Talk:Abstinence-only sex education

message: Made link from Sex education: US article. Am tempted to add stub template. Anybody got comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Here.it.comes.again (talk • contribs) 03:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Early comments

message: "Abstinence only sex education is a form of sex education which emphasizes abstaining from sex, often to the exclusion of all other types of sexual and reproductive health education, particularly regarding birth control and safe sex. [emphasis added]"
Doesn't the only imply to the complete exclusion of other info? SeanMon 00:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. See "abstinence-only" could just as easily refer to say, "abstinence is the only effective way to prevent all those nasty STDs and pregnancy, but there are some other methods sometimes used, and here's how you use them". Instead, abstinence-only does not include instructions on say, condom use. As redundant as it sounds to many people, for clarity's sake, the phrase should stay! Runa27 18:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy 

message: I've moved "Critics consider the promotion of abstinence-only sex education as one of the major efforts by the religious right to suppress sexual activity other than that which occurs between the parties to a lifelong, monogymous relationship" to the criticism section.
I want to ask if anyone support today the POV banner (after some changes). The article it's too short but I dont think there's a POV problem.IsmaelPR 21:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely do not remove the NPOV banner! Even a woolly liberal like me can see it's very unbalanced towards critics. Keep the criticism section, but expand on the reasons for (you don't have to agree with them!) Fionah 14:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I kept the moved comment in the criticism section, but not mentioning the criticism at ALL in the intro seems unbalanced, as one of the most notable things about abstinence-only sex ed is how controversial it is (at least in the U.S.), so I did mention it briefly in the intro tweaks I made. I also noted that abstinence itself isn't a very controversial thing (nobody disputes that not having intercourse will help keep you non-pregnant, or that not engaging in sexual activity with other people prevents the spread of many or most STDs), it's the abstinence-only approach to sex ed that's controversial. Somehow it seems a little more balanced that way, though the intro is still not perfect and we definitely need a "arguments for" section to balance the fact that we've got a whole section (and a mostly excellent one at that) for Criticism. And, arguably, it should go before the Criticism section (which is fairly typical of Wikipedia entries; it's usually a good idea to show what something's about before getting into the criticism of it, which may not always make as much sense without knowing where the proponents already stand on it). When it goes in, anyway. Runa27 18:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Did you read the article? Proponents include President George W. Bush and the groups listed at the end of the article. See also VP candidate Sarah Palin and The Heritage Foundation. Google Leslie Unruh of the Abstinence Clearinghouse. --Sfmammamia (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved paragraph 

message: I added that the message that sex should only occur within the confines of marriage has serious implications for people who do not wish to be married, or cannot be married, especially gay people.  I can easily find quotes for this, it is a major criticism of abstinence-only education and I was shocked that it wasn't mentioned anywhere in the article (abstinence-only typically doesn't even mention gay people at all except for discussions about AIDS).  It was a huge part of what I learned about abstinence-only in my college human sexuality classes - straight kids are getting misinformed, but gay kids are getting downright disenfranchised and told almost no information that would ever be relevant to their lives.
Quotes would help.  However I also think it's self-explanatory and doesn't necessarily require a quote to back it up, it can be pretty easily logically deduced by the definition of abstinence-only as promoting marriage as the expected context for sexual relationships, along with the obvious fact that gay marriage is illegal in most countries.Rglong 08:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially given that the main article for sex education includes a whole section on that. :) Oh, and I linked to same-sex marriage in that section here, because it made sense. Runa27 18:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What impact do you expect them to have?  That a couple of people are going to choose a same-sex relationship but then say, "oh, but the teacher said we can't have sex until we're married, but in this state, we can only be domestic partners.  Oh no, what are we going to do?" (Epiphone83 (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implications for LGBT People 

message: Government agencies have reclassified STDs (Sexually transmitted diseases) as STIs (Sexually transmitted infections). Reference to this can be found in this page . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Damienhunter (talk • contribs) 12:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexually transmitted infections 

message: I'm worried that the lead commits an "equal validity" fallacy.  As far as I can tell, there are no mainstream medical or public health organizations that advocate abstinence-only sex education.  The official positions of the American Psychological Association , American Medical Association , National Association of School Psychologists , Society for Adolescent Medicine and American College Health Association  , the American Academy of Pediatrics , the American Public Health Association  are that comprehensive sex education, not abstinence-only sex education, should be implemented.  I'm unable to find any mainstream medical or scientific organization that takes an opposing view.  This consensus should be clearly stated in the lead -- and per WP:UNDUE, barring similar citations, there is no need to present opposing views in the same manner.  Now, of course there's room to say that religious groups think the focus should be on marriage, not STDs or pregnancy rates -- but as to the question of effectiveness at preventing STDs and pregnancy, WP:UNDUE requires a clear statement of the consensus view as the consensus view. Fireplace (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The official positions of the organizations you list should be added as a section to the article, with citations. Once that's done, it would be appropriate to summarize that consensus in the lead. Given that the article is about one approach to sex education, I do think it's appropriate in the lead to say who supports that approach and why, and who disagrees and why.  So long as the additions you make retain that logic, I would have no argument. --Sfmammamia (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I found a place to add the professional associations and cites; will work on the lead as I have time unless another editor gets to it first!--Sfmammamia (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks.  I will probably take a crack at expanding the addition you made, as the official positions are are very detailed and explanatory... but it'll be a big project to do well, and I might not get to it immediately.  Fireplace (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:UNDUE]] and lead 

message: I have removed the generic globalization tag from this article.  If you think the tag is deserved, please feel free to restore it -- but please also add a clear explanation right here on this talk page.  Your actual concerns are much more likely to be adequately addressed if you identify them.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the world-view tag, because the article focuses solely on abstinence-only sex education in the United States. While this may be less of an issue worldwide, it should be discussed in the article. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 06:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Globalization tag

message: The claim that the only consideration of Abstinence only vs Sex Ed arguments are if abstinence only actually causes abstanment. However, the earlier paragraph points out psychological concerns and the fact that abstinence only does not teach safe sex leading to risky sex when engaged. I did not edit it, I feel someone better educated on this subject than me should do so. 76.177.1.64 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 03:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added yet another anti-abstinence reference that has good research citations, but the article is now even more in need of pro-abstinence material, including research citations, especially in the light of years of funding of abstinence-only programs by governments such as the USA. We need both citations of research supporting secular abstinence-only programs as well as religious justification and research results for faith-based (such as Christian) abstinence education programs. David spector (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a source reporting on a pro-abstinence study: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102628.html AniRaptor2001 (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias/Contradiction in intro

message: Reading through this article again, it seems that it deals solely with abstinence-only sex education in the united states, exclusively. Do we have any solid information on AO sex-ed elsewhere in the world, besides american efforts to promote it in Africa, etc.? Perhaps much of this content should be moved to a new article branched off from Sex_education#United_States, which in fact links to this article. This article can be left with simply a definition of what AOSE is and a description of views in favor and against it. Does anybody agree? I will start this process within a few days if I don't hear any arguments against. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name and purpose

message: Adding info about new study from University of Pennsylvania showing abstinence education works, also added info on two sources of criticism that have a bias against it for added clarity on their bias.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notoadultery3 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Pennsylvania Study

message: I'd like to discuss whether or not :Category:Discrimination against homosexuals belongs on this article.  The relevant sentence from the article is "The idea that sexual intercourse should only occur within marriage also has serious implications for ... particularly homosexuals living in places where same-sex marriage is not legal or socially acceptable."  Two things:
#The quoted sentence above has no reference in the article and might need to be removed on those grounds alone.  Even if we source that sentence though it's not obviously discrimination against homosexuals.
#"It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." (from cat).  Categories are not supposed to be controversial.
I'm going to add  in the mean time.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you, I think category fails the parameters for inclusion. - Schrandit (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that: while I believe that AOSE certainly has implications for homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, it's difficult to make the leap that it constitutes discrimination against homosexuals. More likely, there is a perception that the same organizations pushing for AOSE are also pushing against homosexuality. The sentence does not belong in the article, and neither does the category. You have my support to remove. Rodface (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I remain unconvinced that abstinence education constitutes discrimination against homosexuals. - Schrandit (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

text: By all means, keep an eye on me.  I, in the meantime will do likewise.  Source number 1 provides scant, opinionated mention of the topic and source nubmer 2 was written by a senior fellow at the guttmacher institute.  I and two other editors think it is a leap to categorize ABSE as discriminatory against homosexuals and as categories are supposed to be self-evident and uncontroversial it ought be removed. - Schrandit (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrimination against homosexuals 

message: For adding to article: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0742039320090508 Rodface (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from budget

message: Flies 1 wrote (above):
:It seems to me that the issue isn't whether there exist any studies that show AOE is effective, but whether the collective body of evidence supports it or not.
Actually, according to NPOV, this is not the issue. We are not supposed to decide what "the collective body of evidence supports" because we are not a court of law and it's up to the reader to decide which sources and evidence and reasoning support any particular viewpoint. I hope that no one contributing to this article will attempt to assert one particular POV as true, as that would violate Wikipedia's rule against taking sides. 
We should merely describe each side's arguments fairly, summarizing their evidence and reasoning.
Now, as near as I can tell, most studies have found that "comprehensive" sex ed does no harm, and there are only 2 studies showing that "abstinence-only" does any good. This information needs to be in (and stay in) the article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying.  I agree with what you've said here. Flies 1 (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For reference, the relevant quotation from the NPOV FAQ is, "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." Thus, rather than assessing the evidence, our job as Wikipedians is supposed to be assessing the discourse. Flies 1 (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV vs. taking a side

message: Would it be possible for someone to track down some citations for the various assertions that abstinence-only proponents claim Comprehensive programs promote or lead to more premarital sex? I've heard  the argument before, but it'd be nice to find some article somewhere so that it's not just original research.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.140.144 (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like what sort of organizations make these claims? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Need cite for claims about comprehensive ed

message: I've been doing some searching, and I can't find much in the way of stats on this topic. Are schools, by and large, teaching abstinence-only sex ed? I know my high school didn't. They DID teach that it was a good idea, but they also taught kids about the basic methods of birth control. Is this REALLY a big deal, or is this a political hot-potato that people are pushing when it's really not a problem. The only survey I could find on the topic says "parents are mostly happy with what their schools are teaching." If that's the case, why are people (many of them NOT parents of school age children) so up in arms about this? -- TomXP411[Talk] 00:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is: Health bill restores $250 million in abstinence-education funds. AV3000 (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  But does funding = teaching? Are schools doing abstinence only, or are they doing some mix of abstinence-plus? I'm finding a lot of rhetoric, but no real facts on what schools actually teach today. With a school-age kid, I want to know what's really happening, not what the activists on either side are claiming. -- TomXP411[Talk] 22:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: $250 million is not pocket change.  that level of government support makes this issue "really a big deal". Flies 1 (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  From what I've gathered, "abstinence-only" is a misnomer and--egad--seems like it might be a propaganda term used by its opponents.  I mean, I grew up in the Bay Area in the '90s, so the main message was, "guys: use condoms, gals: use tampons, oh and don't have sex with too many people," so I don't know what they're being taught in Tennessee, but I also know how political pundits can spin, distort and even lie especially when it comes to impositions on their visions of sexual freedom.  But that's just my opinion and I am biased.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epiphone83 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I know your comment was a while ago, but it sounds like you're confusing the subject of the article, with Abstinence, be faithful, use a condom aka abstinence-based sex education aka abstinence-plus sex education. (There's obviously no clear line between the two, but this article is about the title, and the other article is about that title.) BTW, I'm not sure why tampon use was promoted in the same fashion as condom use. Actually I'm not sure why tampon use was promoted at all over the other alternatives as I'm not aware there's much evidence one is significantly better than the other, and AFAIK most sources suggest a person uses the product that's right for them, which may vary. Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it still being funded and/or taught? 

message: CONCLUSION: Theory-based abstinence-only interventions may have an important role in preventing adolescent sexual involvement.Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010 Feb;164(2):152-9.--95.247.62.132 (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ref does not work Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20124144  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.250.54.120 (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  a new study: "Efficacy of a Theory-Based Abstinence-Only Intervention Over 24 Months" 

message: First of all, the lack of a NPOV is obvious when you use the phrase "evidence does not support the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education," repeatedly.  It also doesn't help when sources like the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, are used without providing context as to who they are.
Anyway, what's far worse is that it's even called abstinence-only sex education and not simply "abstinence-education," as it's called in the SSA.  It seems like "abstinence-only" was an invention of the program's opponents.  It'd be like naming the "Strategic Defense Initiative" article "Star Wars (missile program)."
I mean, I'll be honest: I'm not neutral and I think a lot of the "confusion" (to put it mildly) is the result of political double-speak.  But isn't Wikipedia supposed to be above that?
I do appreciate that an opponent agreed that it lacked a NPOV as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epiphone83 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little unclear as to when the state of the evidence demands we cross the threshold from, e.g., "scholars say astrology doesn't work" to "evidence suggests astrology doesn't work" to "astrology doesn't work."  That is, when does the weight of the evidence demand that a wikipedia article no longer couch a statement with "scholars say X" and merely state "X"?  Leaving that question aside and erring on the side of caution (uncertainty), I have amended the effectiveness section to change from "evidence does not support the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education" to "Systematic reviews suggest that abstinence-only sex education is ineffective."  This reflects the state of the scholarly consensus without judging whether that consensus is accurate or not.  If there is disagreement about whether this is the consensus, I am happy to learn about it. Flies 1 (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abstinence education 

message: I mean, I typed "abstinence education," and it linked to abstinence-only.  This NEEDS to be fixed pronto.  Like, it needs to be the other way around.  Come on, guys.
(75.18.193.140 (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects TO abstinence-only education.  Should be the other way around. 

message: I am going to be a doing a major update to this page for a class assignment.  I will include my outline below.  Overall my main areas of focus will be to bring in a global focus on this issue to see where the world stands on abstinence only sex education (ABSO) vs the US because the page is a little US heavy right now.  In addition, I will be adding a gender perspective to this article as it neglects to discuss how the consequences differ for male vs females in the ABSO realm.  As you can see in the outline below, I am keeping most of the current sections untouched - I simply want to add the global perspective and that of gender differences. This outline is preliminary and although I have done research I haven't completed it yet so I can't say what the entire result will look like. But this is for a class so it won't be half done, I will be putting a lot of time into these edits. 
I am adding two sections under effectiveness that will specifically discuss the global north and the global south.  The effectiveness of ABSO and STIs is very different when practiced in these two arenas. I'm then going to mirror the Sex Education page with the view of ABSO "around the world".  These are the countries which I have good reason to think I will find the most data, but cannot be sure yet. Lastly, I will be adding the Gender Inequalities section.  The sub sections are areas I hope to highlight, but the direction may change with further research.  
1.	Description
2.	Background
3.	Discussion
4.	Effectiveness
a.	Global North
i.	STI/HIV prevention
ii.	Unplanned pregnancy prevention
b.	Global South
i.	STI/HIV prevention
ii.	Unplanned pregnancy prevention
5.	Sex Education around the world
a.	Africa
i.	Uganda
ii.	Sub-Saharan region
b.	Asia
i.	India
c.	Europe
i.	Netherlands
ii.	France
d.	Americas
i.	United States
ii.	Canada
e.	Oceania
i.	Australia
6.	Gender Inequality Consequences
a.	Ages of first sexual encounter
b.	Extra-marital sex
c.	Family Planning after marriage
Please let me know if you disagree with any of the proposed changes, would like to contribute or have references or articles (etc) that may be helpful.  Thanks! 16:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your efforts! Flies 1 (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Page Update 

message: I have decided to revise this page and the page on “Sex-Education in the United States as a part of a class assignment. I intend to broaden the scope of the article away from the United States and explore international efforts and campaigns, the role of religion, pros and cons of abstinence-only sex education, and funding. Basically, I would like to bring the attention of this article away from the United States and more toward global impact. There are a lot of great ideas proposed on the talk page that have not yet been addressed that seem like reasonable enough suggestions. One of the main issues I see brought up is the terminology and language of the article being biased in one way or another. I plan on ensuring that terms used are the current official terms being used by accredited organizations and that the revisions are on the side of objectivity and fact.
I plan on adding a “Legal definition” and “Comprehensive sex education” section under the existing “Description” heading. I will add sections on “Teen pregnancy”, “STI rates”, and “LGBTQ relationships” under the heading of “Effectiveness”. I have decided to split the section called “Discussion” into two sections; “Rationale”, with the subheading “Role of religion”, and “Criticism”. This should help clarify some of the points the article was trying to make by separating them into sides of the argument. I have also decided to add a “Global impact” section, with the subheadings “Role of religion in sex education outreach” and “Impact on the HIV/AIDS epidemic”. Ideally, this will allow the article to expand to something more general than what is currently online. 
	I would like to incorporate separate pages and links to the other page on which I will be working. I will integrate links to “Virginity pledges”, “Religious views on birth control” and “Teen pregnancy” into the article, which already exist in the “See also” section.
Is there any issue with any of these proposals? All contributions are welcome. Do you think that the "Impact on the HIV/AIDS epidemic warrants its own section or a note within another?
BSchilling (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for Revision 

message: Great work on the global impact section. If there is literature on it, I would add more information about the global impact of abstinence-only sex education, perhaps some statistics or the countries it effects, rather than focusing solely on one U.S. organization. You used a variety of sources to present a more diverse perspective, which was great. To further improve the quality of your article, focus on polishing up grammar and adding relevant images. I look forward to reading your future contributions! Aqjiang (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to edits

message: Thank so much for all of these great edits! I believe the most relevant things you can work on right is providing more specific details about the sources in the "Global Impact" section in order to improve Neutral Point of View. Other than that, a few grammar edits will make this page very comprehensive and accurate. Good work! Magenstat (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Another response to edits

message: Just a note there's been a brief discussion over at  Wikiproject Med about this primary source cited in the article. If we're following WP:MEDRS, it should probably be removed, but there are three reviews citing it:
#The effectiveness of group-based comprehensive risk-reduction and abstinence education interventions to prevent or reduce the risk of adolescent pregnancy, human immunodeficiency virus, and sexually transmitted infections: two systematic reviews for the Guide to Community Preventive Services. 
#A Sex-Positive Framework for Research on Adolescent Sexuality 
#Reproductive Rights and Informed Consent: Toward a More Inclusive Discourse 
I haven't looked at what the reviews actually say, so I'm just dropping by to point them out to any active editors here that are interested in looking them over for content that shows if mention of the study is warranted here. The first review has 40 citations, while the remaining two have one and no citations, respectively, so the first source might be the most useful. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed and added better sources. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at [[WT:MED]] 

message: There was a sentence on Christian right saying this  
The two sources I added to that sentence are based on the MEDRS recommendation to search on Trip (search engine), at the highest level of quality, a meta-analysis and canadian guidelines.
A user is contesting this, calling for the inclusion of references supporting abstinence-only sex education. They propose five sources, one a Heritage foundation one, one abstinence.org, one from the "Institute for Research and evaluation" a group set up in Salt Lake City, Utah, to promote abstinence education interventions, and the American College of Pediatricians, an anti-gay organisation, along with one in JAMA pediatrics
This is it: Efficacy of a Theory-Based Abstinence-Only Intervention Over 24 Months: A Randomized Controlled Trial With Young Adolescents
A few comments - the paper notes "It was not designed to meet federal criteria for abstinence-only programs. For instance, the target behavior was abstaining from vaginal, anal, and oral intercourse until a time later in life when the adolescent is more prepared to handle the consequences of sex. The intervention did not contain inaccurate information, portray sex in a negative light, or use a moralistic tone. The training and curriculum manual explicitly instructed the facilitators not to disparage the efficacy of condoms or allow the view that condoms are ineffective to go uncorrected."
In the commentary: "A common concern about abstinence-only interventions is that they have the unintended effect of reducing condom use, ie, that children exposed to such interventions are subsequently less likely to use condoms if they have sexual intercourse.20,21,36 However, a randomized controlled trial37 and a literature review38 found no effects of abstinence interventions on condom use. Similarly, in this trial the abstinence-only intervention participants did not differ in self-reported consistent condom use compared with the control group.
The results of this trial should not be taken to mean that all abstinence-only interventions are efficacious. This trial tested a theory-based abstinence-only intervention that would not meet federal criteria for abstinence programs and that is not vulnerable to many criticisms that have been leveled against interventions that meet federal criteria.19,20,36 It was not moralistic and did not criticize the use of condoms. Moreover, it had several characteristics associated with effective sexual risk-reduction interventions. It was theory-based and tailored to the target population based on qualitative data and included skill-building activities. It addressed the context of sexual activity and beliefs about the consequences of sexual involvement derived from the target population."
One thing that stands out is that the "target behavior" is known to the participants - meaning that there are possible recall problems and pressure to provide socially desirable answers when self-reporting behavior.
Some discussion is here.
If anyone has opinions on whether that paper meets MEDRS then feel free to discuss on Talk:Christian right#MEDRS and abstinence promotion groups
-- Aronzak (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  MEDRS discussion at [[Talk:Christian right]] 

message: Could there or should there be a more substantive description of AOE (in general, all AOE programs) and those programs that qualify for federal funding?  The programs that qualify for federal funding are a subset of all AOE programs, but the reverse is not true.  It would also be helpful to establish that while CSE vs. AOE have been studied and found to have X differences in outcomes, but CSE fs. AOE (federal-funding qualified definition) has Y differences in outcomes.Skberry889 (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible distinction between AOE and federal-funding qualified AOE definitions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Abstinence-only sex education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070517235615/http://www.teenpregnancy.org:80/resources/data/report_summaries/emerging_answers/default.asp to http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resources/data/report_summaries/emerging_answers/default.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Abstinence-only sex education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141105013301/https://guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/10/3/gpr100302.html to https://guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/10/3/gpr100302.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141024090512/http://www.pepfarwatch.org/the_issues/abstinence_and_fidelity/ to http://www.pepfarwatch.org/the_issues/abstinence_and_fidelity/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As seen here, I reverted HenryMP02 on changing "Evidence does not support the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education" to "Evidence is inconclusive as to the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education over comprehensive sex education." Some other rewording was reverted in the process. I believe that the "evidence does not support" wording was added by Doc James. HenryMP02, why do you believe this wording is inaccurate? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I would now agree with the original wording. After reading through the article's sources last night, it seemed at the time the sentences were misleading given what each source said in its abstract. But my re-wording seemed to have just made it more unconsise. -Henry TALK 14:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  " Evidence does not support the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education" 

message: The section Abstinence-only sex education#Religion is not a section, rather a See Also list. When that is removed (which is necessary), all that's left is a wholly unsourced statement.
The section Abstinence-only sex education#Funding blatantly steps on WP:NOTTEXTBOOK among various WP:NOT. Please rewrite to remove the "I suck at term papers" tone.
Also, in skimming over the References, I note that there's frequent abuse of W'pedia standards. For starters,
* pasting up nothing but the hotlinked article title is incorrect. Tell the user where you swiped it from.
** and don't fudge the title in order to make the reference sound more credible or forceful; this includes "don't cherry-pick one little section just because it has a great heading." Tell the user what it's actually called.
* when retrieving a document, the date of retrieval is important (particularly if subject to change, as with some blogs, which of course are poor sources generally), but often nothing compared to the significance of the original document's publication. Tell the user when it was first made public.
* more than a few of the sources present a very strong bias, either against or supporting AOE; I suspect that's why the publications/websites are intentionally being left out of this article, to imply some sort of imaginary objectivity. I have no problem at all with a source having a particular viewpoint, but I want to know what that is and I certainly do not want some weaselly editor hiding it from me. Tell the user who said it, and maybe why (context).
More later, of course.Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  could someone please resort to prose?