User talk:Ekaufman1998

Welcome!
Hello, Ekaufman1998, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Your draft
Ekaufman1998, looking at this, this and this, it's clear that you have considered things I stated at the article's talk page.

But regarding your latest edits to your sandbox, I need to state the following: I must stress that a single survey or study does not trump what the literature usually states. This is where WP:Due weight comes in. We give most of our weight to what the literature usually states. And for medical articles, we generally avoid reporting on a single survey or study.

On the topic of your "In a survey of same-sex attracted (SSA) youths" piece, "same-sex attracted" is a broader topic than WSW; that piece should not be used. You should stay on the specific topic of WSW.

Looking at your "Up to 99% of WSW have had sex with men at some point in their lifetime" piece, we can see on the article's talk page that a source I quoted shows more variation, stating, "Most WSW have either a history or current practice of having sex with men; 53% to 99% of WSW in one study reported having had sex with men and had plans to continue the practice in the future, therefore increasing their risk of STI contraction and transmission beyond what would be expected of a woman who has sex exclusively with women (Diamant, Schuster, McGuigan, et al., 1999)." I wouldn't use "Up to 99%" only. In fact, since the specific number can vary, I would simply go with "most WSW have either a history or current practice of having sex with men," like the source I quoted does.

Your "are more likely to engage in risky sex behaviors than their heterosexual counterparts" piece is vague; it can also be considered contradictory because of the fact that penetrative sex with men or penetrative sex with women is riskier. Like another source I quoted on the talk page notes, "WSW often have fewer sexual partners and engage in less penetrative sex than heterosexual women, which can reduce their overall risk for STIs, but transmission can occur with skin-to-skin contact, oral sex, and vaginal or anal sex using hands, fingers, or sex toys, especially when toys are shared (VanderLan & Vasey, 2008). Bisexual women have a significantly higher rate of STIs than lesbians (Koh et al., 2005; Morrow & Allsworth, 2000; Tao, 2008)." It would help to clarify what is meant by "riskier sexual behaviors." If you mean forgoing safe sex barrier methods, then state that. Also, because of what this source I quoted states and other sources state (including about identification or lack thereof), there is reason to question the accuracy of your "there is a further lack of research on bisexual women specifically, with most of the sample being lesbian women" addition based on a 2005 source. See, for example, what this 2010 "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Queer Psychology: An Introduction" source, from Cambridge University Press, page 133, states. Also see WP:MEDDATE (which is about keeping medical material up-to-date).

Your "that being said, many doctors consider sex between women to have negligible risk for transmission of STIs" piece needs work because "that being said" comes across as WP:Editorializing and, like I noted on the article's talk page, "What medical sources do state is that WSW have lower risk of STIs, and they stress 'significantly lower risk' when speaking of women who only engage in female-to-female sexual activity. When WSW engage in sexual activity with males, this significantly increases their risk of STIs. What medical sources also note is that many WSW are under the impression that they can't get an STI from women or that the lower risk means they should forgo safe sex barrier methods." Unlike "negligible risk," "lower risk" is more accurate and truer to sources (later sources especially). So again, WP:Due weight. In this case, we should simply state, "There is a lower risk for STI transmission among WSW." And then, like the sources I listed on the talk page make clear, this lower risk doesn't mean no risk and why that is. "Why" would be what is quoted in the paragraph immediately before this one. The "fail to offer any information on prevention of STI transmission for sex involving two women" piece should be "Many doctors fail to offer any information on prevention of STI transmission for sex involving two women." The rest of the current content in your "Potential edits on Women who have sex with women page" section is fine.

Once you are done crafting your sandbox, I suggest you propose your content on the talk page first, for feedback, before the text is implemented. This will avoid your text being reverted due to issues. If you reply to me on any of this, please reply here on your talk or at the article's talk page, not on my talk page. Pinging Shalor (Wiki Ed) for assistance. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help! I'll definitely update that and post to the talk page before implementing Ekaufman1998 (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! Ekaufman, to elaborate a bit more on the studies part:
 * Studies should generally be avoided unless they're accompanied with a secondary source that reviews the study or comments upon the specific claim that is being stated. The reason for this is that studies are primary sources for any of the claims and research conducted by their authors. The publishers don't provide any commentary or in-depth verification, as they only check to ensure that the study doesn't have any glaring errors that would invalidate it immediately. Study findings also tend to be only true for the specific people or subjects that were studied. For example, a person in one area may respond differently than one in an area located on the other side of the country. Socioeconomic factors (be they for the person or a family member) also play a large role, among other things that can impact a response. As such, it's definitely important to find a secondary source, as they can provide this context, verification, and commentary. Aside from that, there's also the issue of why a specific study should be highlighted over another. For example, someone could ask why one study was chosen as opposed to something that studied a similar topic or had different results.
 * So essentially, in order to give info about a study you'd have to show where the study is notable enough to really go into depth over and also show enough context to where it would make sense for the study findings to be mentioned. Most studies won't really meet this criteria because they're so limited and it's typically easier and better to summarize content that discusses the given topic (or a given aspect) in a more overall sense as opposed to one very specific piece of the topic/aspect. It's also important to make sure that the source is discussing the specific topic at hand, as Flyer22 Reborn stated with the SSA aspect. Keep in mind that a woman who has sex with a woman may not be doing so because they're specifically attracted to the women. For example, a prostitute would be seen as a WSW even if she wasn't actually sexually attracted to her female client. Someone may also have sex with a woman but not identify as gay or bisexual, so there are a lot of reasons where people who are WSW aren't SSA.
 * It's also important to exercise caution when posting content in Wikipedia's voice. Make sure that you:
 * Avoid stating opinions as facts.
 * Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.
 * Avoid stating facts as opinions.
 * Prefer nonjudgmental language.
 * Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.
 * I can definitely help you with writing - let me know what I can do to help you. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Shalor (Wiki Ed). Regarding "same-sex attracted," I was more so concerned about both women and men who are same-sex attracted being included in the demographics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)