Talk:Adolescence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sociology (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Awkward wording[edit]

This excerpt "...females of high school age and boys who identify themselves as gay.", among others, feels very awkward and unequal. It can say boys, but it finds saying girls as inappropriate, and resorts to saying females of high school age, which leaves me wondering why it doesn't say males of high school age instead. It also looks at the orientation of the boys in question in a skeptical and questioning tone, enough to spark heated debates about homosexuality that are the last of our needs. It needs to be fixed. 95.14.155.213 (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Where is that line located in the article, IP? I gave the article a quick look-over and didn't see it; I'll have to look more closely later. I'm not quite sure that I understand your objection to it, however, aside from it using "females" instead of "girls" when it uses "boys" instead of "males." If the source or sources point out that the boys are gay, so should we. Otherwise, we'd be speaking of boys in general. But what wording do you propose to take the place of the current wording? Flyer22 (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
"Every year, approximately 13% of adolescents are sexually solicited online, and about 4% of the solicitations are also followed with solicitation for contact not through a computer medium.[213][214] Most of the adolescents at risk for solicitation are females of high school age and boys who identify themselves as gay."
Perhaps the objection is a feminist one i.e. the sexes should be referenced on equal terms. i.e. women shouldn't be called "girls" while men are "guys" etc. I saw an objecion somewhere to the use of "female", seeing it as similar to referring livestock. Maybe the objection is along those lines. Could you say "girls of high school age? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with using "girls," Matthew, and will change it now. Thanks for giving me an idea of where this material is in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Editing initiative[edit]

An advanced seminar in adolescent development is undertaking a major editing of this article. The last major editing of this piece was done under my supervision last Spring. We will continue that work and expand on the piece here to bring up the quality and add additional information. One major focus will be to expand the focus outside the US. We should finish this in late October 2012. Nancydarling (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back, Nancy. Will you all be reformatting most of the article? Or is this more about adding more on to it? Either way, I need to delete some of the present subheadings, considering that the article looks long enough as it is. I'm sure that you remember that excessive subheadings were one of my few complaints about your class editing the article the previous round. Also, do you plan to have a class edit this article every few months or a year later? I ask because I want to know if I should expect this article not to be stable for longer than those times. Also, it would be ideal if you could point your class to the Welcome template -- specifically its links -- that are on your talk page so that they have a better idea of how to edit Wikipedia. That is, if you haven't already. But just in case you don't/haven't, and because they might need a reminder, I'll add Welcome templates to their talk pages when I see them. And I'll of course help out with formatting. Flyer22 (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
By the way, do you know if Dblanchard1234 is one of your students? He apparently made WP:Test edits.[1][2] Acat2169 and Scarlett811, both new users, might be yours as well. Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22. I think this article will have less and less editing to be done as it improves. This still has a B rating and we want to bring it up to top quality. It still has a ways to go. After next week, we will not work on it systematically until at least next year. We have also been working on the related article on Emerging Adulthood. All the students should have gone through the welcome materials and editing training. Nancydarling (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the response, Nancydarling. There have been heading formatting issues again, mostly capitalizing issues -- your class capitalizing each word in a heading, which is against WP:Manual of Style except for when it is the official formatting for a name of something -- but I can tell that they have had some training on Wikipedia formatting...and it's good to know that I don't have to tag their talk pages with the Welcome template. Flyer22 (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
And as for elevating this article from its B-level status, see WP:GA and WP:FA if you haven't already. Flyer22 (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to make a couple of suggestions on the content of the article. Me and my girlfriend had son when she was 15 and I was 17. This was during 1972 in San Francisco Bay Area, California. My girlfriend and I had no intent of having a child as far as I can remember. We'd both dropped acid we are pretty sure that night he was conceived. Maybe she did intend. Anyway, she ended up with horrible stretch marks on her abdomen because she was not fully developed at 15. They remain to this day I am sure though we are apart since 1975 or so. I blame myself for this. Maybe I should only get half, whatever. The point is, on the diagram under the statements in this article where it mentions the ages where puberty is complete, it pretty much tends to add a couple of years so that if you were going by the colored diagram, it does indicate a more realistic age level for both males and females. i.e. for females, 16 or 17-19, for males 18-20 would be kinder to the youngsters, as long as this article is theoretically to be available to the entire world of reading online individuals, in my way of thinking, especially the way things in the sexual development department seem to be proceeding, to change this would be very good. My vote anyway. I thank you for taking that into consideration if there is any way to change it at this late date and if you agree it is wiser. Also, I didn't completely read the whole article, but although it is no doubt full of facts which cannot be challenged really, there is also a lot of what I can only refer to as convenient assumptive sorts of statements, not of fact perhaps. To be most informative and helpful for all concerned, I urge a going over of the entire article and at every statement along the way, be asking yourself "is this an actual fact and true" or is this just some sort of thing to make it seem more informed but it is really almost just padding? There is further, not that I saw anyway, not a mention of the way that illegal drug use and legal drug abuse interferes with development and prolongs adolescence in some ways while shortening it in other ways, which is somewhat unhealthy perhaps and therefore a lackluster adolescent method if you were in charge of raising some kids, you'd rather probably be sober more often than not and maintain a general rule of totally sufficient attention to the child rearing until kids are at least 18 if possible. I know this won't correct everything, but if any of what I've said means anything, I'd sure appreciate if articles could be found that support my suggestions if it would make more kids able to grow up happy and healthy instead of dysfunctional like me and others in my life, some of which have been ejected or so it seems (RIP). It is better to just admit WE DON'T KNOW, if we really do not know. Thanks for the opportunity to input. Sorry it is so long. Cognitive Impairment. Maybe due to you know what. Missed a bunch of what was supposed to happen maybe. Just one more idea. Dr. Phil is pretty good on this general sort of thing. I'd rather see an article of 50% the length with only facts. Don't mean to be too blunt.IraChesterfield (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, IraChesterfield. I'm not sure what to state with regard to your post, but I'll begin by stating that Wikipedia goes by the WP:Verifiability policy when it comes to sourcing. That, and some sourcing guidelines. I'll also go ahead and note to you that ages 16 or 17-19 for females and ages 18-20 for males are not more realistic ages for when puberty is complete. The article is more accurate by listing ages 15–17 for girls and 16–17 for boys. For example, see the Tanner scale. You have to keep in mind that children, especially girls, start puberty a lot or somewhat earlier these days than they did centuries or decades ago. A 16-year-old boy or girl might not look as physically mature as someone who is age 20, but that is usually due to a lack of physical maturity apart from puberty. For example, the text currently mentions that "boys accelerate more slowly but continue to grow for about 6 years after the first visible pubertal changes," which probably explains why some men don't get facial hair until their late teens or early 20s. It can be confusing about how that may be separate from puberty in some cases. Flyer22 (talk) 06:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Sexual identity[edit]

This text is in the article:
"In terms of sexual identity, while all sexual orientations found in adults are also represented among adolescents, statistically the suicide rate amongst LGBT adolescents is up to four times higher than that of their heterosexual peers."
This sentence is more about risk factors associated with one specific sexual identity than about sexual identity in adolescents. There must be so much more that can be said about sexual identity in adolescents. For instance, it is not at all uncommon for adolescents to be much more unsure about sexual identity compared to adults, and I wonder if there is more experimenting (or do adolescents try more to fit into a common pattern and is it young adults who experiment most??). Anyway, as you see, much more can be said about sexual identity during adolescence and a text about this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 19:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Since we already seem to have a section on sexuality, I edited the title of the section to LGBT sexual identity to better reflect the content, and also expanded it to add more statistics. Kporterf (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Good job! Lova Falk talk 09:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Update: That heading was changed by an editor (no doubt from the same class) with this addition, and then I slightly altered it and moved the section up higher for the reasons stated in this edit summary. Flyer22 (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Images[edit]

I started this discussion to note that the images that Tobby72 added on October 16, 2012 were removed last year per the Further changes after merge discussion. But I'm okay with these images having been added back. If others aren't, this section allows you state your objection(s) to any image of those images or others...their image captions...or your preference for other images. Flyer22 (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

FeatherPluma just started helping out with this article, and I appreciate such help. It's definitely needed at this article. In addition to having made clean-up edits, FeatherPluma removed File:AdolescentCouplesAtTheFair4433.JPG, with the following edit summary: "rmv b/c 1. image does not have a tight conceptual tethering to adjacent text 2. does not illustrate or amplify it 3. is annotated with an unreferenced claim (may be true but does not appear to be verifiable." But I feel that having an image of a teenage romantic couple is especially relevant in a section about adolescent/teenage romance, and thus does amplify the text. It's a more relevant image than the caption-less image currently in the Self-esteem section or the one of teenage girls from South Africa in the Peers section. Do readers need to see the couples image to understand the text? No. But whether or not to include an image being based on whether or not it significantly enhances a reader's understanding of the text is based on WP:NONFREE (which cites policy and guidelines, but I'm especially speaking of the Contextual significance part), and doesn't apply as much to free images. Lastly, the image caption that was used for the image is verifiable; it's on the image's description page. What we don't know is if the couples are romantic couples or just friends that are paired up, but the implication is definitely that they are romantic couples. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Flyer22. Nice to meet you. Thank you for initiating a discussion in respect of the(se) image(s).
  • In regards to my point #3, I judge that we don't really know very much for certain about these four people. The conclusion that someone is coupled with someone else seems to be based exclusively on the image title. Keeping things brief, I am uncomfortable for several reasons with the idea that "somebody's" label of a Flickr-sourced image meets guidelines for reliable source. WP:SELFPUBLISH is one of several troubling aspects.
  • As to my point #1, the image "illustrates" a section entitled Romance and sexual activity, that moreover is "subtitled" with a connexion to the main page on Adolescent sexuality. I would stipulate to your "we don't know is if the couples are romantic couples or just friends" but I am uncertain other than from the WP:SPS that they are "paired up". Accordingly IMO reaching the "implication" that they are necessarily romantic or sexually active couples may verge on WP:SYNTH, and I continue to wonder if the image has the requisite "tight conceptual tethering" to the section theme.
  • As to my point #2, an image of four people such as can be seen in everyday life at a cinema or college IMO does not amplify the text or convey something that was not already perfectly clear from the text.
  • I agree without reservation with your concerns about the South Africa group of three and the image in the self-esteem section. These two images raised my eyebrows significantly and were under consideration for proposed redaction (although you will forgive me for pointing out that generally Wikipedia "argues the case by the specifics" rather than the relative merits, which can be exceptionally subjective.)
  • All that said, "it sure is a pretty picture at an American West fair" (I hope that doesn't sound too trite), and I really don't have any big issue with whatever is decided, so add it back if you judge it differently. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, FeatherPluma. On to your comments: I don't see how the fact that "we don't really know very much for certain about these four people" has any bearing on whether or not to include the image, other than the fact that I stated that "What we don't know is if the couples are romantic couples or just friends that are paired up." But we don't really know very much for certain about a lot of the people we see in our images on Wikipedia, and we do defer to image titles and the image description pages of free images (and non-free images) to verify the image's authenticity. Flickr-sourced images are very much allowed on Wikipedia. Where did you get the impression that they are not allowed? From the WP:Reliable sources guideline? Image sourcing has different standards than article sourcing.
As for your first point: I understand, but that has to do with personal opinion. There are no restrictions against using these images. I hadn't thought about the fact that the couples may not be romantic couples before your removal of the image, so thanks for making me think on that. But it doesn't seem that the photographer/uploader -- Kenneth Freeman -- would call them "couples" if he hadn't meant "romantic couples." The term "couple" is often used to indicate "romantic couple." And if these four individuals were just friends, why wouldn't he just state so? Unless he doesn't know either, perhaps?
As for your second point: That goes back to my comment about free images vs. non-free images. We often include free images in articles even when they don't significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the topic. That's the good thing about free images; we can use as many of them that we think will enhance the text even a bit...as long as they are not a detriment to the article (such as too many images, redundant images, etc.). All sorts of educational books, including encyclopedias, include pictures that readers don't need to see to better understand the text. The whole "only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" applies to non-free images, not free images.
About the images that we agree don't help at all: I know that as many free images as one wants to use can be used in an article as long as they are relevant and are not a detriment to the article, but I feel that they should enhance the text at least a bit. So thanks for taking the initiative and having removed one of those so far.
Yes, the American West fair image is a nice image. Since I have your go-head to restore it, I haven't decided yet if I'm going to restore it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Very good. Will defer to your ultimate decision. I think you already have the points that a) there may arise "from some unspecified source" (so-to-speak) a political concern regarding the labeling of living people, particularly in conjunction with this adjacent text, which somebody (maybe one of the people in the picture or their representative) may object to, and that b) this is not exclusively a technical Wikipedia consideration, but a matter of careful balancing and respect of living individuals who are apt to deem for themselves whether a mislabel, even if in good faith, was applied "without due care." Anyway, I suppose you could hold to the notion that the image is already posted publically in Flikr, and further you could hold to the notion that all the potential for error / offense therefore sits there, rather than with this corpus. (Except we have the textual adjacency aspect... might bark or bite?) So again, your call, and I appreciate discussing it so thoroughly to a completion as we've done.
I think the South Africa image could go? I'll come back sometime next week if possible. FeatherPluma (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
LOL, of course that image can go. I agreed above, even though not directly. Sorry for the late reply; I was dealing with my recent block case. Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Body image section[edit]

I've started this section to work out a current content dispute. I disagreed with this edit that an IP made, for the reasons stated in this edit summary -- that "instead of removing the information, tweak it with respect to the existing source and yours. We don't need to be ambiguous about what it is the sources state/the researchers are saying." The IP is an editor I've discussed matters with on this talk page before (Avalongod). He added back the ambiguous wording, and I still disagree with it. This wording tells us nothing about exactly what is being debated, and it suppresses information about research. It does not matter if I or anyone else disagrees with this research; Wikipedia goes by WP:Verifiability, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE on matters like these. This research is verifiable and is not at all undue weight or fringe. While Wikipedia also goes by WP:Neutral, WP:Neutral does not mean "suppressing a study," especially if that study is reporting a general consensus among scholars; not that the information in question is definitively general consensus, but I have seen a variety of reliable sources report the same thing over the years. It usually takes more than one study to trump research that has been consistently duplicated. What should be done in this case, per the way that Wikipedia is supposed to work, is to mention these findings and to also mention any opposing research beside it. I have discussed that type of formatting with Avalongod before. That said, if research leans significantly more to the former side, the latter side should not be given as much weight. Flyer22 (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanx Flyer. Yes Flyer and I sometimes (respectfully) disagree on matters. At play here is, however, not that any single study is disagreeing with a *consensus* but that, in fact, the consensus is illusory. Although it's certainly not uncommon to hear people (including some scholars) make conclusive statements about media effects, a thorough examination of the research reveals there is no consistency at all. IF we're going to go by "veryfiability" than this is something easily verifiable and I am happy to provide a number of citations if we wish to include a back and forth "research in support of belief X" and "research inconsistent with researc X" expansion. But I don't think we can make conclusive "factual" statements, and simply ignore research with conflicts with that statement. In science that is called "citation bias" and is bad practice in science and should not be reified here. As it is, both sides are represented by a single citation. That obviously could be expanded, but no studies were supressed. I am happy either keeping it to a quick "scholars disagree" statement, or to something which is longer and more detailed about both sides...but not something which is simply factually incorrect. Respectfully Avalongod (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, Avalongod. Since no one else has weighed in on this, we might have to eventually take this to some form of WP:Dispute resolution. To elaborate on my issue with the way you edited the text: I view it as you having suppressed a study because you deleted it from the text and have left it regulated to the source. If you aren't aware, a lot of readers don't know what those numbers (the citations) that are placed beside text mean and many won't be checking the sources to see what they state. Not to mention, those who don't have full access to the sources.
Another big point is that we are not supposed to create false balance. There are going to be times where balance is not 50/50. WP:Neutral explains this, and it's policy. You state that consensus on this topic is illusory. But I've read a lot of the literature on it as well, and I'm comfortable stating that the media contributes to people's body image. Studies have consistently shown this to be the case. And with the media's portrayal of "ideal body types" being one of the main causes of Anorexia nervosa, I fail to see how it can be convincingly argued that "the media has nothing to do with people's perceptions of their looks." As can be seen in the section in question, we have a whole Wikipedia article on this -- Body image -- and most of the sources in that article support the assertion that the media does affect body image. Personally, I have experienced this type of effect. Being female, I definitely saw imagery that conveyed to me that "I should look this way" while growing up (although I got my fair share of compliments about my looks), and I still see it. I of course also saw this type of effect among various female friends and acquaintances. One acquaintance suffered from Anorexia nervosa, and expressed how she became that way; it wasn't because of some biological disease, but rather because she felt that she should be as skinny as the media was telling her that she should be. So, all that taken into account, I'm sure that you can see why it's difficult for me to believe that the media has no effect on body image. Stating that the media's effect on body image has been exaggerated is one thing; stating that there are no effects is another. But it's not about what I believe. It's about what reliable sources state. And I've seen most sources on this topic state that the media does have an effect on body image. It appears to me that the "no effects" and/or the "exaggerated effects" views are the minority views. And per WP:Neutral, which WP:UNDUE is a part of, we aren't supposed to give the minority view as much weight as the majority view. That stated, even if we argue that the line stating that "on average, girls are found to be more focused on thinness while teenage boys have more of a drive to appear muscular and fit" isn't that much of a majority conclusion, but rather a widely reported conclusion, it's still reported in a lot more sources than the "no effects" and/or the "exaggerated effects" views. And it does state "on average" for qualification. But I'm of course fine with you going ahead and expanding that section and including content from both sides; it's better than vagueness. Flyer22 (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi to both of you! I checked both articles that were used as references.
  • The Ata article clearly said that "males were concerned with increasing their upper body, whereas females wanted to decrease the overall size of their body." However, the article did not connect this to media - which is the section heading. So in order to write about this relevant distinction in the article, it should be part of a "body image" section that is not a subsection of a media section. The abstract did not connect this to media, but the article actually does, but not as the only or even as the most important factor.
  • The Ferguson article says: "Disagreement exists regarding the nature of media influences, with meta-analytic results suggesting only small effect sizes."
So, based on these two sources, I would go even a bit further than the present "Scholars continue to debate the effects of media on body dissatisfaction in teens." into something like: "Review studies suggest that media only has a small effect on body dissatisfaction."
With friendly regards! Lova Falk talk 11:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in on this, Lova Falk and for your recent edits to the Media section. I especially appreciate you adding back this that Avalongod recently removed as an IP, and tweaking it. That's part of what I've been talking about with Avalongod -- if the text is largely valid, then tweak it; don't throw out the entire text. Temporarily removing it from the article to work on it (such as moving it to the talk page) is something that I have no problems with. As for the Ata source, its titled The effects of gender and family, friend, and media influences on eating behaviors and body image during adolescence. So I'm wondering how its aforementioned line about body image is not about the media's influence. Either way, if we were to have two sections in the article about body image, the titles would need to be somewhat distinguished. Not only to tell readers briefly how the two sections differ, but also as to not take editors to the wrong section when they are editing it; by that, I mean that sections on Wikipedia that have the same title automatically take editors to the first section that has that same title after they hit the "Save page" button. As for the other source, I'd keep the "Scholars continue to debate the effects of media on body dissatisfaction in teens." line, but combine it with your suggested line of "Review studies suggest that media only has a small effect on body dissatisfaction." by adding a comma and "but" between the lines and decapitalizing "Review." However, you are stating that the Ferguson source doesn't mention scholars debating the effects of media on body dissatisfaction in teens, correct, but that it's rather talking about scholars debating the effects of media on body dissatisfaction in females in general (girls and women)? If so, then we should use a different source for the "Scholars continue to debate the effects of media on body dissatisfaction in teens." part. Flyer22 (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Since you added the PDFs for these two sources, which show the full texts for them, I will be reading them at a later date. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I have now worked through the article one more time, and it does mention the influence of media on body image - however, it says both that media has an influence, but also that "It may be that messages communicated by the media only become problematic when they are reinforced by more immediate sociocultural agents such as parents and peers." and "Research suggests that perceived pressure from peers to be thin is more associated with increases in adolescents’ body dissatisfaction over time than pressures to be thin from family or the media." I think the first half of the Ata article (which is a review of previous research) is a good source for a section on body image, in which all factors from the article can be mentioned: self esteem, teasing from friends and family, and the media. Writing such a section is a big job though! Lova Falk talk 20:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I see, and I agree with your suggestion. More good sources to go along with the Ata source would be preferable than just the Ata and Ferguson sources by themselves, though, I feel. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow this looks better[edit]

I must say I am so impressed with how far this page has come in the last year. Just a thank you for everyone's work. Nancydarling (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Flyer22 (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead image[edit]

What is the consensus lead image? Here are (I think) the four most recent:

In my opinion, all of them are problematic for one reason or another. Isn't there a nice historical photograph somewhere that we can use? --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus lead image. But as for consensus on the images in general, the main consensus on the matter has been what was agreed to in the Further changes after merge discussion and the #Images discussion above. If you hadn't reverted the File:Teenagerphoto.jpg, I would have; an image of one teenager should not be the lead image. File:Cubes teenager.jpg, however, has been an image that I and others have not had a problem with because it appropriately accompanies the Puberty section. I do feel that we should include images of real-life teenagers in the article. So what do you mean by historical images? Images of teenagers from history? Why not also use images of modern-day teenagers? If self-promotion is the concern, self-promotion is difficult to dispute with a lot of images of real people on Wikipedia (images that exist because a person has uploaded an image of themselves). This diff-link shows the images that the lead previously used. Flyer22 (talk) 11:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
That diff-link also shows an image of "German teens in Bonn in 1988" that was previously used for the History section. Flyer22 (talk) 11:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the Cubes teenager image itself, but I don't think it works very well as the lead image. I'm not sure "historical" was the best word to use, but you saw what I was getting at - something old enough so that, at least, we know it wasn't taken for the express purpose of someone putting their friends up on Wikipedia; if they were good-quality pictures it wouldn't really matter so much, but they're usually horrendous pictures. Just my opinion, of course - I was just passing through, and whatever everyone else wants to use is fine with me. I did notice this picture on Commons, if I may offer one suggestion. It's not old and not perfect, but it's not bad. It might be just a little too unfocused though. --Bongwarrior (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, of course, File:Cubes teenager.jpg shouldn't be used as the lead image; that would be inappropriate, since it is only the torso of a lone male. As for your suggested image, I don't mind that being used as the lead image, since it is at least of two people. But I, and I'm sure others, would state that it's not broad in its representation. Despite agreement with the class to remove them, I'd prefer that we use two of the three images that were previously used for the lead; I'm speaking of the version I linked to at the end of my first comment above. But, again, I don't mind if you implement your suggestion. Flyer22 (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the version I linked to in my first comment above isn't that broad either. But what I mean is that I prefer an image that shows a group of adolescents, one that shows boys and girls, preferably of different ethnicities, as to show diversity. As you can see, choosing a lead image for this article is not as easy as it would appear. Flyer22 (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll leave the implementation to you or whoever else; since you have been putting the work into the article, your preference should carry more weight than mine. Normally I would have just rolled it back and moved on, but I found myself in a bit of a bind because it seemed like there wasn't a preferred image to revert back to: the one I removed was pretty obviously wrong, but the one before it had been tagged due to personality rights concerns (which I really don't know much about; maybe it's nothing) and also seemed slightly Facebook-ish, File:Teens.jpg didn't really look like much of anything when shrunk down to thumbnail size, and the other one was just a torso. I don't have any strong objections to the first two images in the old version that you linked to, but the third one (Indian teenagers) looks slightly creepy to me, and they may be a little too old as well. Another picture from that version (File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F079046-0008, Bonn, Omnibus.jpg) isn't bad, although the caption is irritating and would need to be removed. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't feel that my opinion should carry more weight than yours on this matter. And the current state of the article is mostly the result of Nancydarling's classes occasionally working on the article, as first shown in the "Further changes after merge" discussion linked above and in the above #Editing initiative section. I understand what you mean about having an image of a group that barely shows what the group looks like when scaled down to appropriate size for the article. That's the downside of using a group image, and is why it's better to use a group image that only consists of three to six people in this case. The first two images in the old version are what were used before the third image (Indian teenagers) was added by someone. And while that second image only shows very young-looking Polish boys, at least the first one is more diverse. While adolescence ranges from very young (such as a 9-year-old) to very old (such as a 19-year-old, or early 20-somethings according to some interpretations), I prefer that the lead image be somewhere in between the two for balance. You feel that the Indian teenagers look a little too old; I feel that the German teenagers in Bonn in 1988 look too young (more like early middle school students). I'm also not sure that a black and white picture is as acceptable to people as a color picture for the lead image. So except for the "German teens in Bonn in 1988" image, I am fine with either of your suggestions. I'll wait to see if others weigh in on this discussion. But even if no one else does, I'm still not sure that I'll be the one to add a lead image or two. Flyer22 (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Two teenagers listening to music
Teenagers in Oslo
Well, it has been a week and nobody else has commented. We really should get something up there. What do you think about using these two for now? I think the first one is a nice image, and the second shows some diversity. We're not bound to have them in the lead forever, but I think they'll serve just fine for the time being. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Yep, seeing as I like those two images, and the second one is a bit diverse, I agree with using them as the lead images. And, yes, what is the lead image or images can always change. Flyer22 (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added them. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Functionalist bias in lead[edit]

The opening paragraphs seem to imply that all social scientists look at adolescence as a functional stage of preparation for adulthood; however, the article itself describes social factors primarily in terms of identity construction. 72.192.13.10 (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2014[edit]

Please unprotect this page. Thank you. 72.200.189.217 (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --ElHef (Meep?) 01:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

This article will not be unprotected solely so that you can engage in more of your WP:Disruption and WP:Vandalism, IP. ElHef, take notice that this article was recently WP:Semi-protected by Mark Arsten because of this IP's disruption and vandalism to it; this is seen by the IP contributions, blocklog...and talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Risk Taking[edit]

It assumes that there is a universal acceptance that adolescents engage in more risky behavior than adults while there is a certain percentage of sociologists who would dramatically disagree with this assumption (Males, Michael Adolescent Brain and Risk Taking Journal of Adolescent Research January 2009). There is additionally no statistical reference for the statement that most injuries to adolescents are caused by risky behavior, since the majority of injuries likely go unreported it seems an impossible claim to make. Most adolescent deaths are caused by injury but to make the leap to risky behavior causation is problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wahoo Ed (talkcontribs) 18:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Fringe?[edit]

An edit "Not all psychologists believe that orientation is immutable."Sexual Orientation: Is It Unchangeable?". Psychology Today. May 2011. Retrieved March 12, 2014.  " was reverted, suggesting that it was WP:FRINGE? I was not aware that Psychology Today was in the habit of publishing fringe material. I appreciate that the article says "pop psychology," but goes on to say it is endorsed by National Board for Certified Counselors. Student7 (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you on this and this because while Psychology Today is not a WP:Fringe magazine, what you added is out of step with what the vast majority of researchers believe about sexual orientation and your text is not supported by that Psychology Today source. Neither the author of that article nor the researchers mentioned in that article are cited as believing that sexual orientation is changeable. Scientists, including the major scientific organizations, generally (note: I stated "generally") do not believe that sexual orientation can be changed (they are especially clear about that with regard to sexual orientation change efforts), though they readily recognize that sexual identity can be a choice and can therefore change; this is because, well, there's no doubt that sexual identity can change (it's a label that has often shown itself not to align with a person's true sexual orientation, especially in the case of LGB people). The Psychology Today source you cited even addresses whether the sexual identity was lining up with the sexual orientation in the cases it mentions; it states, in part, "Is sexual orientation fluid and/or changeable? Or are some gay and lesbian people really closeted bisexuals?" Your text was also an irrelevant side note, in my opinion; it is not relevant to these sections to essentially state: "Oh, and by the way, some scientists believe sexual orientation can change." It does not flow with what these sections are discussing.
The author also begins by tackling a different matter -- whether or not someone is born gay (homosexual). Well, scientific consensus is not that sexual orientation is only biological, whether that includes hormone exposure or not, as is made clear by this American Psychological Association source, which is from the largest organization of psychologists in the world. There is no true consensus among scientists on the topic of sexual orientation, except that sexual orientation is not a choice and is unlikely to change; they favor biological models for the cause of sexual orientation, but generally believe that sexual orientation is determined by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal and environmental factors (womb environment and/or social environment); biological models can also include social factors. There are few scientists out there who believe that sexual orientation is only determined by one factor, and there are many of them who don't believe that it's complete by birth; the American Psychological Association, for example (same source noted above), states (in its "How do people know if they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual?" section): "According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence." Flyer22 (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and the fact that it's common for researchers to believe that women's sexuality is more fluid than men's sexuality is a somewhat different matter than general discussions of sexual orientation. That type of thing is addressed in some articles on Wikipedia; for example, in this section in the Sexual arousal article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Romance and sexual activity[edit]

Hello,

I am especially interested in the romance part of the "Romance and sexual activity" section. I'm aware that there is a separate Adolescent Sexuality page, but I'm wondering what more can be said on this page about adolescent romance and relationships.

I think the information on prevalence of relationships and the other supporting numerical data is important and relevant. I wonder if it would be useful to go a step further in consideration of the role or purpose of a relationship for this age group. I see that the section gets at the long term benefits and implications for adult relationships, but what about the implications for that developing adolescent (which is also touched on with the self terms, such as self-esteem and self-confidence)?

So, for example, what if we added a developmental perspective -- Authors Connolly & McIsaac (2009) [1] characterize adolescent relationships in three stages. By adding something like this to the section, maybe we would be showing readers what an adolescent romantic relationship "looks like" or how it develops. Additionally, we could add in sources getting closer to the purpose/role of the stages.

Any thoughts?

This is my first time thinking critically or trying to edit a Wikipedia page!

Cheers Kef4d (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather that not a lot of additional material is placed there, since there is a separate article that is provided to present details about adolescent sexuality. And when adding health content to this article, like you did here, make sure that it is compliant with the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

About pruning[edit]

From the "Synaptic pruning" wiki page: "Pruning starts near the time of birth and is completed by the time of sexual maturation in humans."

But here it mentions that pruning occurs during adolescence, i.e. 13..25 years of age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.128.252 (talk) 08:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=s6aLf5Ig_K8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA180&dq=connolly+and+mcisaac+romantic+relationships+in+adolescence&ots=xYqaJhmnFH&sig=c3r0JrP-sygCSnOP7DpE8siBreI#v=onepage&q=connolly%20and%20mcisaac%20romantic%20relationships%20in%20adolescence&f=false