Talk:Adolescence/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Disambiguation

Resolved. Created and linked. Banjiboi 23:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There definitely needs to be a Teenagers (disambiguation page. There are four lines of specified redirection on this page already without mentioning the classic doo wop band "The Teenagers" and now the newly formed indie rock band "The Teenagers" which is all over the blogosphere and will soon warrant a page. see [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.226.60.191 (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Psychology of Adolescents

Resolved. Section cleaned up. Banjiboi 23:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This section does not seem to conform at all to NPOV; the sweeping generalizations and lack of citations are all of great concern. I agree with 202.2.32.27 that the input of an expert is necessary here; unfortunately, the corresponding section in Adolescent psychology has the same problem. I've put neutrality tags on both of them - anyone else think these need to be rewritten? Abigali 08:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes... i do, i removed a chunk of the most biased info including the part on teenagers 'emotional insecurity' and the unproven parts of teen sexuality and teen sexual behaviour. I put in a few statistics from a January 2005, centers for disease control study on teen sex that at least has some data, although info on foreign policy, data, statistics on teen sexual behaviour is widely varied. (I especially found the part which said 'teens usually have sex or make sexual contact out of a 'hook up' was quite.... shall we just say. DOWNRIGHT WRONG! PUT IN SOME DMAN EVIDENCE DAMNIT!!!!.

Although this section still needs A LOT OF EDITING!.

http://www.history-of-rock.com/teenagers.htm

Is a link on the references and when i visited it i found HIGHLY BIASED completely unbacked opininated information. When i tried to find this link to the offending page I couldn't find it in the edit code where it was supposed to be. Although it still shows up on the page and is an active link, if someone could help with locating the link and removing it that would be much appreciated.

That source is used as a reference backing up the fact concerning when the word "teenager" came into use. None of the other information on the History of Rock page is used in this Wikipedia article. Jecowa 06:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Chinks of Garbage cleaned and the whole summarization rewritten in the Psychology section of Adoloscence, also cited all resources to statements. I hope its all good now Correctus 16:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Adolescent sexuality not same as adolescent psychology

Resolved. Concerns seemed to have been addessed. Banjiboi 23:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The secion on adolescent psychology should summarise that article and present a global (not US centric) perspective. An article on adolescent sexuality, again with a global perspective may be justified, there is already an article on teen pregnancy. Paul foord 07:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

damnit.... could someone PLEASE EXPLAIN why they restored the text i deleted IWTHOUT CITING A GOOD REASON?. It was entirely backe4d up, the websites listed as reference are of a right wing nature and themselves contain unproven facts, and the centers for disease control data. WHICH IS LEGIT AND I POSTED WITH A LINK! HAS BEEN DELETED.

I'm restoring the CDC data and deleting the text until someone comes up with viable information, please note iwill also try and contact an admin to put protection on this article. 66.212.201.26 20:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, you deleted more than what was simply pertaining to sexuality. If you are going to edit and delete, please be more careful. Secondly, your data (at least part of it) was included. My first revert yesterday included the piece about contraception. I accidently missed the part about the birth rate dropping, but it has been restored. See footnotes 19 and 21. As to the other points, US News & World Reports is hardly a right-wing publication. There are other sources listed in there from the CDC, the US Dept of Health & Human Services, the Journal Pediatrics & the Medical College of Wisconson you deleted as well. If you would like to refute Dr. Sax then by all means WP:Be Bold, but don't simply delete it because you don't like what he says. Also, be sure you can offer evidence to back it up. Sax has an MD and PhD, so I am sure he would not get published if he did not have evidence to him back up. Finally, please calm down a bit. There is no need to get all excited, nor to use profanity. We are all friends here. --Illuminato 22:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

teen sexuality seperate article...

also.... if there should be a seperate article on teen sexuality WHY IS THERE AN ENTIRE MINI ARTICLE ON IT WHICH. I JUST CLAIMED WAS NON NEUTRAL AND FALSE???!!!

Deleted biased information.. again!, highly request protection ASAP. Leonard sax's info is highly biased and weakly backed up. The KFF/CDC info i put in was replaced with older outdated info which contributes even more to the biased and unscientifically proven materials that seems to be hypocritical of the articles own words....

The links are also FILLED with antisexual information that would not be helpful to a parent or teenager looking for a good reference on teenaged sexuality.

If a seperate article is to be then i think it'll need discussion as there is too much trolling the info to fit into particular relegious political ideologies.

Nateland 21:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

what concerns me the most.

What ocncerns me the most is how the article says that teenagers are incapable of dealing with the emotions etc. that come with sex, how it does far more harm then good, and how it says teenaged sexual relations are usually hook-ups*.

*how do you define hook-ups?
* has there been a reasonable study proving this?
*has leanoard sax EVER gotten the opinions of teenagers themselves?

I myself havn't been able to find any of his books, although Judith Levine's book, harmful to minors: the perils of protecting children from sex will tell you exactly the opposite.

Plus, CDC data stating STD rates are now at 88 per 1,000 HARDLY seems to be an 'epidemic', except in the hispanic and african ethnicities where it tends to be a little bit higher. If you can i'd like to see some studies to back up the above points WHICH are preferably not from Sax, if they are then PLEASE give me the source of the study....

(note that the CDC study link had been removed and i'd like it to be reinserted, also. I'm going to move the CDC data up towards the top of adolescent sexuality/psychology because of the multitudes of data saying sex between teenagers is dangerous.

This should help to balance it out in case some parent reads it and doesn't even get to the bottom having decided (MY daughter can't have sex!!, this data says she'll become depressed!!!) I'd prefer the links to studies proving the depression as well.

PLUS we need a world view and studies from at least more countries then the United states, as this presents a problem to people visiting this page who are from other but english speaking countries.

I'll also try and find some data on european views on adolescent seuxal activity (I have some and can get some more), and i must say the house-of-rock page is itself heavily biased and deriving the origin of the term 'teenager' might seem, upon close inspection.... a bit unreliable.

P.S. sry for the shouting, but I really DO consider this information to be biased and completely un-nuetral as well as opinionated.

  Nateland 22:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S.S.

I would REALLY appreciate it if more sources backing up the claims of harm done to teenagers from sex/ intoxication causing it/reducing embarrasment could be provided 'hopefully' in internet form that are seperate from Leonard sax's theories as a LARGE amount of ther references are from Leonard Sax and it would be gratefully acknowledged if you could come up with more sources to back up Sax's claims due to his ideas and facts filling up a lot of the topic of teen sexuality.

Oh yes... I'm wondering about a seperate wikipedia article SPECIFICALLY for teen sexuality and activity/behaviour due to the fact that it is a bit long and if info about other countries are included the length might be increased DRAMATICALLY.

Thus warranting another article based solely on this.

Nateland 23:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts

The entire section is poorly sourced and highly subjective. It is obviously biased because any intro Psychology text will tell you that this teenage crisis thing is not known in many parts of the world, so many of the problems discussed in the passages can be debatable.

However, we must have a civil debate. It's best to avoid sweeping generalizations, and to cite every controversial statement you make. Let's start doing that. Xiner (talk, email) 02:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Guidelines to be kept in mind: Unsourced statements may be deleted; opinions should not be stated as facts (even if an expert said it); credibly sourced statements should not deleted (do not throw the baby out with the bathwater). Xiner (talk, email) 21:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree, and that is why I have reverted the edits made by Nateland. I am sure he is well intentioned, but his writing leaves much to be desired and it has been pointed out here and on his talk page that he can not simply delete material he disagrees with. He does, as you say, throw the baby out with the bath water. The older text may be biased, but at least it is readable.
    • Biased text does not belong in Wikipedia, and if Nateland's edits are not written well, please try to polish it instead of reverting. Also, please sign in if you have an account, and sign your messages. If you believe anyone's removed properly sourced material, please give me the diffs. Xiner (talk, email) 21:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't want to take sides here, but Nateland's offered to discuss his text here. I urge the other side to do the same. Xiner (talk, email) 21:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Psychology of adolescents" and "Adolescent sexuality"

The sections on "Psychology of adolescents" and "Adolescent sexuality" consist mostly of biased commentary, and mainly pertain to the United States. Many of the statements seem to be supported by an appeal to authority rather than actual data. Moreover, many of the citations do not provide links to easily-accessible peer-reviewed studies which can be scrutinized for accuracy.

I think it would be best to scrap most of these sections and stick with objective quantitative data that can be verified in a peer-reviewed journal. --Uthbrian (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps someone can move the passages to this talk page and work on it until it's good for publication. Xiner (talk, email) 16:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In the Psychology section, everything is in place now, all the biased stuff is removed from the article and is replaced with more neutral and informative stuff backed up by facts and reliable sources (.edu and .gov websites) :) - Correctus 16:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

ok... here's my twenty bucks... again --___--

I hope this can be used as a temporary replacement for the section on teen sexuality due to it's easily verifiable and trustworthy nature. (The Centers For Disease Control are pretty reliable in my opinion and many others) Plus it's layout would EASILY allow for inclusion of information on adolescent sexual activity and sexuality in other countries.. oh yes i'm thinking. Could someone come up with some internet sources to show that adolescents have as diverse sexual orientations as adults?, that would be a given and add some more info other then statistics on pregnancy and STD transmission.

I myself KNOW that teenagers (I myself am a teenager, a little over 14) have varied orientations both homo, heterosexual, and paraphilic, but do ont know of many good studies or surveys to prove this point which aren't under hot debate.

below is my idea of a good temporary replacement, i've also contacted an admin a few days ago to see if they can help out in this matter. 9Not sure if they'll get back to me though)

---

http://www.cdc.gov/STD/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm

http://www.ashastd.org/hpv/hpv_learn_myths.cfm

While a highly controversial topic, both sides of the issue for and against this activity have been fighting fiercely to prove their points on both relegious, secular, scientific, and statistical grounds.

This section deals with....

Adolescent Sexual Activity In The United States

Research (Shown in the paragraph below) HAS proven In The United States however that pregnancy and std transmission in sexually active teens has gone down dramatically over the past 10 years, both of which have been leading secular reasons for stopping adolescent sexual activity (For pregnancy this is vaginal intercourse and for STD's like HIV it is anal, oral, or vaginal sex that counts towards the statistics, other STD's like syphillis etc. are available at the reference page)

Centers For Disease Control study On Rates For STD, and Pregnancy in United States teens

Of US teens aged 15-19 who are having sexual intercourse almost all (98%) use at least one form of contraception. The most popular form, at 94% usage, are condoms and the birth control pill at 61%. [4]

U.S. teen pregnancies had decreased 28% between 1990 and 200 from 117 pregnancies of every 1,000 to 84 per 1,000 by the year 2,000.[5]

Plase note however that WORLDWIDE: "Genital HPV infection is a sexually transmitted disease (STD) that is caused by human papillomavirus (HPV). Human papillomavirus is the name of a group of viruses that includes more than 100 different strains or types. More than 30 of these viruses are sexually transmitted, and they can infect the genital area of men and women including the skin of the penis, vulva (area outside the vagina), or anus, and the linings of the vagina, cervix, or rectum. Most people who become infected with HPV will not have any symptoms and will clear the infection on their own."[6]

Also, in the case of HPV condoms DO NOT completely stop the risk of contraction oh HPV, however the use of condoms has been shown by studies to lower the risk of getting this Disease[7]

Some of these viruses are called "high-risk" types, and may cause abnormal Pap tests. They may also lead to cancer of the cervix, vulva, vagina, anus, or penis. Others are called "low-risk" types, and they may cause mild Pap test abnormalities or genital warts. Genital warts are single or multiple growths or bumps that appear in the genital area, and sometimes are cauliflower shaped. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nateland (talk • contribs) 21:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

well....

I waited a couple of hours after I made the proposal.. then i proceeded to post them. however they were soon reverted (Somehow the person who did it isn't on the log) And i'm formally asking the people interested in this article to come and try to reach a decision as it has multiple dubious and POV sections which i've been trying to combat for the past few days to no avail really....

help is appreciated. Article in question: adolescence

Other articles in question: sexual addiction pornography addiction psychology of adolescents

NOTE: We are looking for people willing to help out WITHOUT any kind of point of view, bias, or anything that would worsen the off balance neutrality for these articles.

attention!

due to no input having been given for over 12 hours, i'm consider that all parties hereby consent to the temporary replacement of the sexuality section with the text as shown above.

Yours truly, Nateland 20:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nateland, you may not have anything to do on a Saturday night/ Sunday morning, but plenty of us did. 12 hours is not a sufficient time period to achieve consensus on something like this. In general, several days is a good rule of thumb. Most of us don't hover over WP constantly, so you can't assume that since no one raises any objections within a few hours that we all agree. Further, what was on there contained good info on health & pregnancy, but you deleted much on psychological issues. I did like creating a subsection about US teens. Finally, again, don't simply delete material you disagree with. What is posted is from experts in easily verifiable sources. Find other sources to back up what you believe if you want. I've reverted to the old text. --Illuminato 03:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC) PS - The note you added is not part of the WP style. Please find an appropriate template to use, if you feel it is needed.--Illuminato 03:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed passages

"Genital HPV infection is a sexually transmitted disease (STD) that is caused by human papillomavirus (HPV). Human papillomavirus is the name of a group of viruses that includes more than 100 different strains or types. More than 30 of these viruses are sexually transmitted, and they can infect the genital area of men and women including the skin of the penis, vulva (area outside the vagina), or anus, and the linings of the vagina, cervix, or rectum. Most people who become infected with HPV will not have any symptoms and will clear the infection on their own."

Also, in the case of HPV condoms DO NOT completely stop the risk of contraction oh HPV, however the use of condoms has been shown by studies to lower the risk of getting this Disease[7]

I didn't see what the above had to with the article, so I deleted it. Xiner (talk, email) 22:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with deleting this section. It doesn't have anything directly to do with adolescence, but rather with sexuality in general. --Uthbrian (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

this is what it was for.

Due to the dispute about the leonard sax information being filled in on the sexuality section I put in just general STD info until it could be resolved.... (I was thinking it would be neutral enough just as a basic filler until this dispute could be fixed)

Although now that it's al lback to the old junk I'm thinking the same thing Xiner, adolescent sex should be relegated to the MAIN topic of sexuality (Maybe the portal or something?, or inside the article on human sexual behaviour?), and then once it's there we can all argue and fuss over what goes in it.

Anyone with me on this? Nateland 21:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

oh yes i almost forgot!

If it was in human sexual behaviour then we could link off into the various other subjects of sexuality as teenagers DO have a diverse range of sexual behaviours including homosexuality and paraphilia's and thus it would allow for GREATER expansion of this topic which needs much information.

And to Illuminato, I know i shouldn't have deleted it. But it's ALL from Leonard Sax!, THAT'S the problem, we need info from BOTH sides of the debate and if it's all LEONARD SAX!, then well.... maybe we should have a for and against section. But I think that what i stated in my post above would be quite fitting as it IS general sexuality.

Then we'll let the larger audience shred it to bits and feud over the content. Although I think that BEFORE we even THINK of sticking it in the sexuality portal we'll need to create a NEW section that is acceptable to the 4 of us as i see it.

That means once it's as neutral as WE and any OTHER people who join in think it ought to be THEN we can discuss amongst ourselves the issue of merging it with the sexuality portal or one of it's subarticles.

What do you think Illuminato/people?

Nateland 21:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• WP is not a place to have debates with for and against sections. You did not place those new sections in the sexuality section, so please be more careful in the future. A lot of the info you had was duplicated, so I removed what was in there twice. Also, please get a full cite for the Levine source. Your original text said she was a journalist, is she also an expert in teenage sexuality? If she is not, I question whether what would only be her opinion should be included. I left it in for the time being, until you get the full cite. Finally, there are 18 cited sources in this section, and only 5 of them are from Sax. Thats a far cry from "ALL."--Illuminato 00:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A few random thoughts about the edit war:

We don't always have to break things out into pro/con terms. That often isn't the best way of presenting different opinions. In this case, I think we can come up with something more nuanced than "for" and "against" sections. You can't look at a study and decide whether the study is for or against adolescent sexuality, so these sections won't work. We should also be careful to say that a study has proven its conclusion. We can say things like "according to a study by..." or "researchers at xyz wrote that..." but we should not say "Research (Shown in the paragraph below) HAS proven". With that said, the quotes from Leonard Sax are excessive, placed too highly, and the way they are used is a violation of the NPOV policy. There are even opinionated statements which are written in Wikipedia's own voice - absolutely prohibited by NPOV. For example, the sentence "The harm done to teenagers who engage in sexual activities is especially true for girls" must be removed. I am placing an NPOV tag on this section and I hope that we will hear from people other than Illuminato and Nateland here. Rhobite 00:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that really a source we want to be using here? From the wikpedia page on Harmful to Minors: "Because of its controversial nature and content, it was nearly impossible for Levine to find a publisher — one prospective publisher even called it "radioactive." A book that was nearly impossible to publish because it was so extreme doesnt really sound like the type of sources we should be using here. POV isnt good in either direction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.91.115.201 (talk) 05:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

It's a pretty well-known book and it got a lot of press coverage, not all of which was negative. Joycelyn Elders wrote the foreword. It's an opinionated source, but it is a good source for describing the opinions of those who believe sexuality is normal in teenagers. Please re-read the WP:NPOV policy. While Wikipedia articles do not express opinions themselves, there is nothing wrong with describing the opinions of others. Rhobite 05:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

True, it got a lot of press but only because it was so controversial. I don't think anyone is arguing that sexuality isn't normal in teenagers, just whether or not it is healthy for them to be acting on those instincts. Anyway, from the quote provided, this book seems to argue that sex is good for children. I haven't read it, but the only other people I know making that argument in NAMBLA. --Illuminato 03:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

yes i know

Yes, i was just trying to make a compromise that wouldn't be reverted by making for and against sections.

Because.. due to the controversial nature of this topic I think that it requires views from both sides AS WELL as general info (which was deleted multiple times by illuminato) Yes, i recognize i am biased FOR teenage sex and that's the reason i am contending it's current state so much.

I was thinking that with for and against sections as well as a general info (probably statistical and scientific) it would be more informative due... as i said earlier there might be people coming to this page (As it's #1 on googles search for adolescence) for advice and I am worried that the current constantly reverted to section on sexuality WILL cause possible confusion and misguided ideas about the adolescent sex that will NOT be in the interest of the person affected by it.

YES, my FOR section was pov, i was going to add more info and statisttics from the book (Of which there are many), although since I think that judith's book is like a highly liberal version of leonard sax's highly conservative book it's not a very good book for use in wikipedia.

But i DO think that accurate, straight information WHICH tells EXACTLY what the effects and/or consequences of teen sex as WELL as info on contraception, and views of various organizations on this perhaps, WITH some polls of the views on teen sex from teenagers myself.

Well, this my word!, Nateland 02:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S.

Oh yea, and by straight i mean accurate information (Sorry if it came across to you as being homophobic... kind of a bad choice of words for this topic, just realized :D

Photo: Not high school students

The photo URL is dead. But I find it hard to believe that the completely bald man in the backgrund is under 40, and the mustache guy in the foreground looks at least in his 30's. And why are there so few high-school-looking males? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.43.141 (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Photo Changed Correctus 16:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced: preteens maintain preferences???

Resolved.

"Preteens are increasingly a specifically targeted market segment by business, because they tend to maintain the preferences they develop at this age."

Is this really true? How many adults enjoy "boy bands" and "tween" movies? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.40.43.141 (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Ok, still some problems.

Now, a minor concern is that the Part on HPV. WHICH can be partially prevented via condom usage (A Centers For disease control link was PLACED within EASY clicking distance to prove this point that it can lower it's risk and yet....

It keeps getting changed to (Oh it cannot be prevented by condoms or anything blah blah blah)

Now what arouses my suspicions is that people against sex among adolescence would do ANYTHING to make sex seem dangerous no matter what.

Even if it's just a little virus, and Illuminato.

HPV can lay dormant for YEARS. So if you get it before you marry, you marry, and you have sex. you can STILL contract HPV!, so EVEN MARRIAGE isn't any good when faced with what you term 'unpreventable diseases' I think i'll add in that part.

Also, the article seems to be doing ok. BUT!, even though most of Leonard Sax's quotes have been removed. There are still parts which i find, oddly unverifiable. I'll check them out though just to make sure.

And thanks SO much Rhobite, Xiner etc. for helping make this article a little smoother!, i'm glad.

Nateland 00:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

these sentences in question.

teens - and preteens - are too young to fathom the consequences, both physical and emotional, of" sexual activities.

How is that able to be PROVEN?, that's not a very provable point. Comes from world news.

impersonality of twenty-first-century adolescent sex victimizes girls" and "plenty of harm" is done to boys as well.[9] When taking part in hookups "the kids don't even look at each other. It's mechanical, dehumanizing. The fallout is that later in life they have trouble forming relationships. They're jaded.

I have sources to indicate that sex ACTUALLY HELPS relationships form later in life by giving teens the tools to make love, negotiate, and more.

, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco and author of The Sex Lives of Teenagers, "early initiation into sexual behaviors [takes] a toll on teens' mental health. The result, she says, can be 'dependency on boyfriends and girlfriends, serious depression around breakups and cheating, [and a] lack of goals.'

This came from World news too. In fact BOTH of these are from a 2005 article that i doubt ANYONE can easily get to. I'm requesting that the person who posted this PROVIDES THE ARTICLE ON-LINE ALONG WITH IT'S SOURCES.

Otherwise it breaks a wikipedia policy (Can't remember which one though), but WHO keeps year old newspapers?, not many people would have the article on hand to verify judging by that. AND newspapers don't usually list sources except random or 'specially picked' scientists who might not have A CLUE what they're talking about. I'm HEAVILY in favor of removing the US and world news report paragraphs and checking into the statement that teens become 'jaded'.

Nateland 00:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think all of the quotes should be removed, especially if their statements are not supported by data. Just because J. Random Person says something doesn't make it automatically true. --Uthbrian (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Gender specific terms??

Any proposed gender-specific terms?? Just like "boy" and "girl" are for "child"?? Georgia guy 00:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think there are any gender-specific terms for adolescents in English. They're not quite children (boy/girl) and not quite adults (man/woman). Spanish, for example, has muchacho/a, but not English. --Strangerer (Talk) 20:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed lines about HPV

I have removed the following text from the "Adolescent sexuality" section:

One STD that can not be prevented with condoms or the birth control pill is the human papillomavirus (HPV). HPV may lead to certain types of cancer and genital warts.

The first sentence is overstated. There is evidence that condom use may reduce the risk of HPV [2]. --Uthbrian (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Too much (text about) adolescent sex!

It's sloppy, redundant, and an invitation to a POV fork, to have so much material in the "Adolescent sexuality" section when there's also a main article about it. When a sub-topic has its own article, there should just be a brief summary paragraph in the parent article. 69.3.237.3 20:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the material to Talk:Adolescent sexuality. Please integrate any material that is not redundant into that article.

69.3.237.3 20:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see the material's been restored as my version was "not a summary." This is strange, since what I kept was what was there before -- I barely changed any wording, much less content.

But whatever, it's not my work -- I'll give you some time to summarize it yourself. But the work does need to be done, as the section as it stands is bloated and redundant with Adolescent sexuality.

DanB†DanD 21:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What the...I've just checked, and the section is identical with Adolescent sexuality. The entire article is simply printed twice, once as an article and once as a subsection. That's ridiculous.

(The anon above was me not logged in, by the way, sorry -- I was merrily typing four tildes and not checking hwo they came out.) DanB†DanD 21:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Illuminato! I, uh...I still think it's too long -- it remains twice the length of any other section. But that was really good-faith-y of you. DanB†DanD 21:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you guys.

Yes, the topic of adolescent sexuality is WAAAYYY to trolled. The part on HPV has been reverted AGAIN and the main article on Adolescent sexuality IS a identical copy.

We've got a MAJOR problem with trollers and I think that we should try and keep the adolescent sexuality part OUT of this article and in the main article on that topic.

EVEN if it means a never ending edit war, we can always try and call in an administrator.

Now... with the main article on adolescent sexuality, I'm up for some revising of it to get rid of any POV statements and try to present all major sides of the debate in a clearly visible manner (This to me is a big problem as I myself am an advocate FOR allowing teenagers to have consensual sex with the use of contraception and whenever I've managed to introduce that side of the debate into the article and it wasn't reverted... well, it was shoved down at the bottom and out of sight basically. )

It looks like we'll need to put in a lot of effort for this. In the meantime I'll check over the main article, add some neutrality tags to the section on this adolescence article.

And I think I'll delete the section here as it's already in the main article on adolescent sexuality (Whomever created it... probably that annoying pest Illuminato when he/she/herma :-) was looking for a way to sneak in a few POV statements, I apologize if i was wrong about Illuminato making it.. but he's given me A LOT of trouble in the past with this topic.

Anyways, good luck to making this a wikified article HOORAY! Nateland 19:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming. Wikipedia:Five pillars Jecowa 00:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Spinout

I reverted a recent edit by Nateland where he completely removed a section of the article because another article covered the same topic. However, to quote from WP's guideline on spinout articles, having a summary of a main article is a "completely normal Wikipedia procedure." The Summary style guideline in a nutshell says "When articles grow too long, longer sections should be spun off into their own articles and a several paragraph summary should be left in its place. Such sections are linked to the detailed article with a {{main|<name of detailed article>}} or comparable template under the section title." That is what was there, and what I returned.

Edit the summary to improve it if you like, Nateland, but please do not delete it again. Also, when you make a change of more than 10,000, it is not a minor change. I will assume good faith and consider it a mistake, but please take care not to misuse the minor change button in the future.--Illuminato 04:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The sexuality section was really long - three pages of text. It is now summarized in the Adolescence article as one and a half pages of text. I think that is still kind of long. Maybe it would be less time consuming to delete this section for now and focus efforts on the Adolescent sexuality article. Then when that article is acceptable to both parties, create a summary from it on this article. Jecowa 06:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)