Talk:Adolescence/Archive 1

message: Don't you think that painting is neccessary? I mean ith as nothing to do with being a teenager at all. I think someone should remove that picture and replace it with an actual photo of an attractive teenager.
: I agree.  The painting of Cupid and Psyche lends nothing to the article whatsoever.  If anything it gives the entire article a sexual bias.  I do not think it is appropriate, and will remove it until someone can find something better, or can provide a reasonable argument as to how a painting of two scantily clad symbols of Greek mythology embodies adolescence.  --Dan East 06:58, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
The picture should stay. The picture and the story of cupid is one of the greatest stories of adolecents of all time. It emboddies disobeying of authority, and pure love of youth. I think it should stay.
I don't think it needs to be there at all personally, yeah, it may be an adolescent story, but they belong more in Greek mythology then an article about adolescence. Just my humble opinion...--Azathar 20:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Picture of Cupid & Psyche 

message: Can I ask why the image  was removed? It showed a "typical" pre-teen, and I think it fit in well with the section and the article in general. If it's unverifiable, perhaps something else should be put in its place.--Azathar 20:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Pre-teen Picture 

message: "To a girl approaching her teen years, fashion and hygiene (and sometimes the eating disorders that develop as a result of over-concern about these things) come to be a bigger part of her life, and males start to become attractive. To a preteen boy, sports and hanging out tend to matter more in the late childhood."
Sounds like a lot of generalization and assumptions instead of evidence or at least supported facts.
: I agree. This section makes assumptions and seems somewhat stereotypical, I think. Besides, sports can matter a whole lot to some teenage girls too... and some boys become concerned about their looks. Chavila 18:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too general 

message: There's nothing here about mood swings, depression, self-esteem. Also, a lot more concrete facts/statistics could be used. Will try to work on this when I have time. Suggestions are welcome. Gflores Talk 20:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info needed

message: Why the subcategory "List of famous teenagers" when you've already got four subcategories on the same thing, organized by profession? Shouldn't those kids in "List of famous teenagers" be sorted into the other four, if they aren't already? Fbv65edel 21:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous teenagers

message: Under "teenager", the link to the teenager main page leads directly back to...the same page its posted in (this one). Removal, perhaps? Delta 22:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: The Discrimination against adolescents section is very biased towards the teenager.  Many of the facts are vauge and unsited. There is nothing mentioned to the reasoning behind discrimination against adolescnets or reasons why. Some of the arguements in the section refer to adolescents being called "second class" citizens and other POV violating claims.  The second paragraph in the section mentions that "research has proven" but no link or siting is listed.  If anybody has any other thoughts on this, do share.  If not I will update and change the section to make it POV nuetral --Fender5 00:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV-Discrimination Against Adolescents 

message: This section seems kinda useless to me, it's just a random assortment of adolescent characters that don't necessarily present an accurate view of youth. Superheroes, like the Teen Titans, Superman in Smallville, and the X-men have honestly as much to do with youth as Bob Barker. How about something that contributes to the topic, rather than just a random bit of pop culture?
What's a Wikipedia article without a woeful lack on information on something actually applicable (look at the "Nigeria" article), followed by a list of random references to sci-fi, anime, comic books, or video games? Think about the kind of people that have the time to spend all day editing information on here. It's scary. - Anonymous
:Agreed. Deleting. - Centrx 05:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable teens?

message: Is it as common as I think for the term "teen" to be used incorrectly to refer to minor teens only. It seems to me that sometimes people forget teen also includes 18 and 19 year olds. I've heard, for example, people discussing whether teens in the U.S. should be able to vote but since 18 and 19 year old can already vote, it seems they where using the term incorrectly to refer to minor teens only. Should this be discussed in the article? --Cab88 12:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right, that "teen" often refers to a particular set (often starting at age 14, not 13, because that's the age when most people start high school.  This may also be why 19-year-olds are sometimes excluded, as they're usually out of high school.)  In a completely different context, that of pornography, "teen" refers almost exclusively to 18- and 19-year-olds as any younger would be illegal! "Teenager" redirects to this article, so if there's a place to add this info without it being too clumsy then I think it would be a perfectly fine addition. --Icarus 06:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "teenager" refers to people as young as thirteen and as old as nineteen, however, it excludes eighteen and nineteen-year-olds in some contexts. Jecowa 02:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  teens as minors 

message: What are teens considered? Are they children or not. These teens are not adults. If your not an adult then what are you? Then your probally a Child. There not young adults because young adults range in there 20's. Most people call teens kids alongside calling them teens. Even teens when refrencing other teens say "oh it was that kid" or "hey kid got any change"  Even a news program for young people that airs on ABC is called "TeenKid's" News. Many young people want to consider themselves adults or young adults just because it makes them feel better or great then they ever were. Isn't adolesence a stage in childhood or more obviously the last one? Anyone under 18 is considred a minor, juvenile, child, etc. I somebody has to adress this issue. You need to show both sides not just tell you opinion, you need to show both sides.
Anyone under 18 is a child.Hmrox 05:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone under 18 (in the US, at least) is a minor. In some contexts, "minor" and "child" are synonyms. In other contexts, "child" means prepubescent and "adolescent" is a separate categorization. There's no simple "yes" or "no" answer. --Icarus (Hi!) 06:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question: Please Answer

message: Does anyone know when this word first came into usage, and what exactly it was meant to denote? Who is responsible for first describing this period of development as 'adolescence'? It would be interesting if anyone knows the history.--DANK 06:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  history of the 'adolescence' concept 

message: In the felelings of an adolescent it says that they're not mentally or emotionally able to handle sex which could be true but maybe not for some cases.  It also says they can't financially have a baby, what if they both have good paying jobs. OPINIONS TAKE PLACE IN THIS ARTICLE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.157.42.68 (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  opinions take place in this article 

message: The whole "Psychology of Adolescents" section deserves no place on Wikipedia. The author keeps on presenting the opinions of a certain 
Leonard Sax, who is clearly a very right-wing, conservative, opinionated individual. Furthermore, his opinions are presented as being fact 
(Repeatedly) simply by placing them in quotation marks. What's more, these rather extreme opinions of one sort aren't even counterbalanced by 
extreme views of another sort.
But my main qualm lies with that it's not very hard to argue that the said opinions, presented as fact, are wrong. What's more, they are 
almost certainly influenced by the religious and cultural status quo in one small place in the world. In order to back this up with evidence, 
as the article's writer didn't, I shall analyse the offending parts of the article below.
'adolescents are not mentally or emotionally prepared to handle feelings and emotions that come with sex'
This particular sweeping generalisation doesn't even have the courtesy of quotation marks around it to try to make the fact it is purely 
opinion valid. Furthermore, having no experience of something does not mean that said thing will necessarily do you harm.
'nor financially able to support children'
Another statement not even quoted from a source. It appears to work off the assumption that there are no wealthy teenagers in existance.
'"early sexual activity - whether in or out of a romantic relationship - does far more harm than good."'
At least this particular statement is a quotation. However, it is undeniably false. All over the world there are teenage sexual relationships 
which are positive things. This articles writer is presenting as fact the concept that ALL teenage sexual relationships always do more harm 
than good. The writer doesn't even use a qualify such as "Arguably" or "Probably"
"The harm done to teenagers who engage in sexual activities is especially true for girls"
Once again not even presented as a quotation in the article, so all the objections raised for the previous sentance apply, plus the fact this 
is brazenly the author's opinion presented as fact.
'Boys are less likely to see sex as connected to an emotional relationship. However, by the time a young man is "in his early twenties, he 
will rely on his girlfriend or wife to be his primary emotional caregiver."'
More sweeping generalisations, only some of which are quoted from the book of Mr Russel. The concept that a woman needs to "Provide" care to 
a man is frankly offensive people people of both genders, not to mention the fact that the whole article ignores the issue of homosexual 
relationships.
'If he can not establish an emotional relationship with a woman, who does view sex as connected to intimacy, then he is more likely to become 
depressed, commit suicide or die from illness.'
Once again, this particular part of the article is not a quotation from any source and is presented as impartial fact. The concept that 
single men are more likly to become ill and die does have a source cited, however, I find the concept to be spurious at best, and would like 
to be provided with a citation I can confirm opposed to the title of an innaccessable tome. I know that this is not a Wikipedia requirement, 
however, for such a contraversial statement it would be a courtesy. Furthermore, the claim that a man who is in a relationship with a woman 
who is "Not a caregiver" is equally contraversial.
Finally I would like to come to the most grievous criticism of this section of the article. Not only are there many individual parts of the 
article, but they are all tied together by an underlying bias. Specifically that of Conservative Christian Right-Wing America. No article can 
be considered impartial, let alone accurate, when faced with such an extreme bias.
This is why I must STRONGLY IMPLORE that this article, at the very least this specific section, be put under consideration for serious 
ammentment or a full re-write.
Starry Owl 20:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rampant Use Of Stereotypes, Unimpartiality, And Religiously & Culturally Influenced Opinions