Talk:Adolescent sexuality/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Adolescent sexuality. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

World view

Adolescent sexuality appears to be one of the critical issues in the US culture wars, behaviour, attitudes and understandings of the topic are US centric. Paul foord 09:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I am totally in agreement with the above.

Exactly!, in Europe and Japan as far as I know Adolescent sex is HARDLY an issue. Although in order to get a good idea of their views we'll need some peeps from Europe and other parts of the globe to do some editing on this.

I myself am American so.... well, yeah. Although I have some Israeli friends who might be able to contribute a tiny bit or more, i'll see if they're willing to help out.

No one i know from any other place though, sry... But i never did realize it WAS highly US centric until now. Damn is this topic a US culture war.... ech *shudders*.

I'll be removing some POV statements and links however, and i'm GLAD that this is part of wikiproject sexuality, that's quite a good category. It might even expand coverage of this topic and help straigten out POV statements.

Nateland 19:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe better title would be "Adolescent sexuality in the United States"

The intro is still US biased. Change of title would be a better reflection of the article. Also links to Amazon. com are problematic. Paul foord 03:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a COMPLAINT.

I am lodging a formal complaint about the user illuminato.

Why?, because he IS ALWAYS inserting every possible kind of weasel word, POV statement, and he CONSISTENTLY reverts changes made by me and other people back to a HIGHLY POV state.

I am stating this now.

I request that Illuminato be BANNED from editing Wikipedia for a while at least. Due to his constant unwillingness to allow ANY sort of lettering into wikipedia other than his own biased views.

This has been glaringly obvious to me in the articles on

Adolescence, namely the adolescent sexuality section. And the new article created on Adolescent sexuality. Which he has CONSTANTLY been reverting back into an incredibly biased state with sources from 2 year old single day of printing newspapers, use of HIGHLY DUBIOUS sources to back up his OBVIOUSLY POV statements and claims which he injects, and how he HAS ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS disregarded the requests and wishes of me and other people on wikipedia in order to revert and basically vandalize articles so they reflect a TOTALLY BIASED POV,

I am sick and tired of this and will go into a revert war if need be until this gets fixed as HARDLY ANYTHING has managed to be accomplished with his constant interference which DOES NOTHING I repeat... NOTHING to help the article out whatsoever...... Although i am asking help from my fellow wikipedians n solving this issue and perhaps calling up a moderation committee person.

If you check over the discussions and histories on these two articles I am sure you will CLEARLY see the point of contention.

also, i will place a copy of this in Illuminato's talk page so that he knows what my allegations against him are, i am sick and tired of thiss silliness ans i hope it stops here.

NOTE: Illuminato's edit said fixing up the front part of the topic.... except it was basically reverted. now THAT is what REALLY annoys me, lying in order to rebias an article which is ALREADY in dire need of improvement.

I hope my wishes are at least considered or met.

Nateland 04:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Illuminato shouldn't be banned. User:Illuminato isn't reverting User:Nateland's edits out of maliciousness, he is doing it to restore the articles. User:Nateland removed the entire contents of the Adolescence article. User:Illuminato hasn't been lying as previously claimed, but User:Nateland deleted large portions of an article, called it a minor change, and didn't mention the deletion in the edit summary. That would be considered as a misrepresentation of the facts. User:Illuminato is respectful. User:Nateland is refers to people he disagrees with as trolls. User:Nateland says POV is bad, but then adds his own point of view to the article. All related major points of view should be included in Wikipedia article. Points of views should be mentioned as opinions unless they can be backed up as fact with reliable sources. Jecowa 05:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I admit that at first i ddin't keep my cool, HOWEVER, Illuminato HAS BEEN doing all of what i mentioned and I DID NOT DELETE the entire article.... (at least as far as i can remember). In the beggining of my joining this site a couple of weeks ago i DID delete the adolescent sexuality section of the article on adolescence but that was ONLY because of how shocked and angered I was by the countless amounts of POV in it at that time.

And i am STILL trying to make it less POV of but user:Illuminato has been causing A LOT of trouble for me and the other people who have been revising this article... he might be 'polite' but if you look closely you'll SEE he IS NOT following the wikipedia guidelines..

Do you REALLY think that the January 25th or so edition of the 2005 U.S. world and news report is a good reference?, how many people do you think still have it to easily review?. And you can't say that using a two or so year old monthly magazine article is an easily peer accissible reference EITHER. And yes, i am trying to make it NPOV, and when i rearranged it into a format that was more conducive to a NPOV way and added the OTHER major point of view (The POV that says adolescent sexuality isn't all that bad..) Illuminato called it Nambla material and promptly deleted it.

HE DOES NOT post on the board before making changes, I and the others DO! and if you look at his record User:Jecowa I am CERTAIN that you will see how he has CONSSITENTLY done endless reverts in order to keep the major points of view that don't agree adolescent sex is horrible down at the bottom or deleted (Which he consistently does).

Why stick up for him if you don't view his records?, YES in the start my own changes were not so bright, but i HAD JUST JOINED wikipedia.... duuuuuhhhh. Do you really expect a person who'd been editing on wikipedia for 2 days to know EVERYTHING?.

P.S. and Illuminato has called many things he's done MINOR but they turn out to be apparent cover ups for rearranging, deleting, and POV'ing entire sections. Several paragraph summaries?

Ok, this one is for Illuminato.

A. you CREATED the article on adolescent sexuality.

B. the text in the adolescent sexuality section is IDENTICAL to that of the article.

C. Despite my attempts to fix that and make it into a summary you have REPEATEDLY reverted it.

D. why in the hell would you do all of the above?, as someone in the adolescent sexuality article talk said. "Sounds like a duplication of efforts to me"

no offense but you need to set your brainwaves to the tune.

-|

I rest my case, for now Nateland 20:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

oh yes i almost forgot.

Could someone explain why the link to this article which i put in the main article on adolescence was moved?. I don't see any reason that it doesn't belong... in fact, if the sexuality sectino of that article ever DOES become an unbiased summary than having the link to this article would.. in my opinion and i think many others would agree, be a neccissity

Nateland 21:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not copy and paste, please.

Please keep this article clean—copy & paste are not allowed from web sites with copyrighted information (see Wikipedia’s copyright policy). Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 08:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

i added links

I added links and put the copied information into CLEAR quotationd.

I believe that the link to siecus is allowed for informational purposes.

I did copy a bunhc of extra info accidently because the damn reference link screwed up, but THIS is the link to the page. Ask before reverting, you're giving me the impression you just don't like what i'm adding to wikipedia (Which is quite valid information)

http://www.siecus.org/pubs/fact/fact0020.html

If you could restore my edit and fix the above reference link to not copy the entire siecus page that would be highly appreicated and MUCH better than just reverting it using 'popups'

Nateland 08:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the Wikipedia Copyright Policy for information on why I reverted your edit. You copied a lot more information than could be considered to be fair use under United States copyright law. The only information that you are permitted to copy verbatim is that which has entered the public domain through the expiration of the original copyright—which lasts a very long time for businesses. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 08:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I added study data

The study data which I added IS from the public domain or is granted for educational use I am pretty sure, if you want me to paraphrase it then tell me so and I will, just don't suddenly revert it,

If the centers for disease control publishes data then it is AUTOMATICALLY in the public domain, the siecus website just has a brief summary of the data STRAIGHT from those study reports.

And the KFF data i am fairly sure is usable under fair use, that should be the only thing i would have to paraphrase.

check the links on http://www.siecus.org/pubs/fact/fact0020.html Nateland 08:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.kff.org/newsroom/howtocite.cfm here is the KFF copying guidelines, however online reprinting is not mentioned, but linking is allowed, So i think that paraphrasing would be alright.

Paraphrasing is always acceptable. However, and I have mentioned this before, it is to revert all destructive edits, including copyright infringements. From the copyright policy: “If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the talk page, along with the original source. If the author's permission is obtained later, the text can be restored” (WP:COPY, § 1.3, ¶ 3). —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 08:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

so if i were to....

So if i were to paraphrase the 2000 seventeen magazine and KFF survey and add the link it would be acceptable?.

And

I can't seem to find the YRBS info on the CDC website (There's a LOT of pdf's etc. with YEARS of YRBS data, perhaps you could help?, it's the 2001 YRBS) but if i were to find it and cut & paste from the CDC website that data THEN that would be ok as well correct?, since the CDC is a federal agency anything it publishes goes right into the public domain.

RSVP

Nateland 09:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

i'll get right down to paraphrasing the Kaiser Family Foundation info right now.

Nateland 09:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can paraphrase, and then add a link. Wikipedia has a page showing how to attribute sources through the use of footnotes, as well as their policy on citation in general. As long as you paraphrase, and then you cite where you got the idea from, so that it can be verified independently, you can’t go wrong! :-)

I can understand how the PDFs and the like are hard to go through. I may be able to help you tomorrow (it is 4 AM here my time, and I need to be up at like 10 AM, so I have to scoot) and I have been working on monitoring other articles this evening. However, leave me a note on my talk page and tell me what you need from where, and I will be happy to help out with this article as much as I can tomorrow. Have a good night! —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 09:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

guess what?

It's 4:16 a.m where i live :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nateland (talk • contribs) 09:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

ok it is done..

I've paraphrased the KFF source, and dug up the 2005 CDC YRBS study and have 'injected' that into my additions, HOWEVER. I will get some more study and CDC data straight from the sources and THIS time i will check out the copyright policies :-)

It should be fixed up a fair amount by sunday, depends on my speed of editing.

And as a note to Illuminato:

DON'T go about deleting what i put in and call it 'formatting references and spelling' like you did in the other article, if you want it taken out then DISCUSS it here, although I think that even you won't find this too disagreeable, (You still get your nice little globs of Leonard Sax 'data' wayyy up top, mainly because i'm sick of arguing over it at the moment and want to fix up this article a bit more before seeing if you'll actually agree to making it not so POV'D,

(note, the note to Illuminato IS simply my opinion and a little note to him telling him not to mess with what i put in, as he has done in the past, this goes for everyone else to, i'm SICK of reversions based on POV) Nateland 10:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nateland, I have already asked you to be more careful in your edits on your talk page. You made a number of mistakes in your edits here again, so I ask you here to take greater care when you edit so that these major mistakes are not made. For instance, you changed the quote in the lead but kept quotation marks around it. You can NOT change quotes like that. Quotes indicate that what is between them is a verbatim account. When you substitute your words you are giving the impression that someone said something they didn't. You also did this with a sentence I wrote, but ascribed it to Dr. Sax. You can't put my words in his mouth.

Your data on why teens engage in sexual intercourse was flawed several ways. First, it may have come from Seventeen magazine originally, but thats not where you found it. You found it on the Sexuality Information and Education Council's website. You need to say so. Further, you miss cited the data you found there. It was not 51% of 12-17 year olds who had sex because they found the right person, it was 51% of 15-17 year olds. Furthermore, 'Risky Business is not a book, it is the name of a story in U.S. News & World Report. While discussing this article I should also point out that the author is a journalist writing for a news publication. If she has personal views on adolescent sexuality she keeps them to herself in the article. You can not claim, as you did, to know what she thinks on the subject.

Finally, again many of your edits are poor grammatically and contain numerous misspellings of words. You have fragmented sentences, subjects and verbs don't match, single sentence paragraphs, etc. You even had a whole section that consisted of a single sentence. You messed up this sentence anyway, as one half of it came from the US News story but you put gave Dr. Sax attribution for it. Like you can't change peoples words inside quotes you certainly can not take comments from two different people, put them in a single quote, and give someone else authorship of it.

Please be more careful, Nateland. It will make for a better experince for all readers and all editors. --Illuminato 19:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I brought back my version after anon reverted to the version as of 19:36, 20 January 2007 by Nateland. Anon called them reckless and asked me to bring changes to talk page, which I had already done. I kept all the content that was verifiable, and even some that wasn't properly sourced, and didn't delete anything substantive. All I did was reorganize it so that it would be easier to read.--Illuminato 20:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ponton book - research of a global, western culture or US specific focus?

I have not got access to this book - is Ponton writing about research of a global, western culture or US specific focus? Paul foord 13:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

i'll guess that it's U.S. centric, however i don't know exactly if it is US centric or not.... I'll google it and see if i can find som info, also, you might want to try and see if there's a wikipedia article on her. Although the Article IS slowly becoming less and less United states centric, i think that a worldwide view template should be placed on this. Nateland 19:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

She uses case studies from her work with San Fransisco teenagers to highlight larger points in the two books I have read from her. I think most of what she says relates not just to the US, but to all of the developed world. --Illuminato 20:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a call to action.

Could we get someone down here to assess this article? It would be greatly appreciated in solving a few things...

Oh yes, I find that while this article is being slowly reworked into something doable, the 'summary' on the main article about adolescence ITSELF is...

well, IN need of much reworking, though I will wait to get some other people's input, It's been sitting there in the adolescent sexuality section of the article for a couple of weeks now with NO changes whatsoever.... And I think that it either needs to be made into a NPOV summary, or lengthened to include all of the CURRENT adolescent sexuality article.

(Well, i'd go for making it into an NPOV conforming summary) But this is my opinion and I think that we should divert some focus to that issue.

Nateland 19:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Working on it. I am working on a complete and utter re-write of the article now, such that it can be verified. However, I am running into issues finding unbiased sources of information—everyone has their slant on this subject. That is rather frustrating. I have been working on this for a few hours now, though, and I have a draft of a new article in my user space, but I need to find way more information before I can replace this article with it. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 19:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Allow me to restate that—I need to find more references to information that is viable and within our standards here. Having gone through the process myself, there is more that I can write on it for sure, and I am sure that anyone who is a teenager now can contribute widely. However, verifiability and neutrality are the problems, and they’re amazingly hard to find in the several articles that I have read so far. I am about to start looking at dissertations, as well. Those have to be neutral, right? ;-) —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 20:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that's why whewn i first started editing the adolescent sexuality articles (or section because at that time it was a sectioni n thwe main article on adolescence) I lost my cool, I think however that the references and quotations from Leonard Sax should go, as Illuminato, who just recklessly deleted entire portions of this article (I had to revert and he messed up some revisions i had made due to my getting an edit conflict message) has NOT posted ANY of Leonard Sax's sources of information, yet he conitnuoualy tries to keep as much of his info in their as possible, and I havn't been able to get y hands on the book yet.

I think that we'll need some protection for this article, because i have NO doubts that Illuminato's vandalizing will go on and on and on as he tells me WP:Be bold (In other words, i won't give you any of the books sources, but you should go buy it, you might actually learn something) YES!, he actually said, *You might actually learn something*....

As POV as that sounds it ticks me off to no end, could you provide me with instructions of reporting 3 revert rule ivolations just in case it gets taken there?

Thanks, Nateland 20:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nateland, I do not see anything that would constitute violations or destruction by way of article reversion. We’re all here to help Wikipedia out—personal matters do not matter here. That having been said, there is considerable evidence that would suggest that you have been dealing with this article—and this situation—in a manner reflecting your age. You’ve been warned on various issues—not just by me—as to your edits here. I understand that being bold is part of the Wikipedia experience. However, being bold also does not mean sacrificing quality, verifiability, neutrality, or originality for anything else.

You have a great deal to learn, Nateland. And there are many people here on Wikipedia that would be willing to help you out. However, you seem to come across as arrogant. You’ve started an edit war on this article for little reason, and made accusations that as far as I can tell are unfounded—feel free to correct me if you think that I am wrong, and point me out to where such violation(s) occurred. However, as of this time, I don’t see them.

I would encourage you to settle down and be patient. There are peaceful ways of settling disputes that do not require great deals of “mud slinging,” so to speak. You’ve great potential as an editor here at Wikipedia, but you have to simmer down at least a little bit. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 20:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

sigh... I have tried to improve this article, and if you want the source of it all check out the main article on adolescence (There were also disputes in the adolescent pshychology article over Illuminato's addtions), I have tried to keep my cool for some time but Illuminato has been conssitently giving me problems, yes.. when I first joined wikipedia i acted pretty uncivil, but I tink that right now I am not doing the wrong thing, he deleted LOADS of information (For the upteenth time) and has done so again and again and again, I have TRIED ... (Believe me) to settle this but he won't budge, I know maybe i don't budge that much either but at least i am allowing him to keep a LOT of his stuff in the article, while he simply deletes whatever i put in their or formats it so that it is nearly invisible to the eye.

Like I said.. check out the history and discussion on the main article on adolescence. (I mean, Illuminato CREATED the article on adolescent sexuality, why would he continuously delete entire sections which haven't met objections, are correctly paraphrase, and just go on trying to keep it as much an exact copy of the sexuality section in the article on adolescent as possible?)

He comes across to Me as simply using requests for politeness and warnings as an umbrella to continue degrading wikipedia. I'm all FOR editing and expanding articles and improving them, but when only ONE side of an issue is allowed to stay, and TONS of viewpoints come from one man and are kept there via edit warring...

It starts to cause annoyance (At least with me) Nateland 21:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Illuminato, you should know his by now..

Ok here's the deal bucko, I clearly cited my sources and so far NO ONE but YOU has disagreed with them, you have deleted ENTIRE SECTIONS 2 TIMES in the last few minutes and If you continue to do so i will report you for a 3 revert rule violation.

Ask Fd0man or any of the other people who helped me correctly paraphrase and reference the siecus and other information, you have NO RIGHT to go about deleting other peoples contributions by the truckload, I've been on wikipedia for less than a month and even I know that.

I will revert the article back to its state before your reckless editing, if you 'edit' it again and fail to discuss it with ALL of us beforehand then i will report you.

Nateland 20:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nateland, as I discussed above, I did not delete any of your proper content. I just reformatted some of it and made it easier to read, but none of the data you provided was removed. In fact, it was good data and I commend you for finding it. However, the version you keep reverting to has several major problems with it. You change quotes, provide incorrect attributions, misspell words, etc. The whole idea of wikipedia is that it is something anyone can edit. I have every right to edit this article in order to clean it up. Please read my above comments and the version of the article I have again reverted back to so that you can see for yourself that all your data was included. Also, 'bucko', please read the official policy on Wikipedia:Civility. It will make for a better experience for all. --Illuminato 20:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, my HTML skills are as basic as can be, I normally have to take a couple of tries to get a reference tag right, and I simply changed the quotes because I saw that according to the flow of the article that they'd be better in other sections of the article, I also have had to take a couple shots to get the CDC 2005 YRBS study data ontrack as my computer messed up a few times and impeded my drafting up revisions for this article. And no, I am not an expert speller, maybe You are, and if so than feel Free to fix any speling mistaks I make and improve the article further, and the atributions was a whole paraphrasing misunderstanding on my part early this morning which I corrected.

You see, you can't just delete entire sections because of major problems.. the studies are listed correctly, so if they don't fit... Then just find the correctl inks on the web. Believe me, I tried to make sure the refs were right, and to my knowledge they were. You can blame me all you want for the above mistakes, but instead of deleting it, try and IMPROVE it!!! ( That's what I am rying to do nowadays, and I hope you'll do the same on this article)

Yes.. .I know that this topic is a point of contention, but we can't make it solely or vastly or POVly opinionated, if we include opinions, then we mark them up equally as certain peoples views and try to format them accordingly to this simple guideline, and CDC and KFF study data isn't even a summary of someones opinion, it's pure mathematically represented statistical data which Might be showing that teens aren't engaging in sex 'mindlessly and mind numbingly' as one of your experts put it, but That's a GOOD thing right?, to show that condom usage is going up, and that adolescents are not just making love for the heck of it or to piss off their parents or whatever. Unless someone is raped or coerce, people have sex because they WANT to, it's part of life, and I don't see how including accurate easily peer accessible information on that topic is such a bad thing.

Correct me if i'm wrong.

Nateland 21:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Illuminato this is a warning

Ok, illuminato, I am going to revert your reckless 'edits' and 'fixes' back to its state before you went about destroying them.

IF you decide to mess it up AGAIN without discussing it with the rest of us on the talk page 9That means waiting for a couple of responses) and getting a consensus, then I WILL report you for a 3 revert rule violation.

A warning will be placed on your talk page.

66.212.201.26 20:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A way forward

Nateland, you keep adding a Weasel Words template to the article. Instead of continued bickering, why don't you point out some instances of these weasel words. Then, you and I can join with whomever else is interested and we can fix them. It is a small project that hopefully we can work together on them and engender some good will. If you place the statements with weasel words here on the talk page we can work on them to remove the weasel words, and then fix it in the article. Sound good? --Illuminato 21:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

related to Adolescence article