Talk:Spring break/Archives/2016
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Spring break. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Addition of "sex party" content that doesn't match the source
129.127.32.46 - You keep adding and re-adding content regarding sex parties and how it's concerning ([1], [2], [3], [4]). Now you've added this. I understand that you meant to say that it's concerning for "some people", but the source you're citing doesn't discuss any "concerns" or feelings in that nature whatsoever. It simply offers advice to pharmacy technicians on how to interact with people approaching them about sexually transmitted diseases. It also doesn't mention the phrase "sex party" at all. I'm still not satisfied with the change you're trying to add, and I'm going to remove it and ask you to discuss it here before restoring it back. I'm also going to ping Ian.thomson, another editor who reverted your changes, so that he can also weigh in on this discussion. If you could offer a discussion or explanation as to why the content should be kept, it will help us to assist you properly. Thank you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please look at my new sources. And what are these two sources you have listed here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.127.32.46 (talk • contribs)
- Those are sources from an earlier talk page discussion. Just ignore those :-). I'm still concerned that there's an underlying point-of-view being expressed; "a concern for some" is quite ambiguous, and I feel like there's still an injection of opinion, based on your previous edits to the article and the first source you used (which didn't express concerns at all). However, I'm going to acknowledge your second source, and wait for Ian.thomson to add his thoughts before doing anything else. I still feel like there's a point-of-view being expressed, and I don't think that the content added is necessary or relevant. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, almost forgot about this. This is still problematic. Poor grammar aside, who issued the cautions? What sort of cautions were issued? This article is listed in the "cosmetic surgery" section of a pop medicine website, not a WP:MEDRS (I wouldn't bring that up except that it's commenting on medical topics). The source also doesn't necessarily say that it's party goers who are having sex, but teens on spring break (even then, I have to question the self-sourced 60% figure they're giving). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Those are sources from an earlier talk page discussion. Just ignore those :-). I'm still concerned that there's an underlying point-of-view being expressed; "a concern for some" is quite ambiguous, and I feel like there's still an injection of opinion, based on your previous edits to the article and the first source you used (which didn't express concerns at all). However, I'm going to acknowledge your second source, and wait for Ian.thomson to add his thoughts before doing anything else. I still feel like there's a point-of-view being expressed, and I don't think that the content added is necessary or relevant. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)