Talk:Adolescent sexual behavior

message: I have added  and {TotallyDisputed} because I don't know of anything more accurate. The part that says "but not emotionally or cognitively (ready)" should be changed to a more NPOV or removed. It also says "roughly half... have been involved in a casual sexual relationship". So I read this as it's implying halve of teens now are going to some sort of mental problem or post traumatic stress disorder. Not all teens are going to have a breakdown if they have sex like this implies.71.236.194.21 22:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is all properly cited, so I am removing the tag.  It is verifiable.  Also, with regards the the "too young to fathom" sentence I checked it and while there is one small mistake (which I will soon fix, it doesn't cut off anything that would change its meaning.  So everyone is clear without chasing the link, the full sentence is "Then there are the teens–and preteens–too young to fathom the
consequences, both emotional and physical, of their behavior."  I've reverted these changes.
Also, I don't think the article implies half of all kids are going to have PTSD.  Finally, what do you think is POV about the emotionally or cognitively ready part?  Its a statement by an expert without any indication of goodness or badness.--Illuminato 00:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strangerer, when you made substantial edits to another article I applauded them.  I thought you did a great job in improving that article.  If anyone has a way to improve this article then I say WP:Be Bold!  Half of kids today have had casual sexual encounters.  There are consequences, both emotional and physical, in doing so.  The article says so, but it doesn't come close to saying that 50% of our young people are going to end up permanently brain damaged because of it.  Again, if you or anyone else can improve the article then I say great.  If your way of improving it is to remove factual and cited material, only then will I have a problem.  I really do wish people would make an effort to actually improving these articles rather than just complaining about them on the talk pages.  --Illuminato 20:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for responding, and thanks for the compliment about my edit.  I hope I will be done being as busy IRL next month and I hope I can work on it more then. --Strangerer (Talk) 22:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs to be changed

message: Statements by editors (summary, from POV of each editor):
*Illuminato: People are removing cited facts, there are emotional and physical consequences of casual sex for teens
*Nateland: Illuminato is ruining the article, dodging the questions
*71.236.194.21: Article makes it sound like all teens will be permanently damaged by casual sex
*67.171.254.48: Article says that all teens are not ready
*BorgHunter: Anti-sex opinions are shown as facts, pro-sex opinions are shown as "1 says 2 about 3"
*Strangerer: Entire article is cut and pasted highly disputed text from other related articles that are cherry picked to be totally against adolescent sexuality.
Illuminato wants to keep the current (before I reverted it) version, Nateland, Strangerer, and BorgHunter worry about the neutrality and accuracy of the article, IP's worry about factual accuracy of article
Comments:
*I fully agree with Nateland, 71.236.194.21, and BorgHunter about this
Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 14:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed this up a bit, added strangerer's opinion in a broad sense. And added in that Me, Borghunter, and Strangerer are ALSO worried about factual accuracy of this article. What we need is a vote on peoples opinion of this article. Nateland 23:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Responding to the RfC.  There is a bad case of synthesis here.  Like Eyu100 I agree with Nateland 71.236.194.21, and BorgHunter.  The article is not conforming to the neutral point of view policy.--Cailil  talk 23:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also responding to RfC. I agree that there is a terrible OR and NPOV problem here. Makerowner 20:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also an uninvolved editor responding to the RfC. There's serious WP:SYN and WP:NPOV problems here, the article needs a major rewrite from the ground up. east.718 18:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another formerly uninvolved editor, responding to the RfC. The article needs to work much harder distinguish opinion from fact (as those terms are defined on WP:NPOV) - essentially it needs to drastically reduce the number of direct quotations from sources (many of which are presented as factual). Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 21:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment (neutrality and factual accuracy of [[Adolescent sexual behavior]] 

message: The tag should be  because the facts are disputed. The actual accuracy of the facts does not change whether they are disputed or not. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 18:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{totallydisputed}}</nowiki> 

message: I've added  since nobody can seem to make the article to a NPOV.Seventhofnine 06:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not that nobody can, its that nobody who complained has tried.--Illuminato 15:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I know. Is there any kind of action that can be taken? This has got to be the worst article I've ever seen. Seventhofnine 07:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made an effort at improving matters. For the record, I think there is still some way to go - so I am not opposed to tagging either the article or sections of it to that effect. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 18:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SheffieldSteel, I think you did an excellent job of NPOVing the article without removing any of the information that was previously there.--SarekOfVulcan 20:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  <nowiki>{{misleading}}</nowiki> 

message: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-06-17_Adolescent_sexual_behavior was opened almost a month ago and I still eagerly await to be of help.--Cerejota 03:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are the parties still interested? Thanks!--Cerejota 02:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation request reminder