Talk:Hookup culture/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Serious POV issue

This article violates Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy to a very serious degree. It is permeated through and through by a "hookups are bad" POV. There is certainly valuable information in the article, but quite a bit of it needs to be recast in more neutral terms. Looie496 (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any comment on what POV state this article may or may not be in, but I do point out that the creator of it, Illuminato, has been repeatedly criticized in the edit history, and on the talk page, of the Adolescent sexuality in the United States article for his or her edits to that article. Maunus added a POV-tag to the Hookup culture article; since your POV concern has been explained on this talk page, the tag is valid (considering that what POV issues are believed to be the problem with an article should be expressed on the talk page of that article if the tag is to remain on it until the perceived POV issues are resolved, it's decided by other editors that there are no POV issues, or the tag becomes stale). Regarding the U.S.-centric tag that Maunus added to the Hookup culture article, however, I'm thinking that move is in vein; I state that because hookup, with regard to casual sex, is mostly an American "term" and it seems that most of the sources that discuss this topic under hookup, hooking up or hookup culture discuss it from an American aspect. And that means that globalized coverage of the topic cannot happen, unless this article will not be mostly restricted to the specific "terms" hookup, hooking up and hookup culture, but if that is the case, a lot of the material should then be transported to the Casual sex article. Flyer22 (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

So would this article be considered a content fork? Looie496 (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Does sound like this is a content fork that should simply be AFD'ed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not a WP:CONTENT FORK fork in its current state because it's specifically dedicated to discussing an aspect of casual sex among American culture. As can be seen from this article, there is a lot of literature on the topic under the names hookup, hooking up and hookup culture. It's a notable topic in its own right. WP:SPINOUT articles are allowed in cases such as this one. That stated, I don't much mind what happens to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I meant POV fork which it does seem to be.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:POV FORK is an aspect of WP:CONTENT FORK, but it helps that you have been more specific with regard to what you mean. I definitely believe that you should attempt to get some community input on this matter, whatever appropriate means you take to accomplish that. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead

I made some changes to the lead. While perhaps as recently as a few years ago the phrase "hookup culture" was not widely used, today it very much is in both the academic, journalistic, and popular presses, as can be seen in the references section. The American Psychological Association, for example, uses the phrase. I think the lead needs further work, however, to conform to MOS: LEAD. --Illuminato (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The term itself is not used to describe all cultures where casual sex is a common practice - but specifically it is used to advance an argument that American youth has a culture of casual sex. It should not be described as if hookup culture is something that exists - it is a particular way of describing the practice of a particular from a particular viewpoint. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

For record on this talk page, here are exchanges Maunus and I had in the edit history of the article about the lead-in sentence: [1][2][3][4]. And here is the latest change Maunus made to it. Flyer22 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

US-Centric

I agree that much of this article is focused on the US, though not all of it. It could certain benefit from a more global perspective. --Illuminato (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, per what I stated above, it is impossible to globalize this topic under the "terms" hookup, hooking up, and hookup culture; the globalize tag is misplaced and could be there forever because the "terms" hookup, hooking up, and hookup culture are mostly American. Flyer22 (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Or the article should specify that this is a term used about American youth culture in the 21st century.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, per above, I see that you attempted that again. Flyer22 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

I clipped out three chunks of general sex talk not specifically characteristic to hookup. - Altenmann >t 07:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your cuts. If this was just a general article about sex, I would agree with you. However, this is about the culture, and so I think at least most of the information there should stay. --Illuminato (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It is SYNTH if the article cited does not claim to treat the topic of hookup culture. Probably half the article is written based on sources that are not about the topic which is a huge SYNTH problem. Because of the many grave problems with the article I have nominated it for deletion.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that the cited source has to specifically and exclusively treat the topic of hookup culture in order to be included. A book on the 2008 American presidential election, for example, may focus primarily on John McCain and Barack Obama, but may also say something relevant about Joe Biden or Sarah Palin. Just because they are minor topics in the source does not mean that source should be excluded in an article on the latter two individuals. That is not what SYNTH is all about. --Illuminato (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You apparently don't understand what SYNTH is. Synth is when you personally base an article on gathering a set of sources that do not profess to be about topic X or even mention topic X but which you consider to be related to said topic. It is a kind of Original Research and it is prohibited. This entire article is based on that approach. You simply select sources that seem to support your conclusion that casualsex is rampant and harmful and then you put them together under the heading "hookup culture" evene when the sources don't mention "hookup culture" at all.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Illuminato, please foollow wikipedia culture and don't engage in revert wars without discussing objections to text. The basic of wikipedia is that you have do prove relebance of your text to the subject basing on sources. Now, please provide sources that discuss relevance of pornography to 'hookup culture. - Altenmann >t 15:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Altenmann, if you had looked before you deleted, you would see that most of the referrences in the pornogrpahy section came from Freitas, whose book has the phrase "hookup culture" in the title. The same goes for the material in "Girls." I hope that shows enough relevance for you, and so, having discussed it here, I am restoring the text. --Illuminato (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but feel that the goalposts are being moved. I discussed my objections to deleting the text here, I showed the relevance to the topic, and I even met Altenmann's demand(!) below that I provide sources showing a connection between hookup culture and pornography. Then, only minutes after I left the message above, Maunus deleted the text again without providing a specific objection, either here on in the edit summary, but did somehow find the space to call me disruptive and deigned to tell me what I could and could not write in the article. Making demands is not very conducive to consensus building. --Illuminato (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

At least six different editors at this point have told you that they find this article highly problematic. They have stated their reasons for removing material here on the talk page. What you have been doing all along is that you respond, usually a flat contradiction, and then reinstate the removed material. That is not consensus building, it is just editwarring with a bit of additional text. And it is disruptive. Wikipedia's rules are clear that challenged material can be removed and then discussed on the talkpage and then reinserted when there is a consensus to do so. A consensus is not that you feel you have adequately met the objections and remedied the concerns - it is when we all feel that. And that is when we reinsert the removed material. Now I will take a look at the Freitas source and see if it actually supports what you claim it does and then I'll make up my mind. When I have I will let you know.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the article as a whole. I am talking about this particular piece of text. Until it was deleted, you never raised any objections to it. Consensus does not mean unanimity, it does not mean that you get to decide what is included and what is not, and it doesn't mean that without a very good reason information from a reliable source that is properly cited can be removed from the article while you get around to finding a copy of the book, read it, think about it, make up your mind, and then deign to tell us what you have concluded. Unless someone else can offer a good objection to the inclusion of this material, I'm going to put it back in. After you have read the material, if you want to bring the topic up again then I would be happy to discuss it with you. --Illuminato (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the book has the word "hookup" in the title is isrrelevant. Book authors may do whatever digressions they want. Wkipedia has certain rules. For the third time: please provide evidence by citing sources how exactly pornography is part of hookup culture. Otherwise the section must go. - Altenmann >t 04:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I have added more information from both existing and new sources that make explicit that pornography plays a large role in hookup culture, and may even be a major reason it has arisen in the first place. When it is combined with information that was already there, including the statement that porn is "a cultural force that is shaping the sexual attitudes of an entire generation," I hope it is now clear enough. --Illuminato (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Who tag

Maunus, I'm confused by your use of the Who tag here. See Template:Who. The Who tag is not for the parts you used it for, and the Template:Which tag is the more accurate tag to use for the second part (but when placed at the words "many American colleges"). Furthermore, these two templates state: 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 "Some people..."—then Wikipedia must remain vague.

What you tagged using the Who template are general statements; I'm sure that, for the first part, the source does not say who those men and women are. And even if it did, most or all of those people are no doubt non-WP:Notable and naming them all would result in a laundry list. For the second part, I'm sure that the source does not specify the many colleges. And even if it did, naming them all would result in a laundry list. Flyer22 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I meant it to mean "according to who". Those statements of opinion should be attributed to who ever makes the statements.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, the use of those tags for the aforementioned instances is still wrong, per what I stated above in this section. If you want to ask "According to whom?", you should use Template:According to whom. But keep in mind that 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. Flyer22 (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

A very large part of the article are direct quote of statements of opinion by someone with no attribution. All direct quotes require intext attribution. I am using the template {{Attribution needed}} to show where this is necessary. And then I am removing some that are just blatantly biased statements of opinion from apparently non-notable people.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

For the aforementioned "who?" parts, I added "according to whom?" instead. As for direct quotes requiring intext attribution, that's not always necessary; Template:Attribution needed states: If the material is supported by a citation to a reliable source, then look at the source to find out who holds the view, rather than adding this tag to the sentence.

Besides that, some people commenting are obviously going to be non-WP:Notable, and adding "[So and so] stated" for quotes can inhibit the flow of text if done too often. But then again, too much quoting should be avoided as well, though something like a reception section will usually have a lot of quotes and will be attributed to the person intext. Flyer22 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I am disinclined to search through these sources to find who is being quoted. Frankly I am more inclined to propose that the entire article be stubbed and rewritten in encyclopedic non-POV style.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand. Also, with regard to the refname that Illuminato added for the aforementioned "according to whom?" parts, I thought about stating in my "18:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)" reply above that those parts are likely sourced at the end of the paragraphs. Template:According to whom, as seen above, states "at the end of the sentence or paragraph." And the essay WP:Citation overkill states, "If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill." However, I often do such overkill because so many editors neglect checking the source to see that it supports the whole paragraph and then tag one or more sentences as unsourced, or, because they don't have access to the source (what the source states in full or in whole), they tag one or more sentences as unsourced. Flyer22 (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This is valid if the statement is an uncontroversial statement of fact, but when it is a highly personal statement of opinion the quote clearly requires in-text attribution.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I take it that you are referring to the "attribution needed needed" tag/what the WP:Attribution needed essay states, not citation overkill? Either way, I agree with you on that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Both actually, when the same person's opinion is being quoted repeatedly I would very strongly recommend repeating the attribution and citation as well.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hookup or abstinence culture?

The article on Adolescent sexuality in the United States states that statistics show that the percentage of teenagers who are sexually active has been falling since 1991 and the number of teens that practice absistence has been rising. This seems to contradict the entire alarmist premise of the concept of hookup culture and this article. Somehow one would expect this to be included if this article was intended to be neutral.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think there are several conflated issues in your comment. Firstly, the section on high school students is pretty thin. I, for one, would welcome additional contributions. Secondly, just because the number of students who are sexually active has been falling, it does not neccesarily follow that those who are active are not increasily taking part in hookups, or that they are not influnced in their decision making process by the hookup culture in which they live. While I don't have (and don't know that you could ascertain) a hard date to pin the begining of the hookup culture on, I would say that it has most likely grown considerably since 1991. --Illuminato (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead2

I have placed the quotation from the Review of General Psychology back into the lead that shows that the hookup culture is a phenomenon known across the western world, and not just in the United States. This is despite Maunus asking that it not go in without getting consensus first. I don't wish to get into an edit war over this, however I respectfully submit that if a quotation from a wp:RS that directly addresses the topic at hand is going to be removed from an article, then the burden is on she who wishes to remove it, not those who would have it stay, to explain why it should be removed. To further emphasize the point of the hookup culture being known more widely than just in the Americas, not that the journal article in question closes with the following: "Hookups are part of a popular cultural shift that has infiltrated the lives of emerging adults throughout the Westernized world." I'm open to hearing why this article should be limited to North America only, but until then I do not see any reason why the judgement of any one editor should trump what can be found in a peer reviewed journal. --Illuminato (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You already are in an editwar over this - since you started reinserting a flawed version challenged by two editors without participating in the discussion on the talkpage or providing any sources in support of your claim.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. Not only is there a source for the claim that hookup culture is found throughout the Western world, it is a scholarly source from a peer reviewed journal, which WP:RS says is among the among "the most reliable sources." Not only that, but it is a review article, which "is better than a primary research paper." What, exactly, is your objection to the lead? --Illuminato (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You are misinterpretingthe quote. It basically says that "hookups exist throughout the western world" - it specifically does not say that hookup CULTURE exists in the western world. The reason it doesn't say that is because it doesn't include a single study of a country outside of North America. The one study that you included to support the claim showed that hook ups were not depicted as normative sexual behavior in dutch girls magazine. The conclusion of the review article by Garcia et al. states that "A review of the literature suggests that these encounters are becoming increasingly normative among adolescents and young adults in North America, representing a marked shift in openness and acceptance of uncommitted sex.". It clearly neither argues nor provides data in support of seeing this as a worldwide or "pan-western" phenomenon. And yes, obviously casual sex has existed all over the world at all times. The claim however that it is becoming more normative and more frequent has to be backed up with data from specific place. This study does not do that, nor does any other study that you have included in the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

With all due, respect, I believe that it is you who is misinterpreting the quotation. Note the use of the phrase "sociocultural milieu." Merriam-Webster defines "milieu" as "the physical or social setting in which something occurs," and "sociocultural" as "of, relating to, or involving a combination of social and cultural factors." Additionally, Wikipedia notes that milieu is French for environment, with an English translation of "social environment. The milieu article states that "The social environment, social context, sociocultural context, or milieu, refers to the immediate physical and social setting in which people live or in which something happens or develops. It includes the culture that the individual was educated or lives in, and the people and institutions with whom they interact." When you consider that the reference in question is entitled "Sexual Hookup Culture: A Review," I think it is pretty clear that the authors are talking about the hookup culture, and not just hookups themselves. Revert. --Illuminato (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understood what I was saying. There isn't a single shred of evidence of "hook up culture" outside of North America and the article doesn't say there is. Thereis casual sex (just as there is and have been in all cultures at all times) but no studies you have shown or that they have reviewed show a CULTURE of hookups. Your lecture on milieu seems entirely uncalled for as none of my arguments hinge on that word.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right. There isn't a single shred of evidence, except for that scholarly review article in a peer reviewed journal that states multiple times that hookup culture can be found "throughout the Western world." On the other hand, I don't see any sources from you stating this is an American phenomenon only. If you could provide one, I would gladly take a look. Additionally, I didn't mean to be condescending with my definitions, and if I was I apologize. However, my argument did hinge on the use of that word. By including it, it is clear that the authors were discussing culture, and not just the hookups themselves. --Illuminato (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It does not state so and it doesn't contain a single review of a study conducted outside of North America. I am not interested in editwarring more with you, as you seem to have no interest in remedying the massive POV and SYNTh problems of the article, or event to accurately depict what the sources you use say. I will now proceed to file and RfC to draw outside attention to this article so that hopefully the community can take control of it. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It does not so state? They are direct quotations. I also take exception to your accusation that I have no interest in improving the article. On this issue, for example, I went out and found a source that made an explicit statement, and then quoted it directly so that there could be no confusion about it. Somehow, that is not good enough for you. --Illuminato (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

They are not quotations of the conclusions of the study, they are asides where they seem to suggest the data may be possible to extrapolate. When they conclude they clearly limit the findings to North America - obviously they have to because they don't review any studies from outside of North America.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC:Is "hookup culture" a global concept and phenomenon according to sources?

Does the Review article by Garcia et al. [5] justify describing "hookup culture" as a phenomenon common to the entire Western world? User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• no it does not. The article is based only on reviews of college students in the US and Canada, and concludes that hookup clture exists in North America. The fact that the article a few times mentions that this is a "western phenomenon" and exists in the "westernized world" does not justify seeing the phenomenon as pan-western because they present no evidence in favor of this statement, nor do they include it in the actual conclusions of the review. The article concludes that: "A review of the literature suggests that these encounters are becoming increasingly normative among adolescents and young adults in North America, representing a marked shift in openness and acceptance of uncommitted sex." - clearly delimiting the findings to the North American context. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, it does. It says so explicitly, in fact, and more than once. For example: 1) "Hooking up—brief uncommitted sexual encounters among individuals who are not romantic partners or dating each other—has taken root within the sociocultural milieu of adolescents, emerging adults, and men and women throughout the Western world." And 2)"Hookups are part of a popular cultural shift that has infiltrated the lives of emerging adults throughout the Westernized world." Unless Maunus has read all of the scores of books, articles, manuscripts, etc, cited, I don't know how she claim to know which countries are and are not included. --Illuminato (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Depends on whether or not this article is confined to the "term" hookup. I'm going to repeat most of what I stated in the #Serious POV issue section above: Hookup, with regard to casual sex, is mostly an American "term" and it seems that most of the sources that discuss this topic under hookup, hooking up or hookup culture discuss it from an American aspect. And that means that globalized coverage of the topic cannot happen, unless this article will not be mostly restricted to the specific "terms" hookup, hooking up and hookup culture; but if that is the case, a lot of the material should then be transported to the Casual sex article. And "throughout the Westernized world" does not make something a global concept (at least in the sense of not being as far-reaching as one that goes significantly further), but rather a Western concept. Flyer22 (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• No it does not. The article uses the term 'Western' three times. The first instance cites studies by Bogle and Bradshaw et. al.. Both of these studies were conducted in North America. The second two mentions of the 'Western' world occur in the conclusion. This first cites no literature at all (the conclusion of the paragraph where the term occurs does cite some literature, but explicitly discusses the United States and not 'the West' as a whole). The second use of the term 'Western' cites an unpublished manuscript and a study by Hatfield and Rapson. The unpublished manuscript is obviously unacceptable as a source. I don't have the Hatfield and Rapson to hand but I doubt that the 2005 edition (which is a revision of the original 1996 edition afaik) discusses hookup culture in other 'Western' but non-North American cultures. If it does, then it should be cited on this page (this is also true for Bogle's work, which may have citations to other authors). It seems clear that in their article Garcia et. al. focus on 'the West' as a category only tangentially. Their main concern is with North American data, and their use of the term 'Western' is a slippage that commonly occurs amongst North American authors. There is no sustained attempt in this paper to demonstrate that their data on North America exemplifies a broader trend, at least not that I see on a quick read. Rex (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• No It explicitly says in the abstract (apparently written by the authors) "increasingly normative among adolescents and young adults in North America," I also agree with Flyer22's comments. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• No. Absolutely not. The review makes clear the limit of its scope - North America. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. With several explicit references to "western culture", and references to Canadian and Australian studies, it seem pretty clear that the authors of the paper believe this to be a Western phenomenon, even if most of their work is restricted to the USA. If the article has problems, then it should be challenged as a reliable source. I agree in principle with some of the arguments raised by "no" voters, but the language in the report is clear: it is an issue throughout the Western world. To interpret the article counter to this would be original research, even if the interpretation is correct. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Then why don't they write Western in the abstract or in the conclusion but rather "North America"?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. You've raised good questions, and I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with you. However, the the authorial intent seems quite clear to me, as its explicitly stated several times (with examples to back it up, even). If you want to challenge the reliability of the source, then I'd probably support that. Your arguments are more compelling to me in that context. I wouldn't worry, though. It seems like there's a clear consensus for your position. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe. I think the article needs better sources and a far more neutral rewriting (I have taken a stab at the first couple of sections). There is enough there to support an encyclopedic article on hookup culture as a Western phenomenon, but it is unworkable in current form. Jaytwist (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• comment I agree with Flyer22 - the term is restricted in use to the US context, as are the sources that use it. Other countries probably have experienced similar changes in sexual mores over the past half century, but they are either not talked about at all as a phenomenon (more as a result of a general tendency towards a more liberal outlook on sexuality that started with the socalled "sexual revolution"), or if they are talked about they are called something else. The idea of "hook-up culture" seems to be a distinctly American concept, and perhaps even one that is confined to a particula POV that problematizes casual sex among adolescents. This is part of what makes this article a POV for from Adolescent sexuality in the United States.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Does the article have SYNTH or OR problems?

Does this article in its current state violate our policies for WP:SYNTH and WP:OR?

Survey

• yes it does. It contains a lot of material about adolescent sexuality in the US that does not argue for the existence of a "culture" or even mention the concept. Including this material is synthesis because it is used to support a conclusion that those studies are not themselves making - namely that US youth has a "hookup culture" and that this is "harmful". Furthermore most of the SYNTH material has clearly been selected inorder to dvance a particular viewpoint - namely that casual sex is psychologically and socially harmful. This could in my opinion only be fixed by reducing the article to something close to a stub. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• No, it does not. Not every source needs to explicitly argue that a culture exists in order to be included. It is enough for the sources to speak about aspects of the culture. Where, for example, would the French culture article be if every one of the sources had to first argue that a French culture existed before it could discuss the Mona Lisa or crêpes? --Illuminato (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• yes. the article collect different aspects of sexuality covered in other places without demonstrating relevance. for example it is easy to fing sources that crepes is part of french culture. but i demand you to show sources thst link pornography with hookup culture. - Altenmann >t 15:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• No on SYNTH and Probably not on OR. This article includes references to a body of literature that studies 'hook-up culture'. That literature itself may be tendentious and problematic in various ways, but I don't see a clear case of synth here. It is the literature itself that seems to hold positions with Maunus finds problematic (I'm sympathetic with him/her btw). As for OR, I have not dug around the page sufficiently to look for sockpuppets etc, but it looks like reliable, verifiable research is being cited which is directly related to the article and directly supports it. Rex (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. The article engages in synthesis in that it takes studies relating to a specific 'hookup culture' within a narrow section of US society, and applies them to broader ranges of casual sexual relationships elsewhere, beyond the scope of the studies cited. The mere fact that a relationship might be described as a 'hookup' in a specific US context is no evidence whatsoever that there is any common 'culture' regarding relationships in other contexts. The Article also seems to go out of its way to emphasise every possible negative consequence of such relationships, citing unsuitable sources (i.e. Cosmopolitan for a general assertion about rape in colleges which it doesn't make), and going entirely off-topic to discuss such matters as the sale of thong underwear to seven-to-twelve-year-old girls. Frankly, the article comes across as more of a tract on morality than an encyclopaedic discussion of a subculture amongst some US college students - which is all that the (relevant) sources are describing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. Major SYNTH problems. The article takes a clear position, saying: hookup culture is bad and then proceeds to argue that position. Tremendous POV. This reads like a position paper, not an encyclopedic article. Jaytwist (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Apart from the fact that Mona Lisa is not an example of French culture but just happens to be located in France, Illuminato's argument misunderstand's the SYNTH policy. The only reason we can know that crêpes are a part of French culture is because we have book about French culture that discuss them as such, and we have books on crêpes that describe them as such. Just because blowjobs are allegedly a symptom of hookup culture, that does not mean that all literature on blowjobs is relevant to hookup culture. The way we can know if a source about blowjobs is relevant to the topic of hookup culture is if the sources discusses blowjobs in the context of hook-up culture.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• @Alex Golub. I most certainly don't have a problem with the literature, and I agree that the topic is notable and should be covered. I have a problem with the way the article is written, because it adopts and advocates a particular position instead of describing and summarizing the literature. What I consider to be OR is the inclusion of literature that does not use the discourse on hook-up culture, but which simply describe the practice of casual sex amond adolescents and collegs students. Using that way of article writing we could use Coming of Age in Samoa to argue that early 20th Samoan culture was a hook-up culture. Or that ancient Rome was. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• @Maunus: I am beginning to see your point now, and to understand how some of these standards have changed in the years I took a break from Wikipedia. You are arguing that there is OR here because the author has cited additional sources in support of the literature on hook-up culture, while those sources themselves do not use the term. So this would be the equivalent of a dozen sources arguing that there was a hook-up culture in 20th Century Samoan culture and then citing additional sources about 20th Century Samoan culture to back up that point, even if those latter sources do not use the term hook-up culture itself. Correct? A quick count of the citations on this page shows about 20 of the 51 works cited use the phrase 'hook-up culture'. Perhaps more of them use this phrase in the body of the article, but not the title. Is that the issue you have? Rex (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is basically it. Some of the sources do not use the term at all but are just similar rants about the loosening sexual mores of American youth, how pornography and blowjobs are becoming increasingly common and how they scar people psychologically - but without saying that this is part of a "hookup culture". My guess is that I can easily find texts from the 19th century US and England making similar points - so should we include that as the earliest signs of an emerging hookup culture? I think WP:SYNTH clearly tells us not to do that. The sources that use the concept of course show that this is a notable and existing discourse that we should have an article about - just not this particular article. Another huge problem is the lack of attribution of views and value judgments to their sources. Freitas for example is a theologian not a social scientist - obviously her statements should be cited with in-text attribution to show thast this is her viewpoint an argument.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Cuts

Large chucks of prose - whole paragraphs, in fact - were cut by Jaytwist with the summary that he was making the article more NPOV. I am all for improving the article however we can, however I object to indiscriminately removing large portions of the text. I don't want to get into an edit war over this, however I don't believe any of the information in there is POV, and I don't know how some of it could possibly be justified for removal under the NPOV banner. What, exactly, is objectionable about saying that the past decade has seen a great interest in the topic of hookups in both scholarly and popular media, that only 6% of teens have had sex with someone they just met (and x% with this group, and y% with that group, etc), or that in the 1960s sex became uncoupled from relationships and non-marital sex became more socially acceptable? I ask this especially when each statement is cited with a WP:RS. Gamaliel, speaking rather authoritatively, has decreed that the statistical information can remain, but then AndyTheGrump went and removed it again. If there is objectionable material in the article than I'd be happy to work with anyone who wants to work with me to improve it. However, lets first seek consensus before entire sections are decimated and the baby is thrown out with the bathwater. --Illuminato (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

No. It has been made abundantly clear that the article violates WP:NPOV policy. The consensus is already established, and whether you are 'happy to work with' those working to ensure that the article will conform with policy or not is frankly irrelevant. You have been reverted by multiple editors, and are already edit-warring against consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Well there is the grump coming out. Can we try to work this out? What, exactly, is your objection to the following paragraph, which I see you have deleted yet again?

About half of hookups were a one time affair, and this is the same for both boys and girls. Boys, on the other hand, are more likely have several hookup partners at the same time, and are also more likely to hookup with someone they are not dating. For both genders, hookups are more likely to be with an ex-boyfriend or girlfriend or a friend, than with an acquaintance. Only 6% had sex with someone they just met. Sex with someone they just met or an acquaintance is a one time affair 75% of the time, while the majority of teens (68%) who hook up with a friend or an ex will repeat it.

I would rather discuss these than keep reverting back and forth. That doesn't accomplish much of anything productive. --Illuminato (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss this, do so - but stop edit-warring against multiple editors. Consensus is clearly against you at this point. As for the content of individual paragraphs, I think that it is premature to discuss them until it is firmly established just what the scope of this article is. For a start, there seems to be a strong case for renaming the article to make clear that the studies cited concern a particular 'culture' within North American college students - such issues need sorting out before we concern ourselves with minor details. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to build some consensus here, and get a couple small victories upon which we can build. As Gamaliel and I both believe that statistical information is appropriate for the article, I purposely chose that paragraph. If you don't, then here is your chance to explain why. If you want to discuss the scope of the article, that is fine, but it is an entirely different discussion. Same goes for renaming the article. I don't have an objection to either of those discussions. However, you are not only moving the goalposts (no one has brought up renaming the article before), you are also limiting our otions and narrowing the scope of the discussion when you claim to want to discuss big picture (as opposed to minor details) issues. So, since those are seperate issues from our present discussion, do you have any objections to that paragraph, or can we restore it? --Illuminato (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

PS - Or, would you like to reword it, add additional information to it, or change it in some other way? --Illuminato (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The scope of the present discussion is how we make the article conform to policy. I am not interested in nit-picking over details. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to work to that end as well. However, if you are going to make a huge change, even when there is opposition to it, and then sit there with your arms crossed and refuse to collaborate, or even to discuss how to improve the article, that is not very productive. We both have the same goal - to improve the article. Why won't you work with me to accomplish that? --Illuminato (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A word about my cuts. The majority of what I cut was strong POV pushing based on a single paper by Freitas. There was extensive quoting and paraphrasing of the Freitas paper. The purpose of an encyclopedic article is not to push a single viewpoint, but to present a neutral, consensus description of a topic. Wikipedia is not here to say "hookup culture is good" or "hookup culture is bad". Wikipedia is here to say "there is a thing called hookup culture and here is what it is". If there is legitimate material that needs to be re-added, this is a good place to discuss it. Jaytwist (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Jaytwist, you've gone and done it again. Your most recent cuts were even worse than the first round. You have removed entire sections of the article. There is now, for example, nothing about anyone under college age despite ample evidence that it exists there. Indeed, the lead says that it has "has taken root within the sociocultural milieu of adolescents," and yet the article says nothing about adolescents now. As I said above I'm not opposed to removing information that should not be in the article, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm going to revert for now, and then we can, as you say, use this place to discuss some of the changes indavidually. Also, the work by Frietas is a book, not a paper, and if you've read it you would know that she says that she would like college students to have hookups as one possible option among several for their sexual experiences in college. She is not pushing an anti-hookup agenda in her book. --Illuminato (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Illuminato, I suggest that you self-revert. You have clearly violated WP:3RR, and are liable to be blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The Three Revert Rule was unknown to me, but now that I have been made aware I'll refrain from reverting again today. However, my objections to indiscriminately cutting huge chunks of text stands, and my invitation above to work together to improve the article does as well. --Illuminato (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I have removed everything that was pushing POV. Every removal of content I made was not indiscriminate, but based on whether that content was relevant to the topic and whether that content was neutral. I suggest that we now allow the community to develop this article further. Illuminato, if you continue edit-warring, you will just get yourself banned. I would suggest that you discuss your grievances here and I am sure the community will work with them. Jaytwist (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

To begin generally, I think that perhaps that we disagree on the scope of the article, and that is causing much of the disagreement here. As a specific example, could you please explain to me how the paragraph I quoted above was either POV-pushing, not neutral, or not relevant to the topic? Thanks. --Illuminato (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to rename the article.

Since it seems evident from the source material used in this article that the 'hookup culture' described in the relevant studies is confined to sections of the student population in the US, it would appear necessary to rename the article to make the subject matter clear. I suspect that it may be necessary to start a formal requested move discussion, but first I'd like to suggest that we discuss the issue amongst ourselves, to see if we can arrive at a title by consensus. I will start by suggesting "Hookup culture amongst American students" as a title. Any comments? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I would agree, as the article does not properly address hookup culture anywhere else. I would only suggest "among" rather than "amongst" - so "Hookup culture among American students". Jaytwist (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hookup culture exists, as the lead states, "within the sociocultural milieu of adolescents, emerging adults, and men and women throughout the Western world." I think eventually this article might grow to the point where we need to create a seperate article just for students, but before the article was gutted by Jaytwist there was much in there that described non-students as well. A minority, to be sure, but still a substantial amount. What would you have us do with that information if this was rennamed? --Illuminato (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Specious argument. What matters here are the sources. None of the sources that I removed significantly increased the geographic scope of the article. Virtually all of the studies cited deal with American or Canadian students. Similarly, none of the POV-pushing or irrelevant content that I removed properly dealt with countries outside the U.S. Jaytwist (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

While I stand by my argument above, I think there is ample evidence to prove that hook up culture exists outside of highschool and college campuses, with the quotation I provided above as a single example. If we accept this proposal, how should we address the hookup culture that exists among 20-somethings and those older? --Illuminato (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, no. We don't set out to 'prove' things. We go by what the sources say. Do you have a source concerning academic studies of 'hookup culture' beyond the US college scene? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me. I meant to say that there is ample evidence to establish that the culture exists outside of college campuses. Are you looking for an example besides the review article (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP on the quality thereof) I cited above? If so, we read in the book "Relating Difficulty" (2006; Kirkpatrick, Duck & Foley) that "casual sexual interaction occurs in many different social and developmental contexts." Romantic Relationships in Emerging Adulthood (2010; Fincham, Cui) talks about a "hooking-up culture," in the context of, and same paragraph as, college students, other young people, and adult relationships. Many studies talk about how most research is focused on college students but that it exists outside of college as well and that more study is needed in those areas. To give one example, based solely on the title on the paper, is Hook-Up Culture: Setting a New Research Agenda (2010; Sexuality Research and Social Policy) which talks about "non-college-attending and post-college youth." For the high school age group, there is the New York Times article, Friends, Friends With Benefits and the Benefits of the Local Mall (2004; Lewis). More academically, there is the article A Cross-Cultural Content-Analytic Comparison of the Hookup Culture in U.S. and Dutch Teen Girl Magazines (2013; Journal of Sex Research), or Hooking Up: The Relationship Contexts of “Nonrelationship” Sex (2006; Journal of Adolescent Research) and plenty of others others. --Illuminato (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think renaming the article is necessary. It's called "hookup culture", the sources discuss "hookup culture", and the article details "hookup culture". So, where's the problem? Hookup culture may or may not be a Western phenomenon, a college phenomenon, or an American phenomenon; however, all of the sources that I've read simply discuss hookup culture, rather than any kind of specific "hookup culture in American colleges" or whatever. And, believe me, in the past few hours I've read much more about this topic than I ever wanted to. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Less POV

Following User:Jaytwist's extensive edits to the article that pruned POV material, I have added another dozen or so sources. The majority of them are either supportive of hookup culture or critical of the criticism. I chose them specifically to inject some kind of counterpoint to the overwhelmingly negative POV that the article exhibited. I tried to fit them into the flow, but it wasn't easy. Because many of the sources are not available online, I don't feel comfortable trying to rewrite citations attributed to them; unfortunately, this means that the article sometimes seems like it's arguing with itself. In these cases, I tried to soften the rhetoric ("hookup culture always leads to..." → "hookup culture can lead to"). Many statements are clearly opinion, yet they're phrased as cold, hard facts. That really annoys me, as it makes adding opposing viewpoints extremely difficult. How can you add a counterpoint to something that says (paraphrasing) "hookup culture has killed dating on college campuses"? There's just no way. So, unfortunately, a few statements like that had to go. I also changed the structure a bit, such that the article isn't composed solely of choppy paragraphs that each get their own sub-sub-header; it was getting a bit ridiculous, especially when many of them were basically the same concept. I also standardized and fixed the citations. Some of them are still missing critical information, such as ISBN. I meant to tag the article with the "missing ISBN" cleanup template, but I forgot. I'm too lazy to do it now that I've remembered. However, this really needs to be fixed. Also, there are almost no page numbers cited in the entire article. This also needs to be fixed.

I think the article looks a bit less POV now, though the new and old material need to be integrated better. Instead of saying, "hookup culture is bad and scary! But, wait, maybe it isn't.", we should have something more like "Academic A says this. Academic B says this. Cultural critic C says this." I've tried to push the article a little bit more toward this point, but it's going to take work to remove all of the rhetoric and POV-pushing. Luckily, the worst of the edit-warring seems to have died down. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this is definitely a step in the right direction. The article sorely needed additional sources from the other side of the argument. Hopefully, this can continue the process of moving the article toward an encyclopedic piece that provides a neutral description of this cultural phenomenon. Jaytwist (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I think I made some real progress on the POV-pushing in this article. As a result, I replaced the POV template with POV-check. I don't care if people change it back, but I'd request that they replace the template rather than simply reverting; my last edit fixed a few NPOV violations and added a few inline templates highlighting issues that still remain. In particular, I don't really see what that whole sex in the media/porn section has to do with hookup culture. It seems like a tangentially related rant about how free speech is corrupting our youth. Someone needs to tie that to hookup culture. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Edits

I tried to make a couple of edits to the article, but was stymied by notices of edit conflicts because the Grump kept reverting them all before he could have possibly had time to even read them. The best part is that he insists that I DISCUSS (his caps) any material that is disputed. I tried doing this in the past with him, but he has repeatedly refused to discuss it with me. Jaytwist showed more of a willingness to at least discuss the issues, going so far as to say that we should "discuss your grievances here and I am sure the community will work with them." However, almost two weeks ago I asked him to discuss a single paragraph with me, and he has yet to respond. So, per WP:BRD, I went and made some changes. I restored some, but not all, of the text that was disputed before. I tried to make an effort to be critical of the material and cut that which wasn't relevant/ appropriate/ etc. Anyone who compares the version of this article from two weeks ago to the one that is up now will notice that there are considerable changes.

I also tried, as best I could, to include all the new material that had been added by NinjaRobotPirate since that time, even if I don't think all of it qualifies as a WP:RS, 1) because I thought most of it was good stuff and 2) because I thought it would show good faith. I'm reverting back to my last version once again. I would kindly ask that before anyone goes and simply reverts that they take the time to at least read the new version. If, after they do so, we can then tag, discuss, rework, rewrite, and yes even cut any material that needs work. However, simply saying no because I (or anyone else) says yes is not productive. --Illuminato (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The consensus at the recent AfD discussion was clear: you are not going to be permitted to use Wikipedia to promote your agenda. It simply isn't here to right great wrongs, or to engage in moralising. You are self-evidently searching out material to promote a particular POV, and are making no attempt whatsoever to present material in a neutral manner. Furthermore, you are citing sources specifically referring to the US, and making generalisations about them which cannot be supported, and otherwise misusing sources. I see that you have yet again ignored WP:BRD and restored the material I asked you to discuss - I suggest you self-revert, as your behaviour may otherwise reflect badly on you. If you persist in editing against consensus, I will have no hesitation in calling for sanctions to be taken against you - simply ignoring consensus, hoping that people will forget about the article, and then restoring it to your preferred version isn't going to be an option. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You didn't "make a few edits to the article", you reverted back to an older version. In doing so, you:

• Reverted every fix I made to the broken citations. I filled in quite a lot of missing information; in some cases, I even hunted down legal online versions. I also tagged a few inappropriate citations, such as a missing ISBN and such. When you reverted the page, all that was lost. This is not acceptable. If you revert the page back to an older version that does not have these fixes, I will fight you on this.
• Reverted every fix I made to your incredibly POV prose. I see that you made at least some token attempt to rephrase some of your prose, but it's still incredibly POV. You also removed every template that I (and others) added to the article. You can not unilaterally remove cleanup templates. Doing so could be construed as vandalism or edit warring. Such activities could cause you to be blocked; in the future, I would advise against doing this. It will only make administrators take a dim view of your arguments should the issue ever escalate to the point where such attention is deemed necessary. In particular, I find the fact that you are citing Lisa Wade to be indicative of your POV. Wade is dismissive of criticism about hookup culture, and yet you quote mine her articles to find factoids you can use to push your POV and ignore everything that she says critical of your POV. This is not allowed on Wikipedia.
• Rewrote my additions and shuffled them off to some "controversy" section at the end of the article. Nuh uh. You don't get to own the presentation of hookup culture while ridiculing and minimizing published academics as "pop culture feminists". Stating that my sources are not WP:RS is ridiculous – I cited major newspapers, published academic papers, and respected news sites.
• Restored dubious sourcing and sources. I wasn't going to push this issue, but you've annoyed me enough that I feel it's now become relevant and topical: why are your citations missing so much information (such as issue # and page numbers), and why did you improperly cite so many sources? Do you actually have access to every one of these sources? I checked a few of them, and they did not cite the facts that you assert they do. As an example, see the source that was tagged as "verification failed". That means that the "fact" cited does not appear in the source. I remember doing several text searches for the asserted statement and not finding any evidence of it anywhere in that paper. Citing an non-published paper is also rather dubious...
• Forced me to write this TL;DR rant to defend my revert of your edits, when I'd rather be editing articles instead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC) (edited for clarity 04:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC))

Ninja - thank you for at least taking the time to read the version and address your concerns here. I appreciate it. I would like to address a few of them as well.

• To begin with, I missed the edit with the tags. That was my mistake and unintentional.
• The items I put into a new section were really talking more about the media's coverage of hookup culture, not hookup culture itself. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem including some of them in other sections of the text if they were relevant, but I don't consider a college junior writing about her sex life in Cosmo to be a WP:RS. The others were from reputable newspapers, but were mostly columnists pushing an agenda. I thought some, like the columns written by academics, or the ASA article were good. In the latter, however, the only mention of a "moral panic" was in the following context, which is why I rewrote the sentence: "On the other side, pop culture feminists such as Jessica Valenti, author of The Purity Myth: How America’s Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Young Women (2010), argue that the problem isn’t casual sex, but a “moral panic” over casual sex."
• Before you accuse me of improperly citing "facts," you should make sure that I am actually the one who wrote it as it stands. For example, when I added the sentence that says more than half of college relationships begin with a hookup, I put one citation on it. After Jaytwist's rewrite, it now has five, including one where you say that the verification failed. Of course that sentence also makes a number of other claims so it could be to support something else, but all the citations come at the end so we can't be sure what supports what. With regards to page numbers, I only recently became aware of the { {sfn} } which makes it easy to add page numbers. As soon as I learned, I started using it.
• I don't know what TL;DR is, but I'm sorry you feel put out. I would rather be editing articles as well. --Illuminato (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Illuminato, you always do this -- wait until some time has passed by and then restore to your disputed version; I've seen you do it for years at the Adolescent sexuality in the United States article, especially with regard to your WP:Edit warring with Iamcuriousblue at that article. And with this recent huge edit you made to that article, it is even more of a mess than it was before; in that article, there are redundant headings/somewhat redundant sections (as pointed out before on that talk page last year), sections that should not be sections per MOS:PARAGRAPHS and all sorts of other problematic issues that need to be fixed with regard to that article. Considering that before you made that recent huge edit to it, you recently pondered on that talk page whether or not to create WP:Spinouts of that article, I feel that you recently expanded it so much just so that you can break that material out into POV messes. When I've been contacted to help out with that article, or asked for my thoughts on it in general, perhaps I failed to see just how inappropriately one-sided that article is. It's one thing if the majority of sources report negatively significantly more than they report positively or indifferent with regard to adolescent/teenage sexual activity, but it's another to go out of your way to significantly amp up the negative aspect of the topic. And with the big expansion you recently made to the Hookup culture article, I feel that you are hoping to expand it so much so not only to make hookup culture look like more of a prominent topic/more negative than it is, but as something that needs to be split into spinout articles. You need to significantly exercise moderation in your editing. It is not Wikipedia's job to cover every single detail of a topic in as much detail as possible. Wikipedia articles are summaries of the in-depth material that can be read elsewhere...or at least that's what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be. Though I still watch the Adolescent sexuality in the United States article, I gave up years ago on trying to help out with it (in 2010 or 2011) because I'm not invested in that article, and because there was (still is) no helping it with all the edit warring going on there (namely the "I'll wait until some time has passed and then revert to my version, then significantly expand on that" editing). Similarly, I'll mostly be staying out of the disputes with regard to the Hookup culture article. Flyer22 (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No, WP is not an indiscriminate fount of knowledge, however, WP:Editing Policy states that "Wikipedia is here to provide information to people; generally speaking, the more information it can provide (subject to certain defined limitations on its scope), the better it is. Please boldly add information to Wikipedia, either by creating new articles or adding to existing articles, and exercise particular caution when considering removing information." When I add new, verifiable information, I don't expect it to all be indiscriminately cut. In this most recent round of edits, for example, I added new, properly cited information from a new book I've read. I would think that much of it would be uncontroversial, and yet it got thrown out in a revert instead of properly discussed and culled.

I believe you are correct, however, in that my current strategy is not getting the results that I would like and I will instead change tactics. It's not that I think I am wrong, but simply that I don't want to keep banging my head against the wall. I still believe, per the policy cited above, that the burden is on those who want to cut to explain why some information should be cut, and not on those who want to add. After all, what is the point of WP if it is not to add to an ever-growing body of knowledge? --Illuminato (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If you persist in attempting to use Wikipedia to present a one-sided and moralising perspective on the subject of this article, in contravention of core Wikipedia policies, I shall have no hesitation in calling for you to be topic banned. It was made abundantly clear at the AfD that your original material was unacceptable. Your only choices in this matter are to work with others to ensure that the article complies with policy, or to find another outlet for your views. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Why must you be so obstinate? I keep extending a hand and offering to work together, and you make threats. Let's work on the actual article instead of calling for penalties for the other person. You have never made an edit to the article that wasn't just reverting something I have done. The article doesn't get any better when we spend all our time bickering here. ---Illuminato (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Why must you be so obstinate? Because your violation of core Wikipedia policy regarding a neutral point of view is unacceptable. Next question? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise of your answer, but it won't do us any good to linger on it. So, my next question is: Why don't you make a substantive edit to the article to try and improve it instead of just reverting what I have done? I ask especially since in this most recent round of edits you could not possibly have read and digested the new material and new sources added. You just saw that I did it, and so you reverted.--Illuminato (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't care whether you disagree or not - the consensus at the AfD was clear. As for 'reading and digesting' your edits, it wasn't necessary to read every last sentence in depth to see that you were reintroducing the very NPOV-violating material that had previously been removed. If you felt I hadn't looked at the material properly, you could perfectly well have asked me to look at it further - but instead you chose to violate WP:BRD by restoring it. Where was your attempt at discussion there? Nowhere. If you aren't prepared to comply with normal editing standards, and are going instead to restore material that consensus has rejected, and then edit-war in an attempt to retain it, you can expect little sympathy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You didn't give me a chance to discuss anything. There was a grand total of three minutes in between when I made my first edit and when you reverted. As I said in the edit summary, I had a number of edits I wanted to make. For this to work you have to work with me, and I with you, and us with everyone. You can't just see that I said black and then have an immediate Pavlovian reaction and say white. --Illuminato (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

For the last time, read WP:BRD. When an edit is reverted, you are expected to discuss it then. Not edit-war it back in. I am not going to discuss this point further. If you refuse to work within Wikipedia norms, and instead attempt to impose your unacceptable version of the article, I shall act as I see fit to ensure that standards are applied. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It's possible this article may not survive its ownership but I will make a few passes, as well, to help pull out the POV and the SYNTH tone.EBY (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)