Talk:Adolescent sexuality in the United States/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Issues Regarding Bias in Tone of Article

This article has a very obvious bias, the writer is very negative regarding sexuality in general. It is not written in a scientific sense as it should be, many of the studies and quotes are not by reputable sources (religious organizations, etc).

There is no single writer. There are dozens, if not hundreds of editors, many of whom review all edits.

We only use WP:RS. Why would an otherwise WP:RS source, who happens to be religious, suddenly become a non-reliable source? You are speaking of bias? That appears to be an anti-religious bias.

The Heritage Foundation isn't unreliable because it's religious, it's unreliable because it purposefully avoids peer-review and has a blatant agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.67.32 (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Are parents allowed to conducts research? How about the judicial system? What sort of WP:RS did you have in mind? "Research" by teenagers? Been done!  :) Student7 (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

For sociological effects, you'd need to show peer-reviewed research or something similar.

In addition, the article has a substantial portion composed simply of stringing together quotes condemning adolescent sexuality. The whole article needs to be rewritten. --184.155.89.158 (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is biased, the biass is very clear. Religious organisations aren't reputable organisations in this subject. They have no knowlege about psicology, pedagogy, sexuality, medicine etc. They are not the indicate source for this research. I hope someone with serious knolege in the topic, fix this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.36.156.187 (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Herostratus are needed to explain re-adding pov tag. A general tag is not really that useful by itself. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I also feel that the article is severly biased. There's a lengthy list of the drawbacks and dangers from adolescent sexuality, reported as fact, while much of it just the opinion of random researchers and institutions. Meanwhile the entire article as far as I can see does not contain even a single mention of anybody ever reporting any positive sides to adolescent sexuality. Is it really accurate to say that all research and all sources report the issue only as a problem, and never as something positive ? The article feels like something a Catholic Bishop would happily sign off on. Eivind Kjørstad (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Scientists have recently determined that teens brains remain not-yet developed by late teenhood. Not surprising that they would make poor decisions in sexual matters as they so often do with drinking, drugs, and driving. Student7 (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't imagine how this article received the quality rating that it did. This article is blatantly biased, and has entire sections consisting solely of quotations strung together. It's loaded with dubious statements and opinions presented as fact. This article is more overwhelmingly negative in tone than the article on Nazism. I cannot overstate how distressing I find this to be. It needs to be revised as soon as possible to present a more impartial approach to the issue. The bias present here is so deeply ingrained, permeating every single paragraph, that I'm not sure this article can even be saved in its present form. This might require a full scrap and rewrite to be made acceptable, because as of now it is an unequivocal disaster. 98.213.37.188 (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

In particular, there are serious issues with the "Hooking Up" section. Needs urgent attention. 146.115.24.137 (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Imo this articles violates WP:NPOV. I reviewed the MedCal case from 2007 about this article and the mediator concluded that the article should keep its POV tag until the article had been cleaned up. That has not happened, some issues even from before the mediation are still present. I think it is very important that this article gets cleaned up. Potential readers of this article include sexually active adolescents from the US and they should not read this page and think it to be NPOV. The page makes very poor use of quotaion both from a stylistic point of view and from a content point of view. Correlation does not imply causation comes to mind for alot of the sources, or I should say, the way the sources are presented. As the issues present at the time of the 2007 mediation have not been resolved and 6 editors, me included, consider the article to still be POV I am re-adding the pov tag. The article itself needs alot of editing. I would think that shrinking it quite a bit and building a smaller page as to get past the POV issues is a good way to proceed. After all, a lot of the content is just long quotes. Morphriz (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "correlation is not causation." Nevertheless, most studies involving teens cannot be reproduced with anything approaching "double blind" accuracy. For example, a recent study showed that girls who watched "Sex and the City" became single mothers as young teens twice (or whatever) as often as those who didn't. It has not been demonstrated that watching that show corrupts one's morals. Perhaps the opposite. Teens who are corrupted already, watch the show. Other teens manage to avoid watching it. Readers may draw their own conclusions.

Nor can the "study" been run blind or double blind or whatever. Who would trust a teen not to watch a particular show after being told not to (or to) and then report on the state of their chastity over a rather long period of time. To say nothing of possibly opening the way to a charge of corrupting the morals of a minor. Not a study anyone would fund!  :( So what we have left is only correlation. No one should claim causation. No reason it can't be reported though, because there is no other kind of data to report. Student7 (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you are in error on this. What you describe as non-existant are the tools and methods used by sociologists and epidemiologists. It is often important for these groups of scientists to know what causes an illness or a certain state. If that can no be done weaker relations like prediction is used. Prediction is alot stronger than mere correlation. Among the list of references in this article there are several such methods being employed. Ref 89 is a good example as well is 131. My argument, however, is not with the sources but with how they are presented. The quoting style often implies a causation where the source does not imply causation. The use of reference 89 is a good example. This style of quotation and the frequent use of quotes from news media references, where the reference itself interprets an underlying source, are imo the main issues with this article. Although news media articles generally are WP:RS given the sensitive nature of this articles subject matter I think using the original sources is a better practice. Also, as much of the raw quoting as possible should be removed from the article. Some level of synthesis is necessary. How about creating a section on the different POVs and being very strict with respect to use of and source of references throughout the rest of the article?Morphriz (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that prediction is a lot stronger than mere correlation. Prediction implies causation (that we know the cause or A cause. We often don't or we could stop it). We can now predict that a certain percentage of people who smoke will develop lung cancer, for example. We cannot predict how many teenaged girls watching "Sex and the City" will get pregnant! (Among other things, the network may change the story line!  :( It's only in retrospect that it seems relevant. And it may not be!

I couldn't quite follow your criticism of 89.

The material quotes segments from the article on footnote 131. Are you looking to rephrase it? Multiple quotes back to back "look funny" editorially. I can agree that far anyway.

BTW, we can get into trouble here using numbers. All it takes is one insertion and our remarks no longer makes sense!  :( Student7 (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this article is also extremely biased. It relies very heavily on the quoted opinions of a few "experts", particularly Dr. Drew Pinsky, and not enough on secondary sources, to draw some seemingly strong conclusions. It reads more like a magazine article trying to make a point about how to be a parent rather than neutral, encyclopedic article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.88.219 (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

174.53.242.228 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Cozen174.53.242.228 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC) I wanted to add this to also strengthen the above article and its Bias and misleading in this article. The Section 8 Sexual Minorities: The statistic that is in reference from the article (159) referral does not represent the argument. What got me 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. However, there is no distinguishing statistic to document that. The reference article (Figure 8j as they listed it)only implies "Association Between School HIV/AIDs Prevention Education and Sexual Risk Behaviors and Experiences, 2005" - As per the title for that image figure 8j. No where does it list that these were specifically from the "Sexual Minority". It is misleading to use this section in this Wikipedia article.

The Adolescent Sexuality in the United States: 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). [157] "2005 Youth Risk Behavior Survey" Massachusetts Department of Education Website, http://www.doe.mass.edu/cnp/hprograms/yrbs/05/ch8.doc.

Excerpt from the 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%). 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 in that figure 8j, do not separate or differentiate between the numbers they surveyed nor does it indicate that THAT statistic was done on that particular demographic (the sexual minoirity). It only indicates that that figure 8j was done on the higher risk teenagers... Which was??? Therefore no one can absolutely agree with how they came about those numbers in that particular survey. 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 give their boss and slapped that survey on to it. It was then placed in that particular article 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.

On a more personal note: I am not one of those in the "Sexual Minority”: I thought it was odd that Pregnancy was included to be a higher risk for that group listed. After reading the reference out of curiosity, I was offended by how bias and misleading the article and its citrated reference were.

Why exactly is it biased just because it didn't give you the results you were looking for? You're allowed to experience things different ways from other people but these are the general findings from research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.154.163 (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that this article is particularly biased. It has a long section of psychological effects and one of physical effects, but none of the effects listed are positive. It is incredibly biased to not include a section on this (it is comparable to only mentioning addiction/toxicity in a drug-related article or only pointing out controversies in an article about a politician). There are positive and negative effects for everything.

Furthermore, this section speaks a lot to the negative effects on women as if it were a result of the sex rather than cultural expectations.

Much of this article suffers from cherry-picking and unwarranted claims of causation.

Furthermore, many of the articles cited as evidence are news articles (e.g. from USA Today and Boston Globe). This is absurd.

Lastly, why should there even be a section on "criticism," if the whole article is criticism?

67.165.143.170 (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Adolescent sexuality in the United States

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Adolescent sexuality in the United States's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "review":

• From Men who have sex with men: A review of knowledge about the sexual networks and behaviors of men who have sex with men in Asia. Dowsett, Grierson and McNally.[1]
• From Hookup culture: Garcia, Justin R.; Reiber, Chris; Massey, Sean G.; Merriwether, Ann M. (2012), "Sexual Hookup Culture: A Review" (PDF), Review of General Psychology, 16 (2): 161–176, doi:10.1037/a0027911, retrieved 2013-06-25

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

(I tend to trust bots. They seem neutral). Having said that, I don't understand what the bot is saying. That the above articles were or are using this article to avoid orphanage? There are currently no links to those articles. Nor vice-versa. Can anyone explain? Student7 (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like my meticulousness comes in handy here. This can safely be disregarded as it no longer matters.

@Student7: You appear to be confusing Orphaned pages with Orphaned references. (it got me too). What AnomieBOT is trying to say is that an editor from our page copied two passages of text, both containing footnotes, from two other Wikipedia articles. When the footnotes changed for their articles (maybe a site moved?) the bot didn't know if we should change our footnotes, too.

Anyway, we don't need either of those references now, but if it happens again I can fix it. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

POV Tag

The article has a POV tag dating from July 2013 but there's no discussion about it on this talk page. Could the folks who find the article to be POV list their concerns for discussion. StoneProphet11 (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm hearing only crickets thus far. Alternatively, if concerns about the POV of the article have abated, the POV tag should be removed. StoneProphet11 (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've looked through some of it, but not all. It's not as bad as I may have feared. Two sections, on Psychological effects and sociocultural stuff (particularly media) seem somewhat POV and overly dramatic. I've tried to reign things in a bit. It's not my area of expertise, but from the hyperbole of those sections, I question whether all of the sources are reliable. Perhaps against my better judgment I may dig into some of the literature and see what there is to potentially balance some of these sections better. StoneProphet11 (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

StoneProphet11, people are worn out from this article. And as for you editing the article, see what I stated here. Also, when it comes you attempting to balance out things, like you did here, be careful that you are not creating false balance; this is per the Balancing aspects and Giving "equal validity" sections of the WP:Due weight policy; we give more weight to the majority view, unless it's a small majority. If the source states or indicates "most" or "many," we should not change it to "some" (not without good reason; for example, the opposing scholars may be few and therefore "most" or "many" is accurate). And there is this line you removed: "In addition, these messages contain unrealistic, inaccurate, and misleading information that young people accept as fact." Keep in mind that it's a line that can be supported by various WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Flyer. thanx for the feedback, and I appreciate it. I'll admit to being naive to a lot of the policies of WP so I appreciate the guidance. I'm not sure I agree with you about the one line there though...seems like "essay quality". I'll admit this isn't my main area of expertise, but as a psychologist, that's kind of a dramatic claim I wouldn't expect to see from what I'd consider a reliable source. I actually question the second half of the statement more than the first. At very least it should be reworded to be more nuanced and less "factual" as it were. thanx! StoneProphet11 (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a difficult article, which, I guess given the topic, shouldn't be surprised. If it's ok, I'll just do a "sweep" through it with an eye on actual empirical literature. I've got no long-term investment in the topic. If people want to revert my edits, I don't really care. Keep what you like, toss the rest. StoneProphet11 (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll add to that if you think it's better to "let sleeping dogs lie" that's fine too. Just figure it would be nice to work to get rid of that POV tag. Could I get a 50-cent version on that the controversies were in the past so I don't step back into them? StoneProphet11 (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding my first diff-link above in this section, I fixed my placement. As for the line in question, you doubt that the media can heavily shape adolescents' views of sexuality, and often in unrealistic, inaccurate, and misleading ways? Being familiar with the literature on adolescent sexuality (some of which can be found on Google Books and Google Scholar), including the fact that pornography often shapes boys' ideas of sexual activity as much as or more so than men's, I don't see the statement as dramatic or overstepping its bounds...except for the fact that it didn't use the word often. We shouldn't give the impression that these images are always unrealistic, inaccurate, and misleading. And I mentioned pornography in relation to boys because girls don't watch pornography nearly as much as boys do, at least going by various research on the topic of pornography viewing. As for "50-cent version" of the issues, I suggest you skim over the archives and focus more so on the more recent disputes; you can start with Archive 2. As seen here and here, you've looked in the archives before. Flyer22 (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Well if you use the word "heavy"...yeah I think that's probably overstating it. The issue, in part, is that psychological effects, in general, tend to be small and subtle...so I'm always wary when I see people claim "dramatic" and "heavy" effects. I'm certainly not saying that the media have no effect at all, but effect sizes in that realm tend to be pretty small, and scholars do still debate them, so I think the language here would be best served by following that. But as I said, I'm not inclined to step into a hornet's nest if this is a particularly acrimonious page. If the editors that monitor this page have decided that the page is best served by remaining as it is, I've no problem stepping away. If, on the other hand, you'd like me to pick through the parts that have something to do with psychology, I'd be happy to do that and, as I said, just revert anything you don't like. I'll stay away from the medical stuff of course, as I know nothing about any of that. StoneProphet11 (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

StoneProphet11, I understand what you mean. But I reiterate that, as seen on Google Books and on Google Scholar, WP:Reliable sources disagree on the extent the media affects adolescent sexuality; that is my point, and you've stated similarly above by noting "scholars do still debate them." At the heart of my commentary on this matter is that we should go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, with WP:Due weight, not our personal opinion. For some adolescents, again going by the WP:Reliable sources, the media does heavily affect their perception of sexuality; for other adolescents, it does not. That's why I stated "can heavily," not "does heavily." As for leaving the article as it is, the article of course needs further improvement, so I don't object to any further improvement of it; I'm instead trying to guide you in the right direction, editing-wise, since you are not as familiar with the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines as I am. Flyer22 (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I do appreciate it Flyer. I imagine some of the ways things are done here are different from in academia (we prefer primary, not secondary sources for instance). What is the best recourse when the sources disagree, however? I'll admit, I'm a little unclear on "due weight" for instance and how that applies to WP. For instance, in science, a single falsification, if well done, can undo decades of theory, even if that theory has hundreds of articles. So the due weight would go to the new information, rather than sheer number of previous publications. Actually a good example in psychology is social priming where I'd say, off the top of my head, 90-95% of the published articles probably support it, but a recent crop of failed replications have cast the entire theory into doubt. Would WPs "due weight" policy give heavier credibility to the previous publications, rather than the failed replications, even if that wouldn't be recognizable to scholars in the field? That's actually a bit applicable here, such as in the Steinberg and Monahan article which failed to replicate some prior articles (Collins and Brown). Just trying to get my head around it, and appreciate your feedback. StoneProphet11 (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The lead (introduction) of the WP:Verifiability policy states: "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." That's how we handle disagreement among sources. And keep in mind that the WP:Due weight policy is an aspect of the WP:Neutral policy. As for WP:Due weight, I'm not sure how to have you understand that policy better; I simply suggest reading it and its subsections (its subsections are the aforementioned Balancing aspects and Giving "equal validity" sections). If there's something you don't understand about what is stated in the main section or the subsections, let me know and I'll try to clarify. But as for whether WP:Due weight goes to the new information, not necessarily; see the WP:Recentism essay, for example. WP:Due weight is mainly about what is and what is not widely supported among sources in its field. For example, a theory that has very little support in a scientific field, whether it has failed to replicate an original study about the theory or otherwise, is subject to the WP:Fringe theories guideline; the WP:Due weight policy also points out this guideline, basically stating that we give the vast majority of our weight to the mainstream scientific view and not to the fringe view. For psychological sourcing, since it concerns mental health, the guideline to follow (in addition to the WP:Fringe guideline) is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS); it addresses the use of up-to-date evidence. Flyer22 (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that all makes sense and thanks for this. Doesn't sound terribly different from inside academia in the end. I suspect there will be some disagreements about those types of issues (confirmation bias being what it is, people tend to think their own views have all the evidence!) but I appreciate you taking the time to go through this with me. StoneProphet11 (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

StoneProphet11, I went ahead and removed the POV tag, per Template:POV. Even when we discussed the tag last year, edits had been made to the article to address POV concerns. If an editor still feels that this article should be tagged with that template, they can add a fresh POV tag to it (by that, I mean dated to 2015), and, per Template:POV, they should explain on this talk page what the supposed POV problem is. Flyer22 (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanx for the update Flyer. I'll take a look if I have the chance. StoneProphet11 (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Section break

With this edit, I reverted Illuminato's additions because this article was cleaned up with regard to a lot of the content he added, and he decided to return and wipe away all that work. WP:Pinging Maunus, AndyTheGrump, NinjaRobotPirate and EBY3221 as other active Wikipedia editors who have dealt with Illuminato at this article and/or the Hookup culture article.

To others: For a quick reference to problematic editing by Illuminato, see Talk:Hookup culture/Archive 1, Talk:Hookup culture/Archive 2, and the current state of that talk page. At the Hookup culture article, he added far too much detail, including too many subheadings, made WP:Neutral violations, WP:Synthesis violations, created other misrepresentation of sources, added quotations that had WP:In-text attribution issues, and engaged in other violations. Like I stated at Talk:Hookup culture/Archive 1#Edits, "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." He has not learned. Flyer22 (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and editors have disputed his WP:Undue emphasis on Mark Regnerus as a source, especially given views that Regnerus has. Flyer22 (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't spend much time on Wikipedia these days, at least not editing these articles. I understand that this was a lot to add at once, but I don't appreciate you ascribing motives. I genuinely want to improve the article by adding relevant information. Let's work on that together. Since it was a lot to add at once, why don't I try adding information back in smaller sections. That way any objections can be dealt with while not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Also, please remember that the WP:Editing Policy says that we should try to preserve content in edits and "As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia." When reviewing my edits, please try to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM instead of simply reverting them: "Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary." I'm willing to work with you or whomever, but we need to work together. --Illuminato (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Illuminato, if you don't appreciate me "ascribing [your] motives," then you should stop editing inappropriately so often. Like I stated above, you simply wait until time has passed and then add back your content -- disputed content. And as for fixing the problem, fixing the problem was me wholesale reverting you this time. You have also proven that there is no working together with you, which is exactly why I WP:Pinged the four editors above. Meteor sandwich yum removed a lot of your content for valid reasons, and here you are blindly restoring it. You should not be surprised that other editors and I are exhausted when it comes to your editing of sexuality topics concerning adolescents and early 20-somethings.

StoneProphet11, since you wanted to know what all the drama was about at this article, I'm WP:Pinging you again to let you know that this is it. Flyer22 (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanx, I think. StoneProphet11 (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Mess reverted again. WP:Preserve does not mean that we should retain poor material. The vast majority of that content will not be staying in this article, no matter how many times I and others have to revert you. You can be patient. So can I. If I have to play your "wait and revert" game, I will. Flyer22 (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Illuminato, you need to stop edit warring to include your text. If someone reverts you, you don't just turn around and say, "OK, I'll just do it again... but in smaller chunks." You try to gain consensus for the changes. It's highly disruptive to keep inserting contentious text, and it's just going to lead to further discussion of a possible topic ban, like was suggested in 2013 after several editors became exhausted by trying to convince you adhere to policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, and it looks like he restored just about all of the material; this is despite stating above that "[he understands] that this was a lot to add at once" and "why [doesn't he] try adding information back in smaller sections." Look at how unnecessarily huge he has made the article. Ugh. It's like this article is held hostage, and therefore can never improve, because of Illuminato. Flyer22 (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Geez, Illuminato, you know how opposed several editors are to your undue emphasis on Regnerus, the evils of teen sex, etc. Maybe it would be better to discuss these huge additions to articles before you make them? I agree with Flyer22 that we need to keep in mind the size of the article: it is now 17K words. Expanding an article to this length is absolutely unacceptable per WP:SIZERULE. For comparison, our article on World War II is only 12K words. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned above that one reason he has expanded this article in such a drastic way is "just so [he] can break that material out into POV messes." He is likely to try that again. We mention WP:SIZE; he decides that this is valid motive to employ WP:Spinout and create multiple articles featuring his content. Flyer22 (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Illuminato using exactly the same tactics he has previously used in articles on related topics. I suspect that if this continues, it will end in a topic ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to be on here making several hundreds of edits a day like some of you. I don't know how you can mass revert me within minutes of my edits, clearly not even taking the time to review what was done before declaring it to be unacceptable, and then accuse me of edit warring. I also don't know how I can be held contemptible for things you think I might do, but have not yet done. Regardless, I thought going in small chunks may make this easier. I guess I also need to go slower as well. I'm going to add some information back in. Please don't just delete it because you see my name attached to it. Read it, evaluate it, and decide if you think it is acceptable or not based on its merits. If you think it needs work, fix it. As I said, I am willing to work with anyone, but that can't happen if you have a knee jerk reaction and revert my edits simply because you don't like me without even considering what I am adding. --Illuminato (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I reverted you because I examined/considered what you added. And judging how you will react is easy, since you are reacting just like we knew that you would. Once again, you simply re-added material without trying to debate the merits of that material here. You readded it against WP:Consensus. And I don't just mean what NinjaRobotPirate, AndyTheGrump and myself have stated, but the WP:Consensus that has repeatedly rejected your material (meaning what other editors have stated as well). You restore material without sufficient discussion. You act like we should let your material stay in because you supposedly don't have the time to let it stay out of the article and debate its merits. I highly doubt that time is the issue in this case for you, since you always behave this way. Flyer22 (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have the time or the inclination to argue with you, Flyer, but you are overly and overtly hostile. It's been two years since I edited here. Think we can start fresh? --Illuminato (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It's called exhaustion and frustration. Like I stated, you are behaving the same way you did before. Your editing style has not changed in the two years. It's difficult to "start fresh" under these circumstances. Flyer22 (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Part of consensus is discussing your edits when they are called into question, even when you feel the other person (or people) are unreasonable. That's one of the major aspects of Wikipedia that make it different from a blog. If you feel that you're not getting fair treatment from people on the talk page, you could try the dispute resolution noticeboard. Edit warring isn't going to solve anything, and it's likely to cause escalation to a drama board. You've been around long enough and had enough experience to know this stuff, even if you did take a long break. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You're right, and I appreciate the friendly tone. The Grump has just reverted my most recent edits, citing the talk page. However, most of what he reverted was a clean up of references while trying to avoid clutter. I suspect that this was again a case of the baby being thrown out with the bathwater, so I'll give him or anyone else a chance to explain why that shouldn't happen. Also, the prose he deleted consisted of the following:

Contraceptive use

Most adolescents and young people, without regard to religiosity or virginity status, are comfortable with the idea of contraception. Less than 8% of teens question their morality. The condom is the most popular form of contraception used by teenagers, with birth control pills, used by 43.5% of 15- to 19-year-old girls, another popular option.

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. Sexually active adolescent girls who wish to avoid pregnancy are less likely than those of other ages to use contraceptives (18% of 15- to 19-year-olds used no contraceptives, versus 10.7% average for women ages 15 to 44). In 1995, only 71% of girls and 82% of boys reported using contraception the last time they had sex.

While 90% of teens surveyed in one poll knew they could get an STD from having sexual intercourse, only 67% said that they use protection every time they have sex. In 2007, 61.5% of high school students reported using a condom the last time they had sexual intercourse, up from 46% in 1991. In 2006–2010, one in five sexually active female teens (20%) and one-third of sexually active male teens (34%) reported having used both the condom and a hormonal method the last time they had sex. Less than 20% of girls at risk for unintended pregnancy were not using any contraceptive method the last time they had sex. Calendar abstinence, or the rhythm method, was used by 17% of female teens in 2006-2008.

In 2006–2010, some 96% of sexually experienced female teens had used a condom at least once, 57% had ever used withdrawal and 56% had used the pill. Smaller proportions had used other methods. In 2009, 4.5% of female teen contraceptive users relied on long-acting reversible contraceptives, including IUDs and implants. This is an increase from 1.5% in 2007 and just 0.3% in 2002. In 2006–2008, eight percent of females aged 15–17 and 18% of females aged 18–24 had ever used emergency contraception.

Teens are using birth control (contraceptives) more today when they lose their virginity than they did in the past, in part due to the AIDS epidemic. Based on statistics collected from 2006-2008, 79% of females and 87% of males used some form of contraception the first time they had sex.

One simulation projected that increasing contraceptive availability among teenagers reduces teen pregnancies in the short run, but may result in more teen pregnancies in the long run. The researchers found "that even well intended contraception policies can be self-defeating." This simulation also found that decreasing access to contraception leads to lower rates of sexual activity among teenagers and thus will lower the simulated teen pregnancy rate in the long run.

References

What are your objections to it, Grumpy? Let's work this out. --Illuminato (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC) PS - I apparently didn't scroll down far enough to see all of his reverts. There was more. I'm going to create a new section with my proposed texts, and hopefully we can come up with a consensus. --Illuminato (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

When multiple contributors make clear that you are editing against consensus, and that your endless cycles of filling multiple articles with reams of material detailing every last statistic you can find (or at least every statistic you can find which suits your POV), I don't really need more of a justification to revert than a simple observation that you have ignored consensus once again. As for the section on contraception, not only does it drown the readers in statistics, but lays questionable emphasis on the conclusions of a simulation, and includes what is indicated to be a quotation from the relevant paper [2] - except that the phrase quoted appears not to be in it. There is also the issue that contraception clearly falls within the remit of WP:MEDRS guidelines, which very much discourage the use of primary-source studies and instead recommend review articles etc to ensure that the relevant scientific consensus is represented, and that material isn't cherry-picked to suit a particular perspective. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, not only is undue emphasis placed on a simulation, but the conclusions drawn aren't even accurately reported: the paper reads "Our results suggest that increasing access to contraception may actually increase long run pregnancy rates even when short run pregnancy rates fall. On the other hand, policies that decrease access to contraception, and hence sexual activity, may lower pregnancy rates in the long run." Illuminato instead states that the simulation "found that decreasing access to contraception leads to lower rates of sexual activity among teenagers and thus will lower the simulated teen pregnancy rate in the long run." A study suggesting that something may happen is instead cited as asserting that it will. This isn't just shoddy writing, it is outright misrepresentation of the source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, the source in question (apparently published in the Journal of Business & Economic Statistics - I've no idea whether that is acceptable under WP:MEDRS) seems never to have been cited anywhere, at least as far as Google scholar can determine. Another reason to question the emphasis put on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Virginity vs. Abstinence: what's the distinguishing factor?

So I was working on the section "Abstinence", subsection "Definitions of virginity". The question I have is regarding this, seemingly conflicting data from an excerpt of the article a few days ago:

Of adolescents age 12–16, 83% believe a person is still a virgin after engaging in genital touching, and 70% said they believed one retained their virginity after having oral sex. Additionally, 16% considered themselves virgins after anal sex. However, 44% believed that one was abstinent after genital touching and 33% believed one could have oral sex and still remain abstinent. Of anal and vaginal sex, 14% believed you could engage in the former and 12% said you could participate in the latter while still remaining abstinent.

So 70% believe oral sex makes you a virgin, yet 33% believe it does not disqualify you from being abstinent?

So Meg tells someone she's had oral sex

• If they know she's never had sex before, 70% will believe that she didn't truly have sex
• Yet if they know she has had sex before, 33% will believe that she didn't truly have sex

I don't get where the discrepancy of 37% comes in, so I can't figure out if the author is saying

1. Abstinence and virginity are different terms, and teens view them differently, similar to "technical sex" and regular "sex"
2. Two different age groups of teens view Meg differently, perhaps due to changing views while growing up (e.g., 12-16 yr. olds view it as X; 17+ view it as Y)
3. Something else entirely?

No idea. I don't watch enough soap operas to figure this. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed new sections

The Grump deleted a good portion of prose without offering any concrete objections, or any attempt to rework it, edit it, or improve it in any way. I propose three new sections below. I invite comments and edits from all in an effort to improve it. --Illuminato (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Contraceptive use

Most adolescents and young people, without regard to religiosity or virginity status, are comfortable with the idea of contraception. According to Mark Regnerus, a sociology professor at the University of Texas at Austin, less than 8% of teens question their morality. The condom is the most popular form of contraception used by teenagers, with birth control pills, used by 43.5% of 15- to 19-year-old girls, another popular option.

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. In 1995, only 71% of girls and 82% of boys reported using contraception the last time they had sex. Sexually active adolescent girls who wish to avoid pregnancy are less likely than those of other ages to use contraceptives (18% of 15- to 19-year-olds used no contraceptives, versus 10.7% average for women ages 15 to 44).

While 90% of teens surveyed in one poll knew they could get an STD from having sexual intercourse, only 67% said that they use protection every time they have sex. In 2007, 61.5% of high school students reported using a condom the last time they had sexual intercourse, up from 46% in 1991. In 2006–2010, one in five sexually active female teens (20%) and one-third of sexually active male teens (34%) reported having used both the condom and a hormonal method the last time they had sex. Less than 20% of girls at risk for unintended pregnancy were not using any contraceptive method the last time they had sex. Calendar abstinence, or the rhythm method, was used by 17% of female teens in 2006-2008.

In 2006–2010, some 96% of sexually experienced female teens had used a condom at least once, 57% had ever used withdrawal and 56% had used the pill. Smaller proportions had used other methods. In 2009, 4.5% of female teen contraceptive users relied on long-acting reversible contraceptives, including IUDs and implants. This is an increase from 1.5% in 2007 and just 0.3% in 2002. In 2006–2008, eight percent of females aged 15–17 and 18% of females aged 18–24 had ever used emergency contraception.

Teens are using birth control (contraceptives) more today when they lose their virginity than they did in the past, in part due to the AIDS epidemic. Based on statistics collected from 2006-2008, 79% of females and 87% of males used some form of contraception the first time they had sex.

One simulation projected that increasing contraceptive availability among teenagers reduces teen pregnancies in the short run, but may result in more teen pregnancies in the long run. The researchers found "that even well intended contraception policies can be self-defeating." This simulation also projected that decreasing access to contraception leads to lower rates of sexual activity among teenagers and lowered the simulated teen pregnancy rate in the long run.

Number of partners

Despite the decreasing number of teens having sex, there are still some who are promiscuous. Approximately 15% of students will have sex with four or more partners by the time they graduate from high school. Many others, particularly boys, will lie about how much sex they are having. In one national study, 60% of boys said they had lied about something sexual and 30% had lied about how far they had gone. Long-term, monogamous sexual relationships among teens are less common than a series of short-term sexual relationships.

The younger an adolescent is when they first have sex, the more partners they are likely to have over their teenage years. Over a quarter of girls aged 15 to 19 who first had sex when they were younger than 15 have had seven or more partners. Only 6.5% of girls who first had sex between 17 and 19 have had seven or more partners. For boys, there is an even larger gap. More than 31% of boys aged 17 to 19 who had sex for the first time at age 14 or younger have had seven or more partners, but only 3.8% of boys who waited until they were at least 17 had the same number.

Age at loss of virginity

The average age of first sexual intercourse in the United States is 17.0 for males and 17.3 for females, and this has been rising in recent years. The percentage of teens who are waiting longer to have sex has been increasing.

Of unmarried teens, 43% of girls and 42% of boys have ever had sexual intercourse. In 2002, 46% of girls and 46% of boys had had sex by 19. Among younger teens, the majority claim to be virgins, and this percentage has risen over time.

Fewer than 2% of adolescents have had sex at ages 11 and under. Only 1% chose to have sex when they were 13 or younger, 5% at 14 or 15 years old, and 10% at 16 or 17 years old. By age 15, 6% of teens have had sex. Approximately one-third of those aged 16 have, and nearly half (48%) of those aged 17 have lost their virginity.

By the later teen years, 61% of 18-year-olds and 71% of 19-year-olds have had sex. A total of 15% of Americans have abstained from sex until at least age 21. There is little difference by gender in the timing of first sex.

Girls will most likely lose their virginity to a boy who is 1 to 3 years older than they are. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "Early timing of sexual initiation is important for two reasons. First, the younger the age of first sexual intercourse, the more likely that the experience was coercive, and forced sexual intercourse is related to long lasting negative effects."

In 2006–2008, 11% of never-married girls aged 15–19 and 14% of never-married boys in that age-group had had sex before age 15, compared with 19% and 21%, respectively, in 1995.

References

response

• (1) Please format your proposals in a way that enables us to see the references. It is impossible to properly assess content without being able to do so.
• (2) Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) - the section on contraception clearly falls within the scope of this guideline.
• (3) It has already been made clear that this article is getting over-large. Please explain how adding yet more material (mostly reams of repetitive statistics that will do little but confuse the reader) is going to address the issue.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• (4) Please note my comments in the section above this one regarding the misrepresentation of the 'simulation' source in the section on contraception. If sources aren't even being properly represented, I see little reason why anyone should bother reading this material... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for the constructive comment. When I last edited you were quick to criticize, but every time I asked you for some way to move the ball forward or for a way to collaborate you disappeared. I appreciate your present effort. To the meat of your comments. (1) and (2): I introduce few new sources: ,, , , , . That includes the non-contraceptive sections as well. None of them backs up a medical claim (they are mostly sociological or medical economics) so, per the policy you cite, " all non-medical information in medicine-related articles—are covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources rather than this specific guideline." All of them easily pass WP:RS. (3): There are procedures in place to deal with articles that grow too large. We needn't bother with them now as per WP:SIZE "Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length." (4) See the above comment about non-medical information. How would you like to clarify the sentence this source supports to make it more clear?--Illuminato (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

References

I asked you to format your proposals in a way that enables us to see the references. You have not done so. We need to be able to see which source is being cited for which statement. As for the remainder of your comments, since you seem to be under the impression that misrepresenting a source is acceptable as long as it isn't covered by WP:MEDRS, I have nothing further to say to you - if I find any further such misrepresentations added to articles by you, I will report the matter, and ask that you be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll say that you could see everything in the mainspace before you deleted it, but I have recreated it here. You should be able to see everything now. I also don't want to misrepresent anything. You'll see that I asked you for suggestions on how to improve the prose. Would you like an in text attribution like Flyer proposes below? I generally dislike articles full of "according to so-and-do," but if it would appease you I'd go along with it.

Illuminato, why should we use all of that content, especially the significantly outdated content? You also use authoritative wording, such as "Less than 8% of teens question their morality.", when it is coming from one study. Another example is the following: "Approximately 15% of students will have sex with four or more partners by the time they graduate from high school." And why should we use Mark Regnerus as a source? I questioned editors rejecting him as a source, since he can pass as a WP:Reliable source. But his research methodology has been highly criticized. You can see one talk page debate about him at Talk:Adolescent sexuality in the United States/Archive 3#Regnerus. Because of the significant criticism Regnerus has received, I think that if we use Regnerus as a source in this article, it should be with WP:In-text attribution. And we certainly shouldn't heavily rely on Regnerus sourcing; you've been heavily relying on Regnerus sourcing. Flyer22 (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

If you have more up-to-date material, I would be all in favor of it. As for the facts from the 90s, I think it shows trends. Perhaps you would like to reword it? Please do so in the text above. Regnerus is not perfect, and certainly neither am I, but he is a RS. Again, I would be happy to place an in text attribution in, and will in a moment. I don't think three citations out of 44 is relying heavily on him, nor do I think they are exceptional claims, especially when some simply back up other citations already existing. If you have other suggestions for wording, I would love to see them. --Illuminato (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that there should not be so much outdated data. A little bit is fine, as a comparison, but not a lot. And any content for this topic going back to the 1990s is usually (not always) going too far...unless it's specifically a historical matter. As for Regnerus, you have indeed relied heavily on him; this is seen in reverts of your edits. And using three Regnerus references is not the point when you can cite him as much as you want due to the WP:REFNAME feature. And you have cited him as much as you want, without any WP:In-text attribution, and with authoritative wording. Like we should just take his word for it, when other research reports differently. You have done similarly with other sources as well. And that is a problem. And, yes, WP:SIZE is also a problem. You go overboard, as if we should report every little detail there is about adolescent sexuality in the United States. You never take that into consideration, the fact that you should be summarizing aspects of this topic, not including everything there is to include about it. Contrary to what you stated above about WP:SIZE to AndyTheGrump, we do cut content to reduce the size of an article; that's the main point of WP:SIZE. What you cited to AndyTheGrump about WP:SIZE means that we should have a good reason to reduce the size of an article; it's stating that we should not cut things simply to cut them. In the case of your additions, there is always good reason to cut per WP:SIZE. Flyer22 (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. Which "outdated" data do you think should be cut? I only see three data points from the 1990s, and all three are used as comparisons to current data. Secondly, we are not talking about the large amounts of prose I previously added. We are talking about these three proposed sections. Do you think that in these three sections that Regnerus is relied upon too heavily? Please also note that in the single place where he is the sole source, there is an in text attribution. Additionally, what "other research reports differently"? I have never read anything that says young Americans have moral qualms with contraceptives. I, for one, would be very interested if you could add that research to this article. Finally, if you have concerns about the length of this article, then by all means be bold and take actions pursuant to WP:Size. However, and I repeat myself here, the very policy you cite states that "Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length." --Illuminato (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC) PS - There is approximately 40kb of readable prose in this article. These three new sections would bring it up to roughly 47k. Consider that before you act according to WP:Size. --Illuminato (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

What now, Grumpy? The text I added has been here for a couple days, with no further discussion. I even tried to address your concerns about the simulation. Since no one objected, though all participants have made other edits, I thought we had reached consensus. I don't understand why you reverted. Can you please state the nature of your objection? --Illuminato (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Learn to fucking read. My response is at the bottom of the section below - if you persist in starting new sections (complete with outright falsehoods) whenever it suits your purpose, at least do the honour of reading them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Come on now. We don't have to agree, but there is no need for that kind of language or tone. That's gone beyond grumpy and moved to straight up nasty. I somehow missed your concern about the "bogus quotation." For that I apologize. It appears that the quotation comes from an older version of this paper. I will update the reference. Also, I would like to point you to two WP:BRD. It says that you should only "revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary." Additionally, the WP:Editing Policy says that "Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary." Your objection seems to be centered around one paragraph. Why did you delete the whole of my contribution, instead of just that one paragraph? Additionally, why did you not make edits to it either in the mainspace or here on talk? Again, please accept my apologies for missing that comment. It was my mistake. I really want to work with you to improve this article.--Illuminato (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your entire edit because you have no consensus to add it. As I have already told you in my last post - the post you have just read:

Illuminato, I have had quite enough of your lies. You are not going to get your way through tendentious editing and bluster. There have been multiple concrete objections to the material you previously added - and nobody has in any shape or form withdrawn their objections. You haven't even bothered to address the most blatant violation of elementary policies I previously pointed out - the misrepresentation of a source through a bogus quotation. Not that the source deserves inclusion anyway given the complete lack of evidence for any academic recognition. It is self-evident that you are cherry-picking primary studies which suit your POV, contrary to the basic principles of WP:NPOV. The next time you add material in the face of clear and unequivocal objections from multiple contributors I am going to report the mater at WP:ANI, and call that you be topic banned. You do not own this page, and you have no right whatsoever to impose your own personal preferred content against consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

So if you are going to fucking ignore my fucking posts and ask me for answers to fucking questions I have already fucking answered, I will fucking answer any fucking way I fucking like. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, now that's the spirit. I shouldn't have to remind you that WP:Civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia.

More substantively, two people commented on my proposed new sections: you, and Flyer. Three days ago you declared that you were not going to speak to me any longer, and then didn't respond to my subsequent question about how you would prefer to see the paragraph worded. I really wanted to know how you proposed we make it better (I still do.). You can't simply refuse to work towards consensus, and then declare that consensus doesn't exist. Short of everyone else reading your mind, how will it ever? You have set up an impossible goalpost. Flyer also responded, but her last comment was a few days ago. Since that time she has made hundreds of other edits on other articles. Since she has had plenty of opportunity to respond, but did not, I assumed that her concerns were addressed as well.

In the interest of moving forward, what if we cut the paragraph that references the Duke study for the time being, and restored the rest of the text? Would that be OK with you? If not, would you kindly make some edits to the proposed text that would make it more acceptable to you, or suggest several for me to make? I look forward to seeing what you have to offer. --Illuminato (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

What do you think Andy? Can we set that aside and move forward? Illuminato (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: No, I do not agree with any of Illuminato's proposed additions. As for cutting, the extensive comparisons by years are not needed. Neither is heavy reliance on any source. And as for the "Less than 8% of teens question their morality." sentence, not only is it completely unneeded, stating the matter authoritatively can be considered problematic because it's attributed to this one study without making that clear. Illuminato asked, "[W]hat other research reports differently"? He then stated, "I have never read anything that says young Americans have moral qualms with contraceptives.", as if I made the matter about young Americans having moral qualms with contraceptives. What I am getting across is the following: That one study speaks for young Americans in general? I highly doubt it. A different study could give an entirely different percentage. If the study were authoritative in any way, I would think differently about the matter. It isn't. And I shouldn't have to make such matters clear to a person who extensively edits an article about adolescent sexuality in the United States. And as for the "Approximately 15% of students will have sex with four or more partners by the time they graduate from high school." sentence and others like it, of course research reports differently on that. And since Illuminato decided to repeat what he stated about WP:SIZE, I will also repeat this: "Contrary to what [he] stated above about WP:SIZE to AndyTheGrump, we do cut content to reduce the size of an article; that's the main point of WP:SIZE. What [he] cited to AndyTheGrump about WP:SIZE means that we should have a good reason to reduce the size of an article; it's stating that we should not cut things simply to cut them. In the case of [Illuminato's] additions, there is always good reason to cut per WP:SIZE." So much of what Illuminato wants to add to this article is like trivia. Flyer22 (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)