Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-21 Adolescent sexuality in the United States

Who are the involved parties?
User:Illuminato and User:Iamcuriousblue ((possibly other parties))

What's going on?
Statement by User:Illuminato: There is currently a totally disputed tag on the article. I have asked for specifics about what is disputed so I could double check it and fix it, if necessary. One was provided to me, but I disagreed that what the article said is what Iam's source called "junk science." Since no other factual errors were mentioned over a 2 week period I removed the tag. Iam continues to replace it.

Statement by User:Iamcuriousblue: User:Illuminato has created a POV fork called Adolescent sexuality in the United States after many of his edits to Adolescent sexuality were rejected. I have been reluctant to launch an AfD for this article, as the subject in and of itself is a valid article topic, however, the way that the article has been severely slanted toward the POV of sexual conservatism put the article in fundamental violation of WP:NPOV in its present form. I also believe the sources given in this article are cherry-picked or distorted to fit with the POV of User:Illuminato, hence, I think the factual accuracy is in doubt. Particularly some statements about casual sex that are based on highly dubious interpretations of the role of the hormone oxytocin. Because the article is not only severly slanted, but quite simply, huge (33 Kb), its going to take some pretty ruthless editing to restore any semblance of balance to the article. User:Illuminato has fought tooth and nail against even small challenges to "facts" stated in the article and has repeatedly refused to discuss the larger problem of the article's slant. Worse, he repeatedly removes NPOV and factual accuracy tags from the top of the article, even after clear challenges to the neutrality and accuracy of statments in the article have been articulated. Apparently according to User:Illuminato, any editor who can't produce a point-by-by refutation of all 50 references given in this article is not allowed to challenge the obvious bias of the article. (Actions in fundamental violation of WP:OWN, something I've repeatedly warned this editor about on their talk page.) In my opinion, the tags need to stay until the fundamental problems are fixed, however long this takes. I will note that I'm not the only editor who has had problems with User:Illuminato over this issue – User:Nateland has repeatedly challenged User:Illuminato's edits with a similar degree of resistance. A number of other editors, among them User:Atomaton and User:Strangerer have also raised concerns about the overall slant of the article.

Comment by User:Strangerer: I feel that omissions from references within the text may also contribute to the inaccuracy of the article. I went through the first section word by word and found more than one glaring omission, and the first section is mild compared to the rest of the article. The article is extremely difficult to edit when you have to go through it bit by bit. While I disagree with a lot of Illuminato's edits, I would like all editors to chill out more. I have trouble with the discussions when the atmosphere is antagonistic and I sometimes feel ready to start flaming people. Related articles are Adolescent sexual behavior, Adolescent sexuality (protected), and Adolescence (section now edited and scaled back).

What would you like to change about that?
Statement by User:Illuminato: I would like to know what Iam feels is factually inaccurate so that it can be fixed and the tag can be removed.

Statement by User:Iamcuriousblue: I want the factual inaccuracy tag to stay until the dubious section on oxytocin is removed. (I believe there maybe a large number of other inaccurate statements throughout the article, however.) An NPOV tag needs to stay until the larger problem with bias in the article is fixed. I also want to be able to trim back the article, which is not only fuill of biased statments, but gives undue weight to arguments around casual sex.

Comment by Nateland 21:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC): Me, Lam, and many other users have repeatedly voiced our concerns about the article numerous times and you have dodged us repeatedly. It took about a week or two just for you to agree to go to mediation and before that you consistently dodged requests for mediation. I've voiced my opinion countless times, and Illuminato. I no longer hate to say this because I've said it so much recently. You really are pushing POV and seem to be willing to do anything to takeover the article. Disputing every little thing isn't a good idea.

Mediator response
Ok. The whole statement about oxytocin seems POV. I suggest that you remove it. Also, after reading the article, the way the prose is written makes it sound the editors all support sexual conservatism. That's POV and should be changed. Keep the tag on until it becomes NPOV, and Have a nice cup of tea and a sit down until everything cools off. mcr616 Speak! 00:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What is this? The mediation page says "Mediation is an activity in which a neutral third party, the mediator, assists two or more parties in order to help them achieve an agreement, with concrete effects, on a matter of common interest."  You did not make any effort to help us reach an agreement, all you did was state an opinion with nothing to back it up.  Anyone who wants to edit the article shoud WP:Be Bold and do it.  Also, I already poured a cup of tea for Iam.  Frankly, MCR, you were not very helpful.  --Illuminato 00:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you'd like a new mediator, just tell me. I was just saying what I thought should be done to the article. mcr616 Speak! 17:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is you didn't mediate anything. You offered a third opinion.  Thats it. --Illuminato 18:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, well I'm sorry I'm not up to your expectations. I offered a neutral 3rd opinion, where I was just saying what I thought should be done as of right now. I never said that was the end all and be all, or that I was going to stop commenting after that. About WP:BOLD, I don't think the policy applies if you're adding information that may be regarded as POV. mcr616 Speak! 20:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the mediation page you took the quote from was about the Mediation Committee. On that page, it says that mediators can offer a proposal as to what should be done. I think that I could have worded it differently and not make it seem like I was handing down a command, but I was offering a solution and my opinion. You don't have to agree on my proposal. That's just what I think should be done. If you'd like me to back up my opinion in the proposal, I certainly will. mcr616 Speak! 20:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I missed the discussion several days back, but I'll note that I still consider this case open and unresolved. The problems with the article bias remain. The problems with User:Illuminato unilaterally removing article tags are still happening. Iamcuriousblue 02:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Illuminato shouldn't be removing the tags. The tags stay on until the article is found to be NPOV. mcr616 Speak! 15:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, the way the article is written makes it sound like it was copied from one of Jerry Falwell's sermons. The oxytocin section is POV; it contradicts itself a handful of times. That section should be removed, the article should be rewritten, and Illuminato should stop removing the tags. mcr616 Speak! 15:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, mcr, thats not not mediation. All you are doing is offering a Third opinion and thats not what we came here for.  Is it possible to get a new mediator, someone who might actually mediate?  I will say it again, it is far more productive for people to just edit the article than to put up tags and complain.  I wish the other parties would at least put up proposed new text on the talk page so that we could work it out.--Illuminato 20:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me Illuminato, but I am mediating. This is how I've mediated every other case and no one has complained. You do not own the article. It would help if you would cooperate. You want your version of the text, and that's all you want. The other parties have already commented on the text. Just because things aren't going your way doesn't mean I'm not being a neutral mediator. You need to calm down. Putting up the POV tag is Wikipedia policy, whether you like it or not. I'm saying what's wrong with the article and what, in my opinion, should be changed. If all you're going to do is complain until you get your way, take it to the Mediation Committee. mcr616 Speak! 23:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Also, Illuminato, consider this from the Mediation page: This is not a formal policy, and mediators are not obligated to utilize methodologies set out herein.. mcr616 Speak! 23:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't claim to own the article and I keep asking for others to simply try and improve it rather than go through endless discussions. I never claimed that you were not neutral, but there are already a number of opinions about what should be done.  Your offering yet another opinion does not help bring the participants in this "mediation" any closer to solving our disagreement.  All it does is add another opinion.  Thats fine, and there is a place for that, but that is not mediation.  Thats not what I came here for.--Illuminato 00:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, well, it's well within my rights as a mediator to offer a proposal that everyone can agree upon. I'm thinking that 1: We could rewrite the article using reputable, neutral sources to make the article NPOV. 2: Remove the section on oxytocin. 4: Broaden the article's coverage to include adolescent homosexuality and autoerotic activity. 3: Remove the POV tag after the rewrite if everyone agrees that every point of view is represented equally and neutrally. If anyone has any comments, feel free to add to the proposal. mcr616 Speak! 00:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Basically, I think the tag needs to stay until there are substantial changes to the article, even if that means the article stays tagged for a long time. There are two ways to go with restoring some kind of balance to this article: 1) Ruthlessly edit the article removing large sections that are wholly biased and give undue weight to certain arguments, or 2) keep the present content, gradually adding balancing content (and restating "facts" where necessary), and keep the article tagged as NPOV and factually inaccurate until everything is settled. I favor approach 1, because not only is the article biased, it also gives hugely undue weight to moral arguments about casual sex. (Note that a section on "Views on adolescent sexuality in the US" is warrented, and should cover everything from the views of abstinance advocates to the more "sex positive" views of Heather Corinna and Judith Levine. Needless to say, such discussion should be NPOV, favoring neither side in this debate, nor should this section dominate the content of the article.) Another problem with approach 2 is that right now the article is so weighted down with cherry-picked "facts" that I could see balancing the article on a count-by-count basis as taking several years!


 * I'd also like to point out that there's an excellent piece of source material for this article which needs some attention. The article is The International Encyclopedia of Sexuality: United States of America, in particular, sections 4B, 5B, and 6A. This is an excellent example of what a well-referenced, descriptive, NPOV discussion of adolescent sexuality in the US should actually look like, not to mention a very good source for the Wikipedia article. I'm also definitely in agreement with User:Strangerer that the article needs more coverage of adolescent homosexuality, and I would add autoerotic activity as well. Iamcuriousblue 01:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * From that source, "Much of the professional literature has reflected these same concerns. Through much of the twentieth century, the tone of most professional writings has been moralistic. Adults in the U.S.A., including most sexuality researchers, have tended to view adolescent premarital sexual intercourse, PS, as a deviant behavior, as a violation of existing social norms, and as a growing social problem (Spanier 1975). Research has tended to parallel this perspective by emphasizing the costs or negative consequences of adolescent sexuality, such as sexually transmitted disease (venereal disease), “illegitimate” pregnancy, and loss of reputation (Reiss 1960). This tone may have shifted to a less-judgmental, more-analytic perspective in the 1960s and 1970s (Clayton and Bokemeier 1980). However, with the emergence of AIDS and the rise of out-of-wedlock pregnancies in the early 1980s, the general tone has reverted in recent years, with studies of “risk-taking” behavior, “at-risk” youth, and portrayals of adolescent sexuality as a form of delinquency (Miller and Moore 1990)." This sounds very relevant to the problems we are having with this article. --Strangerer (Talk) 02:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats interesting, to say the least. I think that would be goo d to actually include in the article. Also, the ref that Iam gave us is very good. Hopefully we can include that. I'm also in agreement with the both of you about coverage of adolescent homosexuality, but I'm not so sure about the autoerotic activity. What would that include? mcr616 Speak! 19:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Masturbation habits? --Strangerer (Talk) 21:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. I've amended my proposal to include that. mcr616 Speak! 23:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Is everyone happy with the proposal? mcr616 Speak! 22:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am perfectly happy with suggestions 3 & 4. With regards to number 1 I think it would be great if we could get more sources, but if by rewrite you mean start from scratch then I wouldn't support that.  Also, I believe the few lines about oxytocin are relevant and cited, so I am opposed to #2. --Illuminato

(Edit)Much of the links to other wiki articles i gave are broken. I'll fix them later. All of the proposals seem fine. My only problem is the article in general. We ALREADY have a main article on adolescent sexuality, it's 98% neutral. And is only protected because of Illuminato's insistence on keeping 3 universally not wanted (Except for him of course) quotes that he put back in using reversion at least 5 times. More like 10 as a minimum. Since I've been editing this series of articles for so long. I'll give some historical info.

Back around February 1st, end of January. Illuminato was meeting with mine and a few other disagreeing people about the neutrality of his article titled adolescent sexuality as well as my argument that it didn't represent a worldwide view. In response, he created, adolescent sexuality in the United States, adolescent sexuality in Britain, and adolescent sexuality in India. Saying then that 'a worldwide view was represented'. In 3 seperate short highly POV and disputed articles.....

The focus has shifted to one of these three. Adolescent sexuality in the United States. Now eventually my proposal for a new revision of Adolescent sexuality which was almost entirely NPOV. Not a single quotation, all well known facts, Got through and after Illuminato reverted a couple times, he realized that dissapearing during the entire two weeks the proposal was up and then coming back to dispute it wasn't going to make us let him revert it back.

However, while that article had plenty and broad and accurate enough information to easily cover this article's two or three lines that don't have some sort of anti-sexual POV in them). This article about adolescent sexuality in the united states stayed put. Subject to constant edit warring with Illuminato. Who, historically (I can testify to that), has been THE ONLY editor on Wikipedia to consistently dispute the majority view that his edits are POV, Cherry picked, unfactual, etc. One or two others popped in once or twice to add support for his edits. But they never reappeared.

I don't know HOW Illuminato has gotten away with his Vandalistic ownership of these articles. But I think that AS in the US should be deleted. Because of the above Neutrality questions, factuality questions. And also.

What is so notable about Adolescent Sexuality in the US?. Other than the moral taboos and stigma surrounding it. There's not much to report on, any sexual customs or activities widely practiced by adolescents are largely unreported due to Researcher's hesitance to study such a sensitive subject. (A few studies were published, and were instantly greatly disputed. Still are).

So my question is. Should this article even BE here?. I say delete it, it has no value except as a breeding ground for edit wars, POV, disputes, and information which is 99% quoted from anti-sex experts as Illuminato put it. The other two articles created way back in February can be dealt with later. But this article only serves to cause trouble and dispute. And the main article currently covers all of what's said in here that's not disputed by 98.9999% of all editors. (That percentage is not an exaggeration). Once the protection is lifted, we can then deal with Illuminato's disputed edits he managed to push into Adolescent Sexuality itself. But that's just three sentences.... Which will get quickly deleted due to all of the unilateral disagreement with those statements and their placement.

I say put this article up for AFD. You can use my above statement as an argument for doing so. But let's clear this off the slate. Same as Illuminato's contributions were cleared off of United States culture, Pornography addiction, Adolescence. And others.

That's all I have to say. And to sum it up... Illuminato's wishes are one wish against everyone else's (Easily a dozen) Wishes. Think. Who should have precedence?.

1 person. Or more than 12 people who have consistently disputed that other 1 wish. You decide Nateland 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, If you want to put it up for deletion I would vote neutral, but it's your choice. We can implement the proposal or put it up for AfD. If you really think the article should be deleted, then go ahead, but then the decisions fall out of our hands and into the rest of the communities. mcr616 Speak! 00:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well seeing that Illuminato won't give up. That he's now moved beyond ignoring counterarguments he can't defeat and into deliberately misinterpreting peoples statements. Even after having the meaning of those statements rigorously explained, after seeing how Shmget and Illuminato are in another way over an article that's historically been involved in dozens of edit wars with dozens of people involved. I'm putting this up for AFD pronto. Let this hell be finished with and the next of Illuminato's 'articles' be dealt with. Nateland 21:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I'll support it. mcr616 Speak! 23:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the community will vote for deletion. I'd certainly back you if you went to ArbCom though. mcr616 Speak! 23:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am surprised it is at AfD for what is essentially a content dispute, but it may fall under the POV fork line of reasoning. --Strangerer (Talk) 12:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Well, if it doesn't get deleted and Illuminato doesn't accept the proposal, would anyone support sending it to ArbCom? mcr616 Speak! 19:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have already indicated what I thought of the proposal. In any case, the article has been significantly edited since your proposal, so I don't know if #2 would even still apply.  Also, I don't think your setting out a proposal and then saying "take it or we will take you to ArbCom" is helpful.  The role of a mediator is to bring the two sides together, not to threaten one side into doing what you want to be done.  --Illuminato 20:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you said "This doesn't fall under AfD reasons for deletion", nothing else. Nateland 23:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am so tired of this. Look, we're trying to get to an agreement, but obviously you think the only acceptable version of the article is the version that you sign off on. I'm not threating you with ArbCom; One of the people who commented on the AfD suggested that it would be the next step if mediation failed. I don't run up to ArbCom with every little problem I have, but this is getting ridiculous. The oxytocin section is POV; everyone agrees with that. I feel like you're using the article to try and get people to believe what you believe. mcr616 Speak! 22:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not everyone agrees that the oxytocin section is POV. That whole section was rewritten by someone other than me and now the oxytocin material is in [Adolescent_sexuality_in_the_United_States#Chemical_and_hormonal|a completely different place]].  I think it is an improvement.  You laid out a proposal for the disputants.  One of us had a problem with a portion of it.  Your role as a mediator should be to bring us to a compromise.  You haven't done that.  I want this to work, but you are making it difficult.--Illuminato 04:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think Illuminato is the only person who feels the section on oxytocin is NPOV and appropriate to the article. And considering the continued roadblocks this user is placing in the way of creating a more NPOV article, I seriously am considering taking this case to the Arbitration Committee. Iamcuriousblue 05:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Amended proposal is as follows. 1: Revise the article using reputable, neutral sources to make the article NPOV. 2: Broaden the article's coverage to include adolescent homosexuality and autoerotic activity. 3: Remove the POV tag after the revision if everyone agrees that every point of view is represented equally and neutrally. mcr616 Speak! 16:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That looks OK, except for one thing. I still don't think it needs to be rewritten.  I would change #1 to say revise.  No need to start from scratch. --Illuminato 21:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Does everyone else agree, provided the article isn't deleted? mcr616 Speak! 21:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the key sticking point is "revise". I most of the present content needs to actually be replaced by reputable, neutral content. And I think the section on oxytocin needs to go entirely. I have seen no good case made as to why the material on oxytocin is relevant to this article or that the interpretations of the sources are even accurate. Iamcuriousblue 05:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree with you. I'd like the oxytocin section to go, too. I just don't want to bring this to ArbCom if we can reach an agreement. mcr616 Speak! 17:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, I apologize if I don't get back to you right away about this, I won't have access to a computer for the next 3 days. mcr616 Speak! 21:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, the reason I put this up for AFD Is because of A. It's origin, B. It doesn't even have anything to DO with its title. It's just a screed about adolescent sexual ACTIVITY in the United States, just read my newer statements on the AFD post :-), It'll explain my best reasons for deleting this article. If it was just a content dispute I'd be taking it to ArbCom. But it's not, its origin is shady and its content is virtually irrelevant unless it is defined as an article about Debate Over Adolescent Sexual ACTIVITY in the United States. Think about it for a second, does it say ANYTHING about Sexuality that's not about Sexual ACTIVITY???.

P.S. Sorry if i sound a bit rude or agitated, but I'm trying to get my reasons for AfD across. Nateland 23:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No it's ok. I see what you're trying to say, but I voted neutral because as a mediator, I'm supposed to be neutral. I understand where you're coming from. ArbCom should be the last step in dispute resolution. As prerequisites, the article would A.) Have to survive AfD and B.)The parties in the case wouldn't be able to reach an agreement before the article is considered for ArbCom to mediate, if I read the page right. ^_^ --Mcr616 23:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The proposal looks good to me; the implementation will be the difficult part. --Strangerer (Talk) 03:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The oxytocin reference is not in itself POV, in my opinion, but the editorial presentation and the juxtaposition to extreme POV entries as if the former was supporting the later, created the general feeling of POV (things like teenage sex lead to suicide). This is a general impression on most of the article. Factual data are often misrepresented and linked to highly objectionalble POV and even complete fabrication. Often the reference material, which may have been somewhat neutral, is slanted in the way it is quoted or even worse when it is used in support of a completely irrelevant statement. The recent HPV treatement is a good exemple of this trend. Shmget 20:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you're saying. I realize it's hard to find NPOV sources on this material. mcr616 Speak! 19:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I havn't been involved much recently in this series of debates. I've kinda gotten sick of it and am tired of fighting through this. However, I'd like to see it end. And end well, I'm in support of the proposal by the mediator and I also think that the article will end up being rewritten. Because from the looks of it a revision will inevitably turn into a rewrite. Let us end this. I stand behind mcr616 and his proposals. This article has been dragged on for too long, that's my final word. Nateland 20:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like, I'll help out with the implementation of the proposal. mcr616 Speak! 20:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good! Peter G Werner 04:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm gonna keep the case open until the plan is implemented. mcr616 Speak! 21:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Should we begin? mcr616 Speak! 20:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Lets get going! --Illuminato 14:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)