Talk:Adolescent sexuality in the United States/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Let's consider some specific edits one at a time

I am not in any way considering the meta-discussion in the above thread about the proper scope of this article to be completed, and by opening this thread I'm not suggesting that that thread is not active.

I have suggested (in that above thread) that this is not a subject that the Wikipedia can well cover in depth, party (not entirely) because it is contentious and leads to battling, when energy could be better spent getting other articles up to Good Article status and so forth. So I have suggested that the article be kept short and stick mostly to facts, e.g. "this study shows such-and-such activity at such-and-such level" and so forth.

But it the article is going to present more than that, that's OK too. So since it does (right now), let's proceed on that basis.

Now, a number of edits by an editor were just reverted en masse, and there may be good reason for that, I don't know. If the edits were made in bad faith or something, that would be a data point in considering the acceptability of the edits, and we can talk about that also. But for now I am assuming good faith. So let's look at the edits, one a time.

In looking at contributions to this article, I think that a couple of things we want to look at are:

• Is the material sourced? How good is the source? Does the source actually support the statement? (I think that we want to have particularly good sources in an article like this.)
• Is the material appropriate to the article?
• Is it legitimate? That is, it trying to push a particular point of view into the article, or giving undue weight to any point of view, or stuff like that?

OK, well one edit I saw that jumped out at me was this:

"Early sexual intercourse among American adolescents represents a major public health problem," according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, which believes that "unrealistic, inaccurate, and misleading information" about sex in film, television, and music play a significant role in contributing to the problem.

So:

• Is it a good source? Well, official publications from the American Academy of Pediatrics would seem like quite a good source. If they are a fringe splinter group that would be a problem, and if the the publication doesn't contain the actual quotes given, or if these are taken out of context, or stuff like that, that would be a problem, and if any of these things are true I would ask other editors to point that out. But for now, without checking more deeply at this time, I would say American Academy of Pediatrics == good source.
• Is it appropriate for the article? Well, again assuming that the article is going to have extensive coverage of intepretations of data an so forth, then it seems entirely on subject.
• Is it legitimate? Well, obviously it present a point of view, but that in itself is OK since the article (as it stands) presents many points of view and (I guess) is intended to. Is it pushing one point of view at the expense of other valid points of view? Well, the material immediately preceding this material has stuff like

  [V]iewing adolescent sexuality as a potentially positive experience, rather than as something inherently dangerous, may help young people develop healthier patterns and make more positive choices regarding sex."

So unless I'm missing something, it seems to balance that material. So that seems OK.

So it would seem that this material would be appropriate. I can understand if it was deleted as part of a general sweep of this editors extensive edits. It may be that all or most of the other material this editor has added is not properly sourced, or is not appropriate, or is not legitimate (I haven't checked). In that case, maybe this passage was just caught up in a baby-with-bathwater situation, which would be entirely understandable (we're all busy).

So is there any reason why this passage should not be restored? We can them move on other material, one piece at a time. Herostratus (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Herostratus. I don't think each edit will need such an extensive discussion, but I appreciate you setting up a valuable framework that we can all use. --Illuminato (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that particular fragment, Herostratus, wasn't source or particular quotation per sé, at least in my view, but rather the issue of WP:WEIGHT regarding its inclusion in this Wikipedia article. Note that the conclusions of that particular article published by the AAP was actually rather well-balanced, but this balance was totally missing from this Wikipedia article itself. See, for instance, Recommendation 4: "Pediatricians should encourage the broadcast industry to use public service announcements that promote abstinence from sexual intercourse for adolescents. Just as strongly, the use of public service announcements and advertisements that promote the use of condoms to prevent STDs and pregnancy for adolescents and adults who are already sexually active should be encouraged." Or, for instance, see the section in the same article that explicitly calls out positive uses for media in relation to sexual health: "Television has been effective in promoting the use of family-planning clinics in selected American communities. Trial advertising of barrier-contraceptive methods for women on local radio, local television, and national cable television has elicited few viewer complaints and many positive comments. Such advertising has been carefully developed, is generally considered to be in good taste, and focuses on adult women who choose to delay childbearing until a more appropriate time in their lives." (And that's just the first paragraph.) So again, whether or not this particular sentence should be included is a red-herring. The real issue is why so many surprisingly balanced sources are presented as though they are so surprisingly unbalanced--the example you chose is just one of many such instances of misleading citations herein. Readers of this article can easily get the wrong impression regarding the conclusions in its sources, which is a big problem. Couple that with the other concerns discussed in the #RFC here, and I feel that this unbalanced fragment was rightly removed. At the very least, as I hope I've made clear, it was not removed carelessly, nor was it "just caught up in a baby-with-bathwater situation." --Meitar (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Technical request

As a purely technical matter, could we please leave Illuminato's material in for the time being? It makes it much harder to track down and check the refs when the are only in the edit history and not in the article.

We'll work all this out I'm sure, so it won't matter if the material stays in for a short while. If the material doesn't check out we'll take it out soon enough, so hold your horses while we go through this, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

How does it make it "much harder"? As I'm sure you know, each edit has a permalink. Here's one with Illuminato's material. Just use that link to look at those sources, as I've done, above. If I can do it, you can do it. :) I'm sure we'll get around to things, too, but I'm disinclined to leave all this stuff in because it actually makes it more difficult to see where we currently stand, as instead of simply viewing the article's revision log, we'll have to follow various discussion threads to orient ourselves. That feels like a plainly backwards use of a technology enabling historiography (like Wikipedia) to me. --Meitar (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I didn't think of that, duh, sorry. In that case, I withdraw my edit restoring the material, you can revert it you like (as far as I am concerned). Herostratus (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool. :) Done. --Meitar (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is really disputing the quality of his sources. I think the issue is more in trying to pare down the amount of material without losing the quality of the article, and keeping the article in balance with the differing viewpoints. Atom (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Veracity of Dr. Sax references

There seems to be a disagreement about the reliability of material sourced from Dr. Leonard Sax's work. Some say it does not meet WP:MEDRS[1] while others do.[2] Thoughts? --Meitar (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Sax graduated Phi Beta Kappa from MIT with a bachelor's degree in biology and then completed the combined M.D.-Ph.D. program at the University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League school, with the Ph.D. in psychology. The book in question was published by Doubleday (publisher). It should not, and is not, be the basis of the entire article, but surely it is good enough for a couple in an article with hundreds of references. --Illuminato (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

In my view, books by mass-market publishers are questionable sources. By "questionable" I mean just that, open to question. This is because publishing companies do not employ fact-checkers. (This may not be true of some purely academic publishers.) They employ copy editors, who may check some facts, but generally on a hit-or-miss basis. In this, they differ from peer-reviewed journals and major journalistic entities.

So when you reference a book, you are depending very much on the author. In that case, some questions to ask are:

• What are this person's credentials?
• Are there significant and relevant character markers in this person's history? (Mostly only looking for major stuff here - for instance, if the person has been fired from a professorship for falsifying data, that would be a data point.)
• What are this person's motivations for being neutral and truthful? On the continuum "Entirely disinterested scholar <--> complete polemicist", where does this person fit? (Very few people are entirely one or the other, and most everyone has a point of view, and its only human to emphasize material that supports this. However, this tendency is present in varying degrees.)
• What is the cost/benefit position for this person vis-a-vis being rigorously truthful? (For instance, is this person in a position where, if it came out that a book he wrote was deliberately mendacious, would this person's career be harmed? For many popular authors it doesn't make much difference. For authors dependent on an academic career, it might.)

Oh, OK, Sax has a Wikipedia article, Leonard Sax. Granting that this only a beginning, let's use that.

• He has a Ph.D in psychology and (if I'm reading this right) an M.D., both from Penn, which is a good school. On the other hand, after that his professional experience is only as a family practitioner.
• He's not been fired or sued, but there has been criticism that he fudges data. We don't want to necessarily make too much of this - it looks like he has political enemies. It may be a data point, but a pretty small one.
• His motivations are questionable. He definitely appears to have a strong point of view.
• It looks like his cost for stretching the truth would not be high. He makes his living writing books and so forth, I infer, so he's pretty free to say what he wants.

Looking more into the article... good reviews by David Brooks, Time, Library Journal and the Atlantic and so forth, these don't mean too much, however the sheer weight of them adds up somewhat. However, when JAMA says he provides "excellent and informative references and information", that is something to notice.

Then criticism... there is a paragraph about criticism on a blog, which seems excessive and doesn't mean much. A paragraph about criticism from Elizabeth Weil. And that's it, so there's not much there. Weil does say "many academics... find Sax’s views stereotyped" and that would be worth drilling down on. The rest of Weil's criticism, at least as seen in the article, seems mainly political.

All in all, I'd say the JAMA quote is pretty telling. It depends on what we want this article to be. I would not consider Sax a reliable source for statements of fact. However, if the article is to show people's interpretations and opinions so forth, then it looks like Sax belongs at the party. He's notable, he's studied the issue, enough people have backed him up that he doesn't appear to be nutcase or anything. Herostratus (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Let my clarify that, since on reflection it contradicts my earlier assertion that only AAA-level refs should be used. I do not consider Sax's book an AAA-level ref for statements of fact (an this is true of most mass-marked books). I forget what statement was ref'd to Sax, but let's say it was something like "Teen sex causes depression" for instance. I would not take Sax's word for it and I would not use him as a ref to back up a statement of fact in the article to the effect that teen sexual activity is a known cause of depression. I don't trust the he wouldn't fudge his interpretation of data to fit his POV, and there's no fact-checker to back him up. (As I say, the Atlantic, David Brooks, Time, etc. are not in a position to vet his use of date. JAMA is, but it's just one quote, I'd have to read the review to see more about the context.)

However, if Sax is used to back up a statement such as "Some observers have contended that teen sex causes depression", then Sax is eligible to be included in the class "some observers", I think.

I personally don't think we should be going down the "Some observers have contended..." road with this article. But if we are, then Sax is, indeed, some observer. Herostratus (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

After hearing about his background and education, I was quite surprised that I could not find a single scholarly article that he has participated in. That concerns me from the perspective of his credibility as an expert on this topic. I did find "Boys Adrift: The Five Factors Driving the Growing Epidemic of Unmotivated Boys and Underachieving Young Men"[3] and "Girls on the Edge: The Four Factors Driving the New Crisis for Girls-Sexual Identity, the Cyberbubble, Obsessions, Environmental Toxins"[4] and "Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know about the Emerging Science of Sex Differences"[5]. I looked at the book,s and they seem well written and referenced. The question is, I guess, does his book (The one referenced in this article is the "Why Gender Matters") actually say what the references attribute, or does he say something else and the references are not in the same context as the book? Atom (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Vetting sources

One of the best ways this long article could be cut down on the sources. If we remove material that is not sourced to very good sources, that would best accomplish this goal, I think. It would decrease the length while improving the reliability of the material overall.

Now, there are sources and there are sources, and many factors go into considering a source. I think a rule of thumb is, the more important, contentious, and emotionally fraught the material is, the better the sources need to be.

For instance, if I write in an article "Eddie Foy had a summer home in East Bridgewater, Massachusetts", then it's OK to source this to a note in the local paper, because 1) it's not contentious and 2) it's not that important and 3) there's no reason to believe they'd lie about that.

However, if I write in article "Increasing numbers of teens across America are giving up sex in favor of daily church attendance" or whatever, then I would not want to source that to the East Bridgewater Clarion (or whatever paper they have there). Because 1) it is contentious, and 2) it is important to get it right and 3) people are emotionally invested in sexual subjects are so are motivated to bend the truth a little, maybe interpret a study an a way that is not entirely on the up-and-up or stuff like that.

So we want really good sources here. WP:RS lists two types of sources that are specifically assumed to in general to be good sources:

• Peer-reviewed scholarly journals.
• Journalistic entities which are known to have rigorous and effective fact-checking operations.

WP:RS doesn't say that other entities can't be good sources. And they can be. It depends. And these can be looked at one at a time. But on this contentious and important issue, we shouldn't accept anything less than the best sources without carefully considering, checking, looking into, and discussing each one individually.

Does this make sense?

This is going to take quite a while, but if we roll up our sleeves work together I'm sure that we can do this. I propose to lay each source out on the table and lets look at it, starting from the top, and starting soon. Herostratus (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that any source that meets the Wikipedia policy for RS should be used, as long as we maintain a balanced POV and give fair balance to all notable positions. If we choose to primarily use higher quality references, such as thouse that you suggest, I think that would be great. But, I don't think we chouse censor others with opinions different from our merely because their references may be less notable (assuming that the reference given is RS.) Have we determined that the article is too long? I thought earlier discussins felt that there was material in this article that is covered, or should be covered in the Adolecent Sexuality Article, and this article could be pared to focus only on the "in the United States" part? Atom (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, WP:RS is long and complicated, and it basically says "Look, we cannot give you a magic bullet to tell you exactly what is and is not a 'reliable source'". However, to the extent that it does say what a reliable source is, this is contained at WP:RS#Some types of sources, and two are given: scholarly and journalistic. WP:RS then describes some sources that are probably not reliable, but I guess it leaves the middle ground -- the ground between The Economist and The Lancet on the one hand, and a self-published entity on the other -- as subject to discussion. So what I am saying is, in this difficult and contentious area, let us err on the sign of caution, and let us look with gimlet eye on sources that are not described at WP:RS#Some types of sources. Per WP:V, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight", and I think we can all agree that if there are any refs in this article to which that applies (there may not be), they should certainly go, for starters. Herostratus (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC):::Yes, I agree with that. Atom (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, please don't use the term "censor" here. No one is suggesting that any government agency should have a hand in this process. Herostratus (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable." Anytime asny individual cuts out material that they object to, they are acting as a censor. We should not remove material that meets wikipedia standards, but does not meet an arbitrary higher standard within the article. I see no problem with seeking to use higher quality sources. Atom (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about the other point, removing material that doesn't focus on just the USA. Long discussions, hard to keep it all straight. Makes sense though. I guess that is a separate issue, although it can be worked on at the same time. Herostratus (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sounded good to me, so I examined the article in that light. I think it is arguable that most of the material currently included makes a reference to some aspect of adolescent sexuality in that context. (American, U.S., etc.) Atom (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I just want to chime in on this thread and direct your attention, Herostratus and others, that your suggestion to "One of the best ways this long article could be cut down [is by cutting down] on the sources" as "It would decrease the length while improving the reliability of the material overall," is the majority of the character of my original WP:BRD edit, as I explained above. So, I agree with you that doing that is a useful strategy to improve the article. However, like Atom, I am wary of grading sources based on criteria other than WP:RS and, of course, WP:V. --Meitar (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you read WP:RS, it more or less says this:

1. Peer-reviewed articles published in reputable scholarly journals are reliable sources.
2. Material published by journalistic entities (newspapers etc) which are known to have an active and rigorous fact-checking operation are reliable sources.
3. And nothing else is a reliable source - necessarily.

We might or might now allow sources in in the third category, depending on circumstances. We allow local papers for local news, even though they might not even employ any full time fact checkers, and so forth. We allow a lot of category 3 sources for uncontentious statements. If a statement based on a category 3 source is 1) probably true, and 2) not the sort of thing that anyone would have any incentive to lie about (or slant), and 3) it's not that important, and 4) no one contests it, then we generally allow some considerable leeway. But we are not required to and generally shouldn't if those four criteria are not met, as a rule. And it is anything else that is grading sources based on criteria other than WP:RS.

Now, its true that at the Wikipedia we don't always follow WP:RS. But WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and "twice makes a custom" is not a Wikipedia rule. Herostratus (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Totally Fresh Eyes

I have only literally just come to this article, and its talk page, and so have no previous 'history' with any of this. The first thing that struck me about the article was that the POV tag seems definitely warranted. Hopefully this can be resolved amicably, and without taking up too much room! Is it worth while you guys finding out what kinds of research have been done by (for example) Dutch researchers, where the openness of sex education from an early age has been recognised as beneficial for many reasons, by many people? And, also, has any study been done on how much 'psychological damage' is not done so much by the sexual activity itself as by the societal stigma attached to it? Maybe those lines of thought could spark some fresh input. And no, I don't have time to do it, and I'm not really inspired enough by the subject to attempt to make time to do it, it was just a thought which may turn up something constructive. ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's a question for the anti-teen-sex guys: has anyone ever asked late-teens or early adults what their feelings were about 'having to do math in school'? How may of them would say "I wish I hadn't had to do math", "I was pressured into doing math", "doing math really upset me at the time", "I still have issues with math" (insert any other subject name, as appropriate). Would we then, as a result of that survey, be stating that "doing math in school" is bad for teenagers, damages them, leaves them with permanent 'issues'? ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Dangerous fringe advice

So Hans reverted Illuminato's changes, with an edit summary about "dangerous fringe advice". As far as I can tell, Hans removed the following sentences:

"One of the big problems here is that kids are having sexual relations before they are biologically and emotionally ready to manage this, both from the standpoint of planning the consequences and from dealing with all that ensues," Pinsky says.[6]

"Lets make this clear to parents out there," Dr Drew Pinsky said on his TV show. "It is ok to tell your kids not to have sex, and I would encourage you to do so. Delaying is the goal here."[7]

Can someone tell me where the "dangerous fringe advice" is in this? I'd have guessed that parents talking to their kids is about as non-dangerous as you can get, and that encouraging a delayed sexual debut is practically the definition of mainstream views on adolescent sexual behavior. This barely qualifies as "advice" in my mind. Was there some other problem, i.e., the wrong edit got reverted? Is there some danger here that I'm just not seeing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for Hans, but my guess is "dangerous fringe advice" is a standin for "material personally loathsome to me", which carries somewhat less cachet. I haven't vetted Dr Pinsky, but he appears to be an actual PhD and even has a professorship at a real college, which puts him miles above several of the sources we use for sexual matters in other articles. Herostratus (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

see Drew Pinsky for background -- Paul foord (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

His credentials are pretty impressive, and that's before you get into his decades of hosting media programs designed to speak to adolescent and young adult audiences on matters concerning relationships, sex, and physical and mental health:

• BA Amherst College
• MD University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine of USC
• Residency Internal Medicine, Huntington Memorial Hospital
• Board Certified, American Board of Internal Medicine[
• Board Certified, American Board of Addiction Medicine
• Certified member of American Society of Addiction Medicine since 1990
• Member of American College of Physicians
• Licensed Physician and Surgeon in the State of California since 1985

I'm reverting. --Illuminato (talk) 04:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, here is the problem:

"Lets make this clear to parents out there," Dr Drew Pinsky said on his TV show. "It is ok to tell your kids not to have sex, and I would encourage you to do so. Delaying is the goal here."

Attributed or not, this is a strong appeal to parents to encourage their children not to have sex, or as late as possible. The problem with such appeals is that they are usually followed only by those who tend to be extremist in that direction anyway. The appeal comes after a context of 13-16-year-old girls 'dating' up to 30-year-old men has been set up, but the relation is not made explicit and may or may not reflect the original context in the source. In any case it's not the general context of the section "Family" of which this appeal forms the last paragraph. Encouraging parents to prevent their children from having sex can't be the last word in such a section. That's what almost all parents are naturally inclined to do anyway. A much more real problem is for parents to learn letting their children go, and this advice encourages parents who try to control their 20-year-old children's sex life.

For such advice we would need strong, WP:MEDRS-quality sources, not an expert saying something in a TV show. And this particular expert has a history of saying utterly careless things on TV, as is documented under Drew Pinsky#Criticism and praise.

Apart from that there is the POV problem. The article is still biased towards a completely negative view of sexuality as something unhealthy, and this paragraph contributes to the problem. Hans Adler 09:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, these are not "extremist" ideas: that 1) parents should talk to their kids about sex and 2) it is neither bizarre nor dangerous for a young person to choose not to have sex right away. I understand that you personally find these ideas loathsome and would wish them away, but the Wikipedia has to cover material comprehensively, notwithstanding the personal opinions of any particular editor.

The Wikipedia is neither encouraging not discouraging anyone from having any conversations about anything. The Wikipedia does not offer advice or encouragement. The Wikipedia reports facts.

Pinsky said the quote. The quote represents a reasonably cogent expression of a mainstream view held by a good number of people, professionals and otherwise. Pinsky appears to be a reasonably well credentialed person who is familiar with the field.

You don't need a WP:MEDRES level ref for this.

First of all, this is not a medical article. If it was a medical article, about anatomical aspects of adolescent or statistical facts, that would be different. It is a sexuality article. The accepted level of stringency for vetting sources for sexuality articles is much, much lower than MEDRES. (I'm not necessarily happy about that myself, but it is what it is.)

Second of all, there are a number of refs used in this very article that are not MEDRES level. If there was a comprehensive effort to vet and clear all the references to AAA-level, that would be one thing, but let us not cherry-pick those we don't like. (I had proposed and offered to lead an effort in this direction (see above), but not done so since the prospect of dealing with polemicist editors is offputting.)

As the POV problem, I don't have an opinion on that. There's been various proposals to deal with the article's POV issues, but the problem is that ideologically-driven editors make this difficult. (My opinion, expressed above, is that this is simply not a subject that the Wikipedia can handle well and the article should be either deleted or reduced to a short description of proven statistics.) But absent a comprehensive overview and solution, I don't think that this mainstream quote is unbalancing.

Per WP:BRD I've reverted your edits as I consider your arguments as unproven. If other editors want to weigh in that would be fine. Herostratus (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This is psychological advice. Psychological advice needs WP:MEDRS quality sources everywhere. ("This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article [...]")

Regarding ideologically driven editors, I suggest that you take a look into the history of this article and who is responsible for its current state. The editor who is responsible for this POV nightmare has added this quotation, and it's a strategic one that makes an already bad article worse. Apparently my strong, angry response to this (triggered by my anti-extremism reflex) has triggered your anti-extremism reflex. I suggest that you have a second look before I have to escalate this very minor incident to a noticeboard.

We have an extremely unbalanced article which cannot be deleted because it is on a notable topic and which cannot be improved because nobody other than its former owner Illuminato can be bothered to do anything here. There was a period of inactivity with only occasional attempts to revert back to the state before the partial cleanup (in which I was not evolved) – first by Illuminato, then more recently by User:173.76.81.231. Now we have Illuminato adding new content that skews the article further, and you are supporting him. Are you sure that's what you want to do?

And no, the fact that there is badly sourced stuff here already does not make it right to add even more badly sourced stuff that goes in the same direction. Hans Adler

Basically, Hans' argument isn't working for me. Talking to your kids about sex isn't dangerous, keeping them from having sex at a young age isn't dangerous (in fact, it contributes to their safety), and the view expressed here is not anything even remotely like fringe. It might (barely) be second-hand advice (that is, we accurately report that someone advises this, rather than advising it ourselves). I don't see a justification for removing this information.

I am, however, open to ways of re-writing it. For example, I think it would be accurate and appropriate to rephrase Pinsky's as something like, "Most mainstream healthcare professionals encourage parents to talk to their children about sex and to delay their sexual debut". It would of course require another source, but finding such a source should be trivial. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I would be worried if my child started to have sex with 12, or 14, and if she started with 16 I would wonder whether it's a good thing and would not encourage it. For most people in Western societies these reactions, or much more extreme reactions, are perfectly normal and in general don't need any encouraging from "mainstream healthcare professionals" (who presumably give their advice based on precisely the same kind of attitudes rather than any expert knowledge gained from rigorous studies). – But people hear what they want to hear. If they don't want their 20-year-old daughter to have sex, then they will read "young age" as "everything below 18" and then stretch that a little. And your proposed formulation is entirely consistent with trying to delay the "sexual debut" of one's (adult) children from an age that the parents consider normal for their children (say 19 or 21) to something much later. That's why such advice must always be formulated very, very clearly and unambiguously so that it cannot be misunderstood by people with unusual backgrounds. Otherwise we risk encouraging bigotry and a very unhealthy relation to sex. (I am not making this up. Just look at this article, especially in its earlier, more extreme revisions.)

Apart from the precision problem, I think it's a bad idea to say what the usual advice from "mainstream healthcare professionals" is without contextualising this with WP:MEDRS quality information on whether this advice makes sense.

So much to what motivates me here, so that you can see I am not just wikilawyering to keep some random information out of the article. Formally the problem is that the Pinsky material is of abysmally low quality as a reliable source. We can take the question whether MTV programmes are formally reliable sources and whether they pass MEDRS to WP:RS/N if you want, but the result is predictable: They are reliable sources, but only barely so, and they have no chance of ever coming close to passing MEDRS. Hans Adler 07:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I want to stress again that the Wikipedia is not offering advice here, we are reporting on advice offered by others. If in an article we say (for instance) "Mussolini made the argument that attacking France would have many benefits", we are not advising our readers to, themselves, invade France. You see the difference? Now, it's true that some readers may be influenced in their actions in life by what they read in the Wikipedia, and this is probably your concern, and I agree it could be a valid concern in some extreme cases -- we are not here to cause evil, even if indirectly -- but not here. Because the person's observation is unexceptionable, bland, mainstream, and not harmful.

But your take on the matter generally is different and, I would say... unusual. You think that people will read into the quotation meanings that are, in my opinion, frankly bizarre. And even if it were true, on some level we can't control that. I suppose that our article Dolphin could lead someone to the conclusion that tuna fishing is murdering sentient beings and he then might go on a shooting spree at a seafood restaurant, but there comes a point where we can't base our article content on what people with bizarre thought processes or ideologies might do.

It may be that you work with fringe elements, such as extremely religious communities or something, such that your experience is skewed and this affects your perception to the extent that you end up seeing anodyne mainstream thought as having a sinister slant. If that's the case I would suggest that you get out more -- read novels, watch TV and movies, listen to popular music, talk to people from secular backgrounds. I don't think you'll find that suppression of the sex lives of 20-somethings by external entities such as their parents is a serious social problem.

"If they don't want their 20-year-old daughter to have sex, then they will read 'young age' as 'everything below 18' and then stretch that a little". They will? Not where I come from. While there are surely people who don't want their 20-year-old daughter to have sex, they are probably basically motivated by religious, social, or moral considerations and aren't likely to be swayed one way or the other by psychological advice. I would guess that the community of people who believe that their unmarried children should have active and fulfilling sex lives provided that they 1) practice safe sex and 2) wait until age 27 is quite small. (Of course there are many people who believe that their children shouldn't have sex if they're not married, but that's an entirely different issue and far outside the scope of this article or any passages in it.)

So as to "I am not making this up", I think that you are making this up, not necessarily out of intentional mendacity but perhaps because your perspective is skewed, and "this article, especially in its earlier, more extreme revisions" is just one data point that is far from convincing that this is a general phenomenon or likely a general interpretation of the passage. Herostratus (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of critical boundary information

I added " Few children, aged 15 or less have experienced vaginal sex.(ref)[8](endref)". Of course, it is silly to talk about teens as though they were some sort of monolithic group that does everything together no matter how stupid, dependent on some English trickery with wording: thir-teen, four-teen, etc. I don't think this applies to all languages, mercifully. But it does in English and needs to have boundaries established for this particular behavior. It is from the reputable Guttmacher Institute. It was instantly reverted. I was told I would have to "discuss" it first. Not sure why. Student7 (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably mostly because your edit came after mine, which the editor wanted to revert. I have no opinion on the Guttmacher Institute. One issue might be that calling 13% "few" is an interpretation that goes slightly beyond the source's interpretation. Personally I think 13% is a lot. If someone had told me that number when I was 15 myself, I think I would not have believed it. (Of course it may actually have been lower in Germany at the time.) Hans Adler 22:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Problems with Media Effects Section

I see this entire article potentially has some problems, but my area of expertise is only in the media effects realm. That having been said I found the media effects section to have significant problems with POV, particularly through the selective referncing of sources which, although reputable (at least in some cases) nonetheless do not represent the full range of either research or scholarly opinion. Further the "tone" of the article tends to declare viewpoints as facts and is alarmist in general. I'm going to begin working on this section gradually over the next few weeks. I certainly welcome input from others.

As a side note I'm tempted to suggest a merger with "adolescent sexuality"...does "adolescent sexuality in the US" warrant separate consideration from adolescent sexuality worldwide? 69.91.76.238 (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)MVGuy

Thanks for your contributions. Many of your edits were very helpful - particularly chasing down sources and improving the flow and wording of some sections. However, I am of the opinion that you cut too much out when you were trimming, and I think this gets to your question of whether or not American adolescent sexuality deserves its own article. You cut, for example, information about the type and amount of sexuality that American teens are getting in their media diet. As it has an impact on their actions, I restored it. I also brought back the two sections - one on the content and one of the effects, as well as found a missing citation.

No worries. I'll see if I can find some other useful citations particulary from the other side of the debate to help lend it more balance, perhaps when time allows. Best, 69.91.76.238 (talk) 01:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)MVGuy

I toned down some of the language that overstated the "factual" nature of the findings. Also emphasized the Steinberg study a bit more for balance. Probably needs some more cites from the 'other side' otherwise this section still kind of drifts into POV. Avalongod (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

References

I tried to improve the References section. I moved all the refs that were in the body out of the text and into the References section. If there was just a link, I tried to follow it so I could add some more information. There is plenty more work to do here, however.--Illuminato (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I just checked the page again, and found several errors. It claims that the citations are not used in the prior text, but I spot checked a couple and they are all there. Anyone know what is going on? --Illuminato (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I think I fixed it. --Illuminato (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge

Sexual behavior of American adolescents was recently recreated, it seems to be largely a copy of the first section of this article. It should be merged back in here and deleted again. (There was an appearent POV fork that created that article some while back). Zodon (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree Avalongod (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

A summary of the first section of this article was once in place, per Wikipedia:Summary style, but Avalongod removed the summary and replaced it with the original text. This article is much too long, and needs to be pared down. --Illuminato (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Did I? I've generally only touched the media section, which I've now pared down considerably. I think this is referring to a different section of the page, isn't it? I think the "sexual behavior of American adolescents" is a much older page (looks like you created it in 2008). I think you may be mixing up with the media stuff? Or perhaps I'm the one who's confused! Avalongod (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Merging to here doesn't have to mean that all of what is in the Sexual behavior of American adolescents article is going to be merged into this article. Since everything that is in the Sexual behavior of American adolescents article is also in this article, a merge simply means a redirect. And I agree with redirecting Sexual behavior of American adolescents here; it's not tackling anything different and I fail to see why it was created in the first place. 23.20.130.229 (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And by the same token although I agree the current page needs to be pared down a lot and clarified, that doesn't mean creating a bunch of daughter pages. I think the current page simply needs to be pared down. Avalongod (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree that forking stuff would not be a good idea. It would cause the article to "lose traction." It's all here. It seems like good stuff and cited. Forking would rm essential content. Having said that, it does seem large. I do not see an obvious place to cut. Possibly a reorg might reveal paragraphs to (somehow) merge. Right now I'm not seeing merger possibilities. Student7 (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Am I detecting a general consensus that the merger should occur? I'll give it a couple more days, also if there is any content people want to merge back in here, although it sounds like it's mainly duplicated. Avalongod (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with merging this into the Adolescent sexuality article, since there is so much here that relates to adolescent sexuality in the United States. A lot would need to be cut upon the merge and there's a lot in this article that is better kept than lost. And don't forget that we also have an Adolescent sexuality in Canada article and a Teenage pregnancy and sexual health in the United Kingdom article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see that the merge was about merging the Sexual behavior of American adolescents article with this one. I agree, and I see that it's already been done. Flyer22 (talk) 04:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Length

What are specific issues that is motivated into tagging this article as "very long"? Seriously, this article's length is decent. --George Ho (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Questionable citation

Citation number 24 is a publication from a questionable organization. It contains no references and has no listed authors, is not peer reviewed, and has questionable tones throughout the publication. It should not be cited in this article. For reference, the citation is : ^ "Seventeen Is the Average Age at First Sexual Intercourse" (pdf). American Sexual Behavior. newstrategist.com. Retrieved 2012-03-07. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.210.52 (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I added another one that is WP:RS but has slightly different figures. I did not amend the old ones. Student7 (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Structure?

The article seems well-structured. Yet when I see three "oral sex" subsections, it makes it seem that the article is structured backwards. Also some of the material repeats in these subsections. Is that necessary? Student7 (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've long ago wondered about all the oral sex sections. Flyer22 (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Pitiable...astonishing

While I agree exactly with the sentiments of the RS, the phrase "with pitiable self-esteem" and "astonishing" really should be edited out. The words are WP:POV. The fact they come from a WP:RS are irrelevant. RS-es can have pov like anyone else. They are only human! The reader should be able to draw her/his own conclusion. Suggestion: just summarize the findings without the adjectives. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hrm. I'm skeptical that the source is accurate, but assuming it's an OK source then I don't think we should edit them, except for sense. What I get from the passage is something along the lines of "some people think that 1) girls are having hella sex, and 2) it's because they're messed up". (IMO it's dubious that either of those clauses is true, but I'm no expert). I think it's useful to report these sources POV. Herostratus (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I've looked over the references and for an article such as this one there is plenty of peer-reviewed sources. I think a good way to go about overhauling this article is to remove all the editorialised references, i.e. newspaper refs and editorials that refer to peer reviewed science, and instead work with the original papers. Of course there should be some refs to represent the different viewpoints but these should be clear from text that they are POV. Morphriz (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Most of us don't have access to a paid online data base that contain these direct citations. Some of them are "studies" anyway which are nearly WP:PRIMARY with only the media to select out which ones seem "important" (notable) for inclusion. The media is highly trusted for other articles. Why not here? e.g. what is wrong with quoting the NYT, or AP, with itself reviewing , or including, a "study?" Who are we to select out the most important parts of the study? Wouldn't that be WP:OR? Shouldn't we trust the science reviewer to do that?

I would still drop the reviewers extra adjectives which may be trying to capture an audience. Student7 (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that selecting articles is WP:OR. Writing content in wikipedia on those premises is the same as performing a scientific literature review and writing a synthesis. This may of course be the practice in some wikipedia articles where there is no other way to proceed. "Selecting" and citing scientific review papers is not subject to this. Rather, if reviews exist they constitute a broad synthesis, sometimes even a scientific consensus, and thus good candidates for inclusion regardless of other merits. If a scientific paper is included in a news article it has been selected by the editors of that news media as notable. Since the scientific paper, by inclusion in a news article, is notable the paper itself should be referenced and not the news article, as per WP:PRIMARY. Also, if a news article performs an overview of a field or deals with several sources then that news article is a primary source(of the synthesis) itself. Moreover, in this article the secondary sources are in-line quoted. This, in my opinion, contributes a lot to the biased tone in this article, as noted by several editors. The case of "with pitiable self-esteem" and "astonishing" is a blatantly obvious case of this problem but the core problem, I think, is structural in nature and needs more work than word fixing. I have some ideas on how to do this but I'd like to discuss it a bit more here on the talk page, as not to be WP:RECKLESS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphriz (talk • contribs) 22:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:OC?

As I have written in pervious posts I have issues with the style of referencing used. And in reading through the WP:OC policy I wonder if the fragmented feel of the article is due to WP:OC. What do you think?Morphriz (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to be perfectly clear - you believe that the categories:Adolescence, Teenage pregnancy, American culture, Sexuality and age, and Sexuality in the United States, are too many? Which are you proposing to eliminate?

Assuming this to be true, I have seen articles with dozens of categories which seemed a bit much, like the editors were "fishing" for readers.

I think we decided a long time ago that it was "okay" to overlap some categories. That is, I could have "The Statue of Liberty" categorized in NY AND NYC (maybe. Don't check it. Just an example of possibly allowable overlap, even though NYC is "rolled up" into NY).

Five doesn't seem that bad, nor that peripheral to the topic, but maybe I've missed your point. Student7 (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The Section 8 Sexual Minorities: Needs to be edited or removed all together

Bold textOriginally placed into another thread regarding Bias of the above article on Wikipedia:

The above article in regards to it being bias and misleading.

The Section 8 Sexual Minorities: The statistic that is in reference from the article (159) referral does not represent the argument. What got me originally questioning this article was the reference that the MINORITY group was higher risk of STDs and Pregnancy until I saw that Gay, Lesbians, AND bi-sexual were lumped all into this category. Well we can demise that only one of those three is most likely "To be" or "To Get" pregnant category. So I was curious about the numbers that they were using to get that number' In truth, I was surprised by the statement that they were a higher percentage and really was more curious on how many Gay or Lesbians fell into that category used for that statement. However, after reviewing the reference and the reference's statistic they had, I concluded that there is no distinguishing fact to support that statement.

The reference article, Figure 8j, only implies "Association Between School HIV/AIDs Prevention Education and Sexual Risk Behaviors and Experiences, 2005". There is no mention that the "Sexual Minority" group was the sole and only group in this survey. Figure 8j basically referenced "Percent of Students" who; 1. Received HIV/AIDS Prevention Education or 2. Did Not Receive HIV/AIDS Prevention Education. Among those two categories where those who; 1. Had "Lifetime Sexual Intercourse", 2. who had "Sexual Intercourse before age 13", 3. who had "Four or More Partners", 4. who had "Recent Sexual Intercourse", 5. who had "No Condom Use", 6. who had "Ever Been or Gotten Someone Pregnant" - note no reference to Sexual Minority group here, 7. who had "Ever Tested For HIV or STDS - note no indication whether they even where gay lesbian or bi-sexual if they were to be presumed the statistic only target group, and 8. who was "Ever Diagnosed With HIV or STD.

Nowhere does it list that these were specifically from the "Sexual Minority" demographic or a division of any one group except for whether they were educated or not. How did they know they were specific to that group? I would only image that these surveys were done anonymously and/or done in private. It does not say on that figure 8j, that they were even apart of that survey. It is misleading to use this section in this Wikipedia article.

The Section 8 Sexual Minorities: Excerpt:

According to a study based on a sampling of teenagers in Massachusetts, sexual minority youth, that is, those who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or had any same-sex sexual contact in their lifetimes, were significantly more likely than other students to report lifetime sexual intercourse (72% vs. 44%). [157] The same study found that sexual minority youth were more likely to report sexual intercourse before age 13 (18% vs. 4%), sexual intercourse with four or more partners in their lifetimes (32% vs. 11%), and recent sexual intercourse (55% vs. 33%). Among students in the Massachusetts study who ever had sexual intercourse in their lifetimes, sexual minority youth were significantly more likely than other students to report "having been or gotten someone pregnant (15% vs. 4%) and having been diagnosed with HIV or another STI (10% vs. 5%)."[157][158]^ a b Massachusetts Department of Education (June 2006).

Refer [157] Article "2005 Youth Risk Behavior Survey" (note the year difference) Massachusetts Department of Education Website, http://www.doe.mass.edu/cnp/hprograms/yrbs/05/ch8.doc.

Excerpt from reference [157] "2005 Youth Risk Behavior Survey":

- ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ABOUT SEXUAL BEHAVIOR: Four percent (4%) of all students describe themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual and 5% had same sex contact. In all, 6% of students could be considered sexual minority youth; that is, they either identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or had any same-sex sexual contact in their lifetimes. Sexual minority youth were significantly more likely than other students to report lifetime sexual intercourse (72% vs. 44%), sexual intercourse before age 13 (18% vs. 4%), sexual intercourse with four or more partners in their lifetimes (32% vs. 11%), and recent sexual intercourse (55% vs. 33%). Among students who ever had sexual intercourse in their lifetimes, sexual minority youth were significantly more likely than other students to report having been or gotten someone pregnant (15% vs. 4%) (Figure 8j) and having been diagnosed with HIV or another STD (10% vs. 5%).(*Note* Where in Figure 8j, does it say that that statistic was based off of the "Sexual Minority". It does not)Bold text Compared to rural and suburban youth, students in urban communities had higher rates of: • Lifetime sexual intercourse (54% vs. 48% of rural students and 37% of suburban students) • Sexual intercourse before age 13 (7% vs. 4% of rural and suburban students) • Sexual intercourse with four or more partners in their lifetimes (17% vs. 11% of rural students and 9% of suburban students) • Recent sexual intercourse (41% vs. 34% of rural students and 28% of suburban students) Students in urban communities were also more likely to report condom use at last intercourse than students in suburban or rural communities (67% of urban vs. 63% of suburban and 64% of rural).

In addition, the statics did not separate the distinguishing group into lesbian, gay, or bi (if they did in fact use that specific group, because it does not say that anywhere). Therefore, no one can absolutely agree on how they came to get those numbers, in that particular survey, to make that specific statement.

It begs to question the motive behind the survey and they motives behind the author of the reference piece. Personally, I think someone needed something to add to their report to their boss and slapped that survey to it. It was then placed into Wikipedia merely to have something to reference it to without seriously taking a moment to think (quite possibly even to read it) before passing it off as a good reference resource.

On a more personal note: I am not one of those in the "Sexual Minority”: so I do not have any bias as to gays lesbian or bi- To each their own. I thought it was odd that Pregnancy was included to be a higher risk for that group listed. If there were only 5 bi-sexually active people and 3 had something to do with being tested or diagnosed with HIV or STD OR who had ever "Got Pregnant" or who had ever "Gotten Someone Pregnant" (we don't know one way or the other for that case) I could understand why the percentage would be higher in comparison to a group of (just a random number) 70,000 students who are straight.

So after reading the reference out of curiosity, I was offended by how bias and misleading the article and its cited reference were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.53.242.228 (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it deserved to be looked at more closely. And you have done that. :Having said that, there is no reason that an adolescent who is lesbian, bisexual, gay, or transgendered might not ever get pregnant or impregnate someone else. If you consider the study not WP:RS, then it can be challenged on that basis. It did seem like an odd question and with odd results. But they seem to hold up under scrutiny IMO. I think the material should remain.

Having said that, there is always the possibility of miswording in the study. I don't see that.

Something else to look for is WP:RS criticism of the study. Thanks for the analysis. Student7 (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW, could we get rid of the term "Section 8." This just happens to be the paragraph number which falls out in the article. Somebody could merge or move a section, and it would be something else. Also, it sounds too much like Section 8 (military)! Deletion includes this entry, as well. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the study seems odd. Defining "have had same-sex" contact as a sexual minority is probably the root of the problem. 1/3 of the entire "Sexual minority" group is not lesbian, gay or bi. So shoddy statistics indeed. The problem with this survey as a source in the section I do agree with.Morphriz (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Tables in section 1 using reference 7 need to be edited or removed

This table is ambiguously designed and from reading through reference 7 appears to not be truthful. The data in reference 7 does not support what is presented in these tables. This table either needs to be corrected or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3134:6BA0:A981:8E4D:1955:F3FA (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The table seems to be copied from the reference, page 18. It seems accurate as far as I can tell. What figure(s) did you disagree with? (I agree that these figures cannot be derived from prior tables. But they aren't). Student7 (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

References

I've moved all of the references out of the body of the text and into the references section. Most of them use a standard format and I use wikicite, but not all of them. --Illuminato (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Subtopics

This article is still pretty long. I think it would make sense to break it out into subarticles. Any suggestions on good places to break it up? --Illuminato (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

At this juncture, I am concerned about structure. Is it structured correctly? We have the same topic under a number of sections. This is often a warning that a topic is not structured correctly. And no, I don't have any ideas, which is not good, because I can usually perceive a new structure.

Maintainability is the second major concern. "Owners" (I know, articles aren't "owned") have to enforce the placement of new material in forked articles which new (not just new!) editors are prone to skip. So we wind up with trivia in this article and the real guts in the forked article which doesn't get read. And the forked article needs to be summarized. That is, the material in this article needs to become shorter for the forked material. This is usually tough to do.

I am not in favor of forking just yet. Student7 (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Illuminato's reinstatement of a past version

Is not acceptable as the version is heavily POV. It is not an improvement.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You did not object to the version before it was trimmed down and daughter articles were created. Nor, I might add, did you try and improve it then. Why don't we restore the prior version, work to improve the prose, and while we are at it we can trim it down to get it in line with WP:Article size. I would much rather work to improve it than to fight with you, especially when your argument, at this point, seems to consist simply of, "No." --Illuminato (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I was not aware of this article before it was trimmed down. I am aware of your tendency to write highly POV articles about adolescent sexuality, and the material you are inserting is an example of this. So: no.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Now you are aware of it. Let's move forward. How do you propose that we fix the text in order to reinstate it? --Illuminato (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I dont see any need to reinstate it at all.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Why not? --Illuminato (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Because that material shouldn't have been written to begin with, which is why it was deleted when you spun it out to new articles. It is not the purpose of wikipedia to missionize. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

All of it? If you look at the very first line, it talks about the percentage of sexually active American teenagers. You don't think that has a place in the adolescent sexuality in the United States article? --Illuminato (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That piece of information is already in the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You're right. That was a bad example and my mistake. There was a table in the previous version that showed how recently teens at various ages have been sexually active that was in the prior text but is not now. There was also discussion of why teens became sexually active. We could go through this line by line, but I don't think anyone wants that. Why don't we restore the text, and then you can remove any of it that you think is problematic, and we can go forward from there. That way we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. --Illuminato (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I dont consider that an attractive option because that would place the burden of labor on me to remove all the POV material. At least 10 different editors have told you that the content you write is problematic from a POV perspective. It is not our job to make your contributions conform to policy but yours. When you introduce changes wholesale and they are problematic then I have to remove them wholesale. If you insert them piece by piece following discussion here then you can both demonstrate that you understand the POV policy by not including POV problematic text and I will not have to remove all your work but only that which is problematic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Finally! A step forward! Why don't we start at the top with the Virginity section? Also, however, we are all responsible for the content and making sure it abides by policies, and we should WP:PRESERVE any content that is troublesome, rather than delete it wholesale. --Illuminato (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you would cite WP:OWN after having editwarred with at least five different editors to reinsert challenged POV material across several articles.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, the version of the article soon before the article was significantly trimmed down by Illuminato is not the same version that Maunus originally expressed concern about, as seen here and here. As is pointed out at the talk page of the Hookup culture article, the Adolescent sexuality in the United States article has been hugely expanded since then. I feel that that's what Maunus meant in this edit when stating "this version." Flyer22 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This time I reverted. I reverted these massive edits made by an IP address (who I'm certain was Illuminato at the time); also see what I stated here. Flyer22 (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC) 12:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Regnerus

It doesn't seem to me that Regnerus has been proven non-WP:RS. Rather the reverse. See Witherspoon_Institute#Regnerus_Study. This subsection contains pointed criticism of the author, but defense, as well. The criticism seems to be mostly directed at his SSM parenting and not his other research. But even there, many sociologists/psychologists support him. Erasing Regnerus instead of offering an "answer" to his research denotes WP:BIAS if he is WP:RS, which I believe he is. If we erased all citations where the author held an strong opinion, we would be mostly unable to conduct citation in Wikipedia. Gone would be the NY Times, The Washington Post, CBSNBC, and most of the media, and many think tanks, as well.

For the record, teenaged births have reached a record high. Sure, birth control. Right. Anyway, these children of teens are most likely to be "in trouble" with the law later on and to have "diminished careers." Right now, it is a national blight, and thwarts all efforts to conduct a War on Poverty or improvements in outcomes with education. Student7 (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Regnerus is a reliable source for his own claims, not for general claims about adolescent sexuality in the US. He is a clearly POV author affiliated with a conservative think tank and one study has been s thoroughly criticized that it could not be seriously used in any scholarship. Consequently Regnerus should not be used as a source for general facts. The entire article was written based on Regnerus, which makes the entire article reflect his POV. By removing the material relying solely on his POV the article becomes neutral. If Regnerus is reinstated it should be 1. with in text attribution to him, and 2. with opposing view points.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus, Student7. His relationship with politics indicates a definite WP:COI to me, superseding any talk of WP:NPOV. It's safest to say that he doesn't belong in this article at all, hands down. I'm going to replace all his claims with impartial, well-known content. We have plenty of other sources to choose from.

Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Meteor sandwich yum, your tags got removed when I reverted these massive edits made by an IP address (who I'm certain was Illuminato at the time); see the "Illuminato's reinstatement of a past version" section that is immediately above this section, and what I stated here. Feel free to add back the tags you added to the top of the article or elsewhere in the article. I'm alerting Maunus by linking his username (should work via [[WP:Echo] if he has that notification aspect turned on). He might no longer be watching this article and/or is very tired of interacting with Illuminato. Flyer22 (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

October 25, 2013 edits

Meteor sandwich yum, while I appreciate you wanting to help out with this problematic article and having helped out with it somewhat, these four edits of yours concern me:[9][10][11][12]. In my opinion, those edits have not made the article better. You have added far too many tags (which you alluded to in the second diff-link I provided in this paragraph), including with regard to reference statements that don't need tags. For example, in the "Sexual behavior" section, for the line "Among sexually active 15- to 19-year-olds, from 2002 to 2010 more than 80% of females and more than 90% of males reported using at least one method of birth control during their last intercourse.", you added a "by whom?" tag. How is a "by whom?" tag needed for that line, which is reliably referenced, or makes sense applied to that line? Furthermore, do read Template:By whom, which states, "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation. If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire 'By whom?' in that circumstance."

In the "Definitions of virginity" section, you added an "according to whom?" tag for the "According to a 2007 study" line. Like the "by whom?" tag, the "according to whom?" tag links to WP:Weasel words. But just because the study is not specifically named does not mean that the wording is WP:Weasel wording. For example, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Citing sources generally encourages editors not to be so specific with studies; this is primarily because the reference lets us know all the details. And Template:According to whom states, "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation. If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire 'According to whom?' in that circumstance."

In the "Academics and extra-curricular activities" section, you added a "original research?" tag to the "Adolescents who are better students initiate sexual activity later than those who are poor students." line, which is reliably sourced. Read WP:Original research. How do you think that line is WP:Original research?

In the "Sexually transmitted infections" section, you added, a "weasel words" tag to a "Research suggests" line. Though WP:Weasel words covers that aspect as being weasel wording with its "Research has shown" example, WP:Weasel words is more so about clear attribution (which can also mean the matter being clearly supported by a reference). The guideline makes clear that sources sometimes use such wording and that its examples of weasel words are not automatically weasel words. For example, the "Research suggests" part that you tagged is a direct quote. And, per MOS:QUOTE, "The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. Where there is good reason to change the wording, enclose it within square brackets." Also, using medical articles as an arguing point again, a lot of our medical articles, including WP:Good articles and WP:Featured articles, use wording such as "Research suggests" or "Research indicates," and the reason why goes back to the medical guideline and the "whom" templates I linked to above.

Also in the "Sexually transmitted infections" section, you added a "third-party source needed" tag for the line "However, young people, particularly those who have oral sex before their first vaginal intercourse, may still be placing themselves at risk of STIs or HIV before they are ever at risk of pregnancy.", which is sourced to a news source reporting the study. What third-party source are you looking for? It is not as though the news source is the primary source for that material. You also added a "which?" tag for the "Several studies" line; this line is also a quote, and "Several studies" is not necessarily weasel wording, because, like Template:Which states, "Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific — if the reliable sources say only that 'In some countries...' — then Wikipedia must remain vague."

In the "HPV" section, you added a "clarification needed" tag for the "Another study." Clarification is not needed in this case, per what I stated above in this discussion section.

There are, of course, other instances in the article where you added tags that are unneeded. And the "need quotation to verify" tag is usually silly to me; this is because, like WP:SOURCEACCESS makes clear, there are sources on Wikipedia that are not readily and/or easily accessible; this does not mean that these sources or editor(s) who added the sources should not be trusted. Sometimes a Wikipedia article is entirely or mostly made up of such sources; think of how silly it would be to then have the "need quotation to verify" tag placed against all of those sources. And your reduction of the lead has made the lead significantly less WP:LEAD-compliant; it barely summarizes the article now.

On a side note, are you actually new to editing Wikipedia? I ask that because, looking at your early contributions to this site, you were using words such as "copyediting," as well as applying Wikipedia tags with regard to reference issues. The vast majority of new Wikipedia editors don't state things such as "copyediting" or use Wikipedia tags with regard to reference issues very early on in their editing; the vast majority of the ones who do so learned such matters by having previously edited under a registered account or as an IP. Flyer22 (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I'm not too happy about my edits either, and not really that attached to them. Just want to help. I had intended the tags to be a halfway measure - to mark where I needed to edit - but they just sort of backfired (I guess that's what the sandbox is used for).

On the tags: Yeah, I goofed on some of those. Although most of them were appropriate, others clearly weren't. The examples you mentioned were mostly either me using the wrong tags for what I meant (WP:OR instead of WP:POV) or just careless mistakes that I didn't check (like with the "which" template).

On the lead section: I agree the lead section is worse off that before. It was a work-in-progress that I hadn't finished. I imagine it should sound something like:

"Many people are concerned about teenage sexual behavior in the United States. Some experts point to the media; others say kids are being kids. Yet the fact remains that teenage pregnancy has become so prevalent it presents itself as a national health issue. In addition, public health officials and parents alike are concerned at how one in four teens have an STI.

In light of these alarming facts, views differ on how to suppress the numbers. The two main schools of thought are comprehensive sex-ed and abstinence."

...or something. My point is it should be an overview, and include less statistics and names. I do think it should be re-written, preferably after changing the article to better reflect new content.

And to answer your question, yeah, I'm really new to Wiki, started only last month (with no prior IPs, not a sockpuppet, etc.) I learn fast, started reading documentation on code and style and joined the GOCE the first week.

Hope I didn't disrupt anything before I got a chance to respond. I didn't mean to hold anything up, just didn't want people who didn't like to see me criticizing the article to change it without any discussion. Thank you for a very polite and face-saving trout-whack.

meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC), updated on 06:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey again, Meteor sandwich yum. Sorry for the late reply. I don't like this article, and it's been a pain for years primarily because of Illuminato, so I generally prefer to stay clear of it and its talk page (even though it's on my WP:Watchlist). I see that you changed your initial comment in this section; that's fine, though, per Talk page guidelines#Own comments, it would have been taken out of context had I already replied. As for your proposed wording in this section, it's a bit WP:Weasel word-ish and WP:Editorializing, but is otherwise okay. Flyer22 (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

GOCE editor doing major work on this article

I've posted on this thread before, but would like to clarify exactly what I am intending to do, and how to go about doing it, because there appears to be some "bad blood" between 10 people and, honestly, only 2 people (listed below).

About the article:

• Created by Illuminato
• based on the work of Regnerus, 2007, in a book entitled Forbidden Fruit: Sex & Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers.

The following users who have posted on the talk page (I may have made one or two mistakes here) seemed to be for Regnerus, his work, using him in this article, this article, the article's tone or its neutrality:

• Illuminato
• 70.26.154.163

The following users appeared to be against him, his work, the tone or neutrality of the article or sections:

• 24.19.67.32
• 184.155.89.158
• 83.36.156.187
• Eivind
• 98.213.37.188
• 146.115.24.137
• Morphriz
• 173.2.88.219
• 174.53.242.228
• Maunus

• Meteor sandwich yum (me)

I haven't included Student7 and Flyer22, here ,who I'm pretty sure are administrators (although Student7 did comment, either from a neutral or seemingly uncritical take of Regnerus). as I'm not certain where they stand.

That's pretty clear consensus. I see that as a go-ahead for me to remove:

• ALL of Regnerus' work.  Done meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• the Kaiser Family Foundation: In my opinion, although they did do a scientific study, they are conservatives, degrading their credibility as researchers (this is why scientists often use the "double blind" experiment tests, so as not to skew their results)
• probably Fox News(?)
• an outdated study (The International Encyclopedia of the [USA] appears to be a c. 1990s analysis of c. 1960s research, back from the time homosexuality was listed as a disease in the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual)
• anything else that does not appear to fit or be reasonably impartial

I'm going to edit per a research-removal-replace method, so that the article changes only incrementally. I'm not sure when I'll stop contributing for this page, but I'm sure after I clean it up it will be ready for expansion or further contribution from others.

Also, when that's done it probably would be a good idea for another person (completely uninvolved) to check this work, and protect from vandalism. From there, hopefully this may even be a featured article. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Neither I nor Student7 are yet Wikipedia administrators. Flyer22 (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

As for the Kaiser Family Foundation, whether conservative or not, their side, per WP:Neutral, should be presented. Both conservative and liberal views, and some views in between, should be presented...with WP:Due weight (an aspect of WP:Neutral). Flyer22 (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, only guessing about you and Student7.

Can you clarify the matter on the KFF for me please? They were giving what they were calling facts, not opinions. Assuming they were conservative (I know they're not really now), how does that not violate WP:COI through WP:QS? They were doing studies, not giving opinions.

In the same breath, would the same matter not apply to Fox News (despite the rumors of them winning a lawsuit to have the legal right to lie, should we keep them for WP:NEUTRAL)? meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

To include the view of the Kaiser Family Foundation or, if the Kaiser Family Foundation are conservative, any other conservative is not a WP:COI or WP:QS violation any more than using a liberal source is. WP:COI is about one or more Wikipedia editors editing with a conflict of interest. WP:QS is about sources that are usually unreliable. Sources being conservative or liberal does not necessarily make them unreliable; it's a case-by-case matter. Sources reporting things as facts do not necessarily make those sources unreliable; it's a case-by-case matter. The same obviously applies to Fox News. Furthermore, many sources report things as fact, often because they are reporting the latest known information. In cases where it is needed, and as you've discovered, you can use WP:INTEXT attribution. I don't think that it's good to have extensive "According to" wording, or extensive naming of non-notable researchers/other non-notable people, in the article, however (reasons why are partly addressed in the #October 25, 2013 edits section). For example, stating "author of [so and so]," especially if author of a book, often reads like the book (or other text) is being promoted. With regard to data for the sources in question, it is likely factual data. However, data often varies. And if sources report different data, WP:Verifiability is clear about what to do: Include each significant report (summarize them), and give those reports their WP:Due weight. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your most recent edits, such as this one, excessive use of blockquotes is also not good. I can't think of one article that has made it to WP:Good or WP:Featured article status with such an approach. Yes, I know what WP:Blockquote states about when to put text into a blockquote; however, when the text can be easily broken up to avoid a blockquote, that is what should be done. And regarding your creation of subsections with only one or a few sentences: Per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." Too many subsections also make an article look significantly bigger than it is and therefore less easy for a reader to navigate through. Flyer22 (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I understand what you mean now (about KFF and Fox News/credibility). Thank you for clearing that up for me.

Also, thanks for all the feedback. Found it very helpful. Will take a look at everything you mentioned. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC) revision: 15:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC) revision2: 06:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)