would two other people have responded legibly, clearly, and readily stated their thoughts and feelings.

Now as a clearer overview of my last post.

A. including even a small section for views could turn the article into another battleground.

B. If we make another article specifically for views in the US and not world wide views (Maybe we could make an index article that this page would a link to, the index article could list various view points by country and/or relegion) It should be called something like 'adolescent sexuality controversy in the united states' Paul you're naming proposal was good but it would be a bit unexplanatory to call it that.

Call me nit-picky but it would be a quick way to show what the article is about.

C. we should soon turn focus to the main article on adolescence and try to fix the adolescent sexuality section OR delete it and make a link to the MAIN article on the subject.

D. that's about it, i've got homework to do and i'm waiting for some magnatune WAV files to download (I would've used flac had i known it's benifits...damn is WAV still proprietary?)

Nateland 00:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've created an article titled Controversy over adolescent sexuality.
it can be found here controversy over adolescent sexuality I thought that it could potentially be linked to this page and would hold major POV'S etc. from different countries on adolescent sexuality.

As Illuminato's adolescent sexuality in the united states is Already included in this article as this is the main article for that topic and adolescent sexuality in other countries.

My main problem with him making that article is its potential to be used as a kind of pov get-a-round by stemming off from this main article and essentially creating TWO topics on adolescent sexuality 'three counting the adolescent sexuality section in the main article on adolescence'.

I think that we should use the conteroversy article to keep pov's as making individual articles for each country would spread out a coordinated attempt to easily edit and improve articles on this subject and again.. it concerns me as Illuminato created this article in itself.

And now... he's making ANOTHER article and including basically the same text as when I first began to work on the topic.

Just my thought's, i'll forward this to ALL major players.

Nateland 20:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

update
The article i created appears to have mysteriously dissapeared.

And no record of its creation can be found ANYWHERE on wikipedia.

Sigh... anyways, could the protection on this page be removed?, as the MAJOR people who were against changing this article have either not responded when they had the chance and simply created a different article on the same subject (Except centric) or they are not in the majority.

Hopefully editing can begin soon.... i'd like to get some stuff done.

Although i'm willing to hear a final round of what people have to say.

Nateland 20:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Concerns over article length.
After I posted some messages over POV forking articles which are already or were meant to be covered by this article. Illuminato raised some concerns of his in this response. AND while I didn't really believe this to hold any standing whatsoever, I thought that it would be a good way to decide if the 'spin-offs' such as adolescent sexuality in Britain adolescent sexuality in the United States and adolescent sexuality in India should stay or not or be incoporated into the MAIN article, with those pages being converted to redirects to this page.

His concerns are below.

Nateland, When I created the articles on the separate countries they were not POV forks. They were spinouts from the main article, much like the Adolescent Sexuality article is a spinout of the main adolescence article. Please check out the WP guidelines on spinouts. It says:

Sometimes, when an article gets to be very long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique.

I hope this clears it up for you. --Illuminato 22:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think some discussion of this matter would be greatly benefiting to wikipedias integrity due to MY own concerns and the probable concerns of others on this site.

Server strain: multiple articles which could easily be covered by a single article can cause server slowdown.

Easy Weasel-wording/POV'ing: Multiple articles reduces chances of catching biased and/or weasel words and/or unsourced and unbacked up statements etc. and allows people to more easily add in those undesirable things.

If we simply made a seperate article for POV we could easily cut the article by two-thirds... then it would be even SHORTER!. allowing for more expansion etc. etc.

Triplication of efforts: When Illuminato made THIS article after the debates over the sexuality section in adolescence kept on going another series of debates arose and further up this page is a comment saying basically.

"Sounds like a duplication of efforts to me"

Now, with these NEW articles being made i'm tempted to call it a 'triplication' of efforts.

Well that about sums it up? A vote perhaps? Nateland 23:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The original page was not informative enough. I don't believe the split is appropriate. Xiner (talk, email) 21:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction
I think you'll find that this line:
 * The average age a teen lost their virginity was 17.13 years. Girls lost theirs at 17.44 years on average and for boys it was 18.06 years

is not quite right, overall average cannot be lower than partial averages. I've made a similar note at Adolescent sexuality in Britain, which has the same line, but the source doesn't have a weblink, so I couldn't check the numbers. Jeodesic 00:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we find a source that gives the distribution instead? --HappyCamper 15:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice catch, Jeodesic. The article, says the 17.13 figure was the age Britons lost their virginity in 2002.  The higher numbers are from 2006.  I'll correct in the other article.  This one will have to wait until protection is lifted. --Illuminato 18:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a contradiction -- what that says is that for both sexes, the average age for loss of virginity is 17.13 years. When only counting the girls, it's 17.44, and when only counting the boys, it's 18.06. ★ MESSED ROCKER ★  22:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It may not be contradictory, but it is wrong. It is slightly confusing in the article as they give the aggregate number for 2002, and the breakdown between the sexes for 2006.--Illuminato 23:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused
So it appears there has been conversation going on, which is always good. However, I'm still confused. At this point in time, what are the editorial issues that remain? If any? I've heard forks have been made regarding views in countries about adoloscent sexuality, but do we have a method about how to deal it in this article itself? ★ MESSED ROCKER ★  06:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have proposed a new lead above to move the discussion forward. There hasn't been any further suggestions to it.  If you look at the edit history you will see that seemed to be the cause of the edit war.  I'd welcome any further suggestions and revisions to it. --Illuminato 22:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My main proposals for this article.
Well, mainly if the article is too POV'D. If it gives equal sunlight to all POVS. And whether it should be split into TWO articles.

One for the MAIN article on adolescence with GLOBALLY PERTAINING information. Which would essentially be the existing one with a definition of adolescent sexuality, different possible orientations, a little bit about contraception. Etc.

and another one for POV's on adolescent sexuality. With a brief explanation on the global controvesy over this topic and sections for each individual country, with major POV'S in each sectino which pertain to that particular country etc.

My idea is that this would GREATLY cut down on the ARGUMENTS and EDIT WARS. And although a few people oppose this, Me and others think it's a good idea.

Especially with cut&pasted pov's being taken out of

adolescent sexuality and put into.

sex education adolescence teen pregnancy and a few others. Mainly by the User:Illuminato. Anyways, this is my proposition. Once the controversy over AS article is created, i'll leave it alone. But with the current off-shoots being justified by editors concerns that the article is long enough to warrant spin-offs due to extreme length.

I think that putting the POV'S, in another article would be a GREAT idea!! :-) Hell, i just want'a finish up this argument, repair this article to an acceptable state. And VOILA!, I can put my energies into other things on wikipedia instead of a senseless edit war over a topic such as THIS!.

Nateland 18:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge proposal/state of article

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

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

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

A new plan to take this article forward.

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

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

Think. Answer this question. What is sexuality?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you mean by Emtional Intimacy?

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

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

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

Nateland 21:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually Illuminato, you need to very strongly back a statement up if you're going to phrase it outside the context of a quote.
 * For example, your third cited reference doesn't even address your claim.
 * The first cited reference isn't available to check up on. (especially significant since at least one of the three references was faulty.) It's available online, but you need a subscription to read it. (That makes it a bad reference)
 * And even the second reference, well, it simply doesn't cut the mustard. One person makes that claim. Her only (listed) qualifications are that she used to be an editor for Seventeen magazine, and that she apparently did research in collaboration with the "National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy", which is probably pretty likely to promote a teen-sex-is-bad view. That isn't to say they lied; just that they hardly qualify as neutral. What's more, another person in the very same article says, ""What will the impact be on their ultimately more lasting relationships? I don't think we know yet." So, you see, that article hardly makes a strong assertion to back you up there.
 * What does this mean? Of three cited references, the first is unavailable to confirm, the second does just as much to contradict the claim, and the third one doesn't even address the issue at all.
 * Sorry, but I'm removing the statement entirely. If you want to include some sort of a quote, go ahead. But just make sure it's a reliable and verifiable source. Bladestorm 23:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


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

Ok, I see an edit war brewing, so I'd like to remind everyone of WP:3RR. Xiner (talk, email) 00:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've only done one revert so far (two edits collectively summing to one revert), but fine. I'll refrain from editing again today.
 * However, here's what still needs to be addressed: You're making an assertion. The fact that you quote part of the reasoning is irrelevant. You're making a direct assertion. Since it's a disputed assertion, it needs to be pretty much irrefutably verified. I don't know what you're saying is "verifiable". The new york times? Even if that weren't simply a newspaper, without being able to see the article (you didn't even provide a direct link to the article), how can it possibly be verified that that's even what they said?
 * One of your references, at usatoday, includes one person's (pov-by-virtue-of-her-funding) pov that agrees with you, but also includes a quote from someone who very clearly says that nobody knows yet. Since your own reference contradicts that it's a certain assertion, it clearly cannot be used to prove that it's 'irrefutable fact'. As such, you cannot make that direct statement.
 * So, this is simple. Directly cite everything you want to say. The references need to explicitly agree with you. Your references must be verifiable and reliable. A former editor for Seventeen magazine may be noteworthy for expressing an opinion, but is not reliable as being the sole definitive source of information on a topic.
 * If you cannot provide evidence of your claims, they will be deleted. You need to back up what you say; this isn't a new concept.
 * You need to attribute POV's to specific authorities; not misrepresent them as undisputed fact. Bladestorm 00:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


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


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

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

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

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

Illuminato, Admit it.

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

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

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


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


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

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

Nateland 01:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


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


 * Oops, I was still upset about the way my edits were reverted yesterday, and didn't see the new edits today. I'm sorry.
 * I've posted a merge proposal for the Britain article. Hopefully we can reach common ground there. Xiner (talk, email) 01:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Adolescent sexuality in Britain

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

Mergefrom Adolescent sexuality in the United States

 * Support: Article as it stands is hopelessly biased, with the main writers of the article not seeming to be making a good-faith effort to adhere to WP:NPOV. The writer instead seem to be piling up a mountain of one-sided, cherry-picked "facts", and demanding that other authors must make their own effort to counterbalance this huge, one-sided presentation. Having "your side" get there first with the most "facts" is not the way to properly create articles for Wikipedia. Iamcuriousblue 06:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, please don't move this poll to another section again – if we keep starting from scratch over and over again, nothing will ever get decided. Iamcuriousblue 04:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Undecided That article is rather long. Perhaps we can agree to work on that one together before we decide on the merge? If that article is kept, then we should take out the quotefarm in the U.S. section of this article and try to make it a true summary of that article. Xiner (talk, email) 02:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason I am proposing the merge rather than a formal AfD is that once the blatantly biased and quote-dependent content is removed from Adolescent sexuality in the United States, which needs to happen, I just don't see any article being left. The reason I haven't proposed an AfD is because I see that down the road a potentially valid breakaway article from Adolescent sexuality could be written on this topic. However, that is not the article we have now and that's why I have proposed the merge. The problem with trying to fix the article as it stands is that Illuminato has basically stacked the deck – the user has contributed a mountain of cherry-picked "facts" that are dubious in accuracy and obvious in bias. The user has then challenged anybody who disagrees with them to counterbalance each "fact" and fights for each of these edits. The result – trying to come up with a balanced, NPOV version of this article is an impossibly uphill battle. This is why I'm proposing to simply erase this article (and similar content in Adolescent sexuality) so as to start with a clean slate. Iamcuriousblue 04:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


 * Are you suggesting an AFD? Xiner (talk, email) 19:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, see my comments above. Iamcuriousblue 04:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


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


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


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

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