Talk:Hookup culture/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Misrepresentation of sources

From Illuminato's latest edits: [1]

One sociologist, Lisa Wade, disputes the existence of hookup culture and calls it a "bogeyman"; instead she defends casual sex as a safer alternative to relationships that have been made dangerous through patriarchy.[1] Wade further blames privileged students for setting the values and norms on college campuses; hookup culture is not widely embraced outside of a white, wealthy minority.[2] Women from less privileged backgrounds may view hookups as immature.[3]

Sources cited: [1]: Wade in the LA Times. [2] [2]: Wade in Slate. [3] [3]: Kate Taylor in the New York Times. [4]

The first sentence is a gross misrepresention of the source. Wade does not 'defend casual sex' or 'dispute its existence' - she points out that the statistics show that 'hookup culture' is not the norm on college campuses: "The typical student acquires only two new sexual partners during college. Half of all hookups are with someone the person has hooked up with before. A quarter of students will be virgins when they graduate". Sources must be cited for what they say - not for what a contributor would like them to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not add that sentence. Ninja did. --Illuminato (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of who added it, it is unacceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Fine, let's fix it then rather than make accusations and ascribe motives. --Illuminato (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok - we should 'fix it' by ensuring that per WP:NPOV the article "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". At the moment, we seem to have no way whatsoever of knowing whether Wade is in the minority in dismissing 'hookup culture' as a 'bogeyman', or whether her opinion is actually a majority viewpoint in academia. Are there any reviews of the topic discussing the differing academic perspectives on the subject? Without this, we would have a real problem justifying an article that seems to take as read the significance of something that some sources suggest may be 'moral panic' rather than reality. Neutrality would require that we first ensure we understand the academic debate, and only then look into expanding the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Finally, a productive response from you. I disagree that we don't have any way of knowing whether or not Wade's views are in the majority or the minority. There are several reviews of the academic literature in the article. To give but one, try reading the one published by the American Psychological Association . You will see by the chapter headings there that they categorize the literature with the following headings: "A cultural revolution," "Affective responses to hooking up," Hook-up regret," "Hook-up culture and mental health," "Hook-up culture and sexual risk," and "Sex differences in hook-up behaviors." As a proposed way forward, can we agree that the APA is a NPOV WP:RS and use their structure as a model for this article? --Illuminato (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That is not a review discussing the differing academic perspectives on the subject. Those are not 'chapter headings'. The article looks a perfectly good source for the opinions of its author, but there is no reason to treat it as anything more. Your assertion that the APA may be a NOPV RS is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of sourcing and NPOV policy. We don't expect individual articles to necessarily represent NPOV - we instead ensure NPOV by looking at a wide range of sources, and balancing our article with due weight according to the sources as a whole. Picking an individual source, and declaring it to be 'NPOV' simply isn't tenable. We can't declare something NPOV without knowing what the 'POVs' are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The objective of the source is to "1) Describe the concept and context of contemporary sexual hook-up culture and behavior. 2) Review the current research on psychological and health consequences of emerging adults' uncommitted sexual activity. 3) Discuss the role of uncommitted sexual behavior, and larger social-sexual scripts, on the lives and experiences of emerging adult college students." The feature is designed to "provide you with updates on critical developments in psychology, drawn from peer-reviewed literature and written by leading psychology experts." In it, they "review the literature on sexual hookups and consider the research." I didn't declare it to be NPOV. I asked if we could agree that it is. You said you wanted a review of the literature. I provided one. What more are you looking for? --Illuminato (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. The 'objectives' you describe are nothing other than instructions for students reading the article. Students are being given a particular paper, and being asked to assess it. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that the paper is any sort of overall review. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Right. Nothing to suggest that this is a review except they say several times that "In this article, we review the literature on sexual hookups and consider the research." If this still isn't good enough for you, how about an article entitled "Sexual Hookup Culture: A Review," published by the Review of General Psychology? Would that be a good starting point? If not, could you please suggest something instead of just shooting down every proposal I make?--Illuminato (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be an expanded version of the paper you have already linked, and is clearly approaching the topic from a particular perspective. Anyway, you are missing my point. We cannot simply pick a single source and declare it 'NPOV'. Instead the article must look at multiple sources, citing them for the author's views on the topic, in order that our article "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". There are differing opinions on the topic. There is no single 'NPOV' amongst our sources, and consequently, our article must not suggest that there is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not missing the point. You asked for a review of the academic literature in order to determine if Wade's view was in the minority or majority. I provided one. We are never going to find a review of academic literature that discusses the POVs of the various journal articles. We will find some that compile and review the results of the various articles. How do you propose that we move forward on this article? Give me a concrete step that we can take to improve it. Something, preferably, that we can work on together. --Illuminato (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Like Illuminato said, he wasn't the one who wrote that. I think you may be misinterpreting the prose as an attack on Wade; it is not. If it reads like that, then I did a poor job at writing it.

• disputes the existence of hookup culture: "Laird's views seem to be driven by a hookup culture bogeyman. It might scare him at night, but it's not real. Actual research on hookup culture tells a very different story, one that makes college life look much more mundane." (my emphasis) Is this a gross misrepresentation? I don't think so. Perhaps I overstated it, but that's about the worst of the sins that I can see in this passage. Maybe she meant that Laird's views are not real, but that's not how I initially read the article, and I still think that she was referring to "hookup culture" as "it".
• defends casual sex: "It's not hooking up that makes women vulnerable, it’s patriarchy. Accordingly, studies of college students have found that, in many ways, hookups are safer than relationships." I rephrased it to de-emphasize hookups/hookup culture, which I had previously downplayed. I have no problem with rephrasing it closer to her formulation, so that it reads more like "defends hookups as a safer alternative to relationships", instead.

I think that my summary was actually quite accurate; if you dislike it, that's fine. I'm not married to it. However, it seems to me that Wade supports hookups and disputes hookup culture. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Wade is neither 'supporting' nor 'opposing' hookups. She is describing them - and making clear that they are not the norm. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my wording should have been more flat and neutral, such as: "Wade states that hookups can be safer than relationships", instead of "Wade defends". That was clearly an error on my part, and I'm somewhat embarrassed that I missed out on that when doing copy edits for NPOV. However, I still disagree that my statements are a gross misrepresentation of the source; they merely need to be worded better. Are you still arguing that Wade doesn't dispute the existence of hookup culture? She explicitly denies its existence in the conclusion ("it's not real"). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC) (edit to fix omitted word: 16:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC))

"Laird's views seem to be driven by a hookup culture bogeyman. It might scare him at night, but it's not real. Actual research on hookup culture tells a very different story, one that makes college life look much more mundane". It is the 'bogeyman' - Laird's exaggerated portrayal of rampant promiscuity and all its supposed consequences - that Wade says isn't real. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, that seems reasonable. How about: Wade says that research tells a different story than a "hookup culture bogeyman" – college life is much more mundane. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't particularly care for the use of the word "bogeyman" in an encyclopedia. --Illuminato (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a direct quotation. And what happened to all those sources in "Rise" that I added? Why did you unilaterally delete them? If you don't restore them, I'm seriously considering bringing this to an administrator's noticeboard for edit warring. You've reverted the article four times in 24 hours and have a real chance of being blocked. I am requesting that you revert back to my version from midnight and discuss your changes here on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for inadvertently excluding that paragraph. As evidenced by my inclusion of the "bogeyman" line, though I don't particularly care for that verbiage, it wasn't intentional. The draft I was working from had those lines in another section on the media's coverage of hookup culture, and that's how they got omitted. In my larger change, the one that was reverted within 3 minutes, you will see that they were included. While on the topic, I would like to propose that we do create that section on the media's coverage of the issue. The section is really about the history of hookup culture and how it came to be, and that paragraph is mostly journalists opining about their colleagues who write about it. What do you think? Also, I do apologize again. --Illuminato (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, a few thoughts. First, since we're being all polite and apologetic, I'd like to apologize for my accusations of bad faith and threats of administrator intervention; however, I still think WP:AN3 may be necessary. Your first three reverts were last night; in the morning, you did a partial revert and replaced the Rise section. A partial revert is still a revert, and it's still edit warring. If consensus is against you, you must stop trying to ram in content that you want to add; instead, you must discuss it on the talk page. Maybe you should stop working on drafts based on old versions of the page. This is one of the more contentious editing practices that has been raised on this very talk page. Stop trying to ram in your own private draft. There is no consensus for this draft to be inserted. Instead, do what you did here – suggest a change and have a discussion about it. A new section that discusses hookup culture in the media does sound promising, but I don't see what Berlatsky has to do with that. Berlatsky was discussing loneliness in hookup culture. Hess is doing the same thing; there's no commentary on media depictions. Clark-Flory also is commenting on hookup culture itself, not media depictions. In fact, the only ones that actually were doing so were Stoeffel and North. If you don't stop ramming in your personal draft, I definitely will bring this up at WP:AN3. Discuss here first. I feel like we're finally making some progress here on the page, discussing things rationally, and meeting a degree of consensus. All this bickering and reverting is raising my stress levels, and I don't want to deal with another round of it. User:AndyTheGrump has not yet commented on my "bogeyman" suggestion, so I respectfully request that you refrain from adding that to the article. You're just antagonizing him by ignoring his potential input to the matter. Give him a chance to respond before you unilaterally make controversial edits to the page. You know that he feels strongly about this topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I have tried discussing first, but my requests are ignored. See Jaytwist's suggestion above that I list any specific grievances with his cuts. I asked what the objection was to including some statistical information. That was 13 days ago, and still no response. There are multiple places on this page where I am having a discussion with the Grump, I ask him for a suggestion for how he wants to move forward, and then he just stops talking. That is especially annoying since, as I've pointed out, he has never made an edit to the article unless it was to revert something I've done. While we are on the topic, I would also like to apologize for changing the header to "Rise of hookup culture." I was unaware of the MOS prohibition. --Illuminato (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

As to the content of those particular sources, I still have a couple concerns. Berlatsky is a comic book editor who is mostly talking about his own experiences and commenting on the culture, as is Clark-Flory. Neither of them offer any kind of hard data. Stoeffel appears to be offering a meta-media analysis. Likewise, North is talking about a type of story found in the press about hookups. I don't have a problem with some of these (I'm baffled how the line about Clark-Flory's story is relevant) being included; this is an article about culture and so cultural critics should have a place. However, I don't really see any of them being relevant to the history of hookup culture. Where can we put them that would be a better fit? --Illuminato (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I would remind Illuminato that we have to apply the same stringent standards to secondary material on both sides of the argument, regardless of whether they are pro-hoookup culture or anti-hookup culture. The original article as written relied exclusively on anti-hookup culture sources, many of them of dubious standing. As editors, we cannot inject personal views into our edits of encyclopedic articles. The purpose of an encyclopedic article is to inform, not to take a moral position. Jaytwist (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

With regards to Illuminato's WP:edit warring: there is no "right" or "wrong" in edit warring, and there is never any justification for it. It is better to use WP:DR (content disputes) or WP:RFC/U/WP:ANI (user behavior) to resolve disputes. As far as the massive removal of text, that's not how I usually prefer to work, but guidelines only suggest that it be discussed and debated first. If you want it back and multiple users don't want it back, you're just going to have to admit that consensus is against you. Ramming it back in will just alienate other editors and result in a block. I've sided with you in content disputes here, and I'm willing to work with you; however, you need to follow policy.

I agree with Jaytwist. As far as the sources that I added, some are news blogs, which are controversial when used to state anything other than opinion. If you'd like to challenge them, that's OK with me; I don't like using news blogs, and I added them mostly to counter the overwhelmingly negative POV in this article. I admit that they are awkwardly placed, but I was trying to preserve as much of the original state of the article as possible. Honestly, I'm not entirely sure where some of them should go, and that's why they ended up in somewhat arbitrary locations. I was hoping that there'd be some kind of discussion on the talk page about this sort of thing, but nobody wants to talk. I was thinking of making an Introduction/Overview/Definition type intro section or converting Rise into a more general overview, but I didn't want to spark more edit wars. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC) (fix typo 22:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC))

As to the previous sources, neither of them HAVE to quote "Hard Data". Wikipedia is not Original Research. Articles reflect what secondary sources say about the original research. For example: it is generally preferable to quote a CNN article about Freitas' book than to quote Freitas herself as a primary source. EBY (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Right, they don't have to provide hard data. Opinions, as long as they are published by a reliable source are good enough. Personally, I dislike relying on opinions from bloggers, but this article desperately needs some counterpoint to the unending doom and moralizing. As I stated above a few days ago when I made the edits, I was having trouble properly integrating my additions into the article, and I wanted opinions on my work. Andy is harsh and a bit combative, but I guess I can be the same way; also, he makes good points, and I'm glad to have his input. I'm completely open to having my additions rewritten or removed – all I ask is that it be discussed beforehand. Freitas is a religion studies professor, which makes her hardly more qualified than a comic book editor, but her book is reliably published; it's a valid source. Everything is a primary source for something. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to discuss the issues with you. My goal is to improve the article. With that in mind, what do you think about the following proposal: We create a new subsection in the "wider culture" section entitled "Cultural commentary," or something along those lines. We can move the Hess, Stoeffel, Clark-Flory, and North references out of the Rise section and put them in there. The Roiphe quote from the "College" section can also go. I didn't include Berlatsky as I think we can find a better source to express that viewpoint. Additionally, I have a quotation from an academic that I think would be appropriate, so the final product would look something like the following:

Writer Amanda Hess criticizes attempts to push abstinence and says that the threat of hookup culture is overblown and exaggerated. Hess cites panic over hookup culture in the media as having contributed to overestimations of its prevalence. Journalist Kat Stoeffel ridiculed the stock characters that appear in such stories, which includes the "Meddlesome Older Journalist" who takes satisfaction in the sorrow of the young women on whom they report, and Salon's culture editor Anna North called for an end to shallow, polemical stories about hookup culture. Tracy Clark-Flory, a writer, linked criticism of hookup culture to homophobia and resistance to gay marriage.

Media and academic coverage of hookup culture has been dismissed by some by "pop culture feminists" as a "moral panic". Casual sex has always existed on college campuses, according to writer Katie Roiphe, and the current controversy over hookup culture is a merely a rehash of the same old controversies.

However, sociologist Mark Regnerus believes that "Sex is a moral act, and it is impossible to think about adolescent sexual attitudes and behavior in morally neutral terms." Multiple studies have found that "official moral neutrality about sex is a fiction: it merely disguises the moral assumptions upon which actors draw and which institutions purvey. There is no value-free perspective on sex."

I also think the "Wider culture" section, or at least part of it, should be moved up to the top and used (and possible renamed) to provide a kind of overview. That's a good idea. --Illuminato (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that a book length study on the sex lives of college students on something like a dozen campuses, written by whomever, is a much more reliable source than a personal essay on the lack of sex a single individual had during his college years. Also, if you want to offer some counterpoint, do you think you could search the academic literature to find it instead of a couple of bloggers? I don't really like using them much either, and I think we can both agree that there are better sources. --Illuminato (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have rather mixed feelings on this proposal, because it seems to gather up all the dissenting voices, banish them from main article, and put them in a very diplomatically named "controversy" section, which then authoritatively dismisses all the criticism. It shows some real willingness to compromise, but it still troubles me. If other editors are willing to go along with it, I'll support it... but I still feel a bit uncomfortable with it. The article, when layout like this, provides nothing but a single, massively POV narrative, and that's one of the things that I was trying to fix. You need to find some sources that are supportive of hookup culture, Illuminato, and stop ignoring all of the statements in your sources that disagree with your own POV. Earlier, I was able to find several supportive statements in sources that you yourself had originally added. I suggest that you review your offline sources, find some more supportive statements, and add them. Otherwise, this article is never going to improve. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've made the new section and moved the material into it. As I said, I think that its appropriate to have some of those voices in the article, and I even asked you where you thought they would best go. You said you weren't sure, and so I then made this proposal. If you have a better idea, I am open to it. --Illuminato (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Will you please stop making unilateral edits? WAIT FOR A DISCUSSION. I'm tired of dealing with this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggested Edits

My 3 major issues with this article (in no particular order), and recommendation:

1. Tone - the language, while formal, is full of jargon and a sort of academic prescience that absolutely doesn't align to the simple, business-style tone of Wikipedia. Ex. "While the term "hookup" can be ambiguous, and often intentionally so, there are several criteria that define it, to wit: it is a sexual encounter in which the participants are not in a traditional romantic relationship with each other..." The tone needs to be so much more simple and accessible. (Actually, for this precise bit, definition was given and wikilinked in the lede. This can be scrapped.)
2. Readability - the article is too complex. Too long, yes, but perhaps more egregiously just organized and focused much like an academic paper - which Wikipedia is not. The article needs simplifying in both approach and size to be more readable to the average viewer.
3. POV - this has been hammered home again and again. The article owner has a strong POV and uses this article to present it against all comers who would make it neutral. Short of topic-banning, I am not sure how to address that. But the evils of the hookup culture should not be a reasonable alternative title.

I'm willing to put some time in, but I will not engage in an edit war. So there it is. EBY (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

These are some good suggestions. I tend to be a bit formal and academic when I write - not just here but everywhere. I've also thought that the structure of the article could use some work. I was thinking about organizing it in the following way: a general overview, a section on adolescents, a section on college students, a section on adults, a section on the media, and then a miscellaneous section to encompass anything that doesn't fit somewhere above. What do you think? --Illuminato (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that this article needs to be protected or Illuminato topic banned. Multiple editors have offered to work with him, but he just doesn't listen, and he chooses to edit war, ignore consensus, or ram in his private draft without discussion. This article is quickly turning into a train-wreck of POV rants again, against consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

In fact, looking over the article history, it seems he's re-adding all of the text that User:AndyTheGrump and I reverted, section by section, with no discussion at all. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am re-adding some of the material. After the Grump reverted me, three minutes after I made a good sized edit when he didn't possible have time to evaluate the changes, I said here that I would take a different approach. If you look at the edit summaries (which I often neglect), I said that I was going to try making some changes section by section. This isn't a secret plot - I've been very open about it. I've tried my best to follow WP:Editing Policy, which I can't say that everyone else has done. When Jaytwist cut huge sections out, including some statistical information that no one has objected to, he did not follow the policy which states "With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion." He just went ahead and did yet.

Yet somehow I am being held to a different standard for adding material - some old, some new. I am doing so per WP:BRD. If you don't like some of my additions, please tell me why. Let's discuss it. How many times have I said on here that I'm willing to work with anyone willing to work with me, and asking for their suggestions and thoughts on how to move forward, only to have the conversation dry up? This is my 48th comment on this page. I don't think it is fair at all to say that I am working without discussing. --Illuminato (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC) PS - I'll note that here again is an example where I made a suggestion, building off of EBY's concern that the article wasn't structured as well as it could be, but your response was not about your thoughts on EBY's concern, my proposal, or the next step.--Illuminato (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You are not being held to a different standard. User:Jaytwist did not violate policy; the policy states that it may be best, not that he must. You were the one who violated policy by engaging in an edit war; 4 reverts in one day is enough to get you blocked, and now you're making even further partial reverts without discussion. Once your bold edits are reverted (for any reason, not just ones you consider valid), you must stop trying to add the controversial material. You must then begin a discussion on the talk page where you attempt get a consensus for the addition of the material, not just demand reasons why it shouldn't be added. If nobody agrees with you that it should be re-added, then you to leave it out of the article. You can not further be bold and wait for more reverts to happen. This is an edit war, and it is why I have not reverted all of your recent changes. Instead, I have continually insisted that you discuss these edits on the page; instead, you push forward and continue re-adding material that was removed without gaining consensus to add it. This is further evidence of edit warring. You are not allowed to try to force in all this POV material under the guise of WP:BRD after there have already been steps taken in the "bold" and "revert" stage. We are now in the "discuss" stage. Unless you recognize and acknowledge this, I see no alternative but seeking a block for edit warring or a topic ban. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, once again, let's discuss it. What about my recent changes don't you like, and how can we fix it? --Illuminato (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I've already brought up each point several times, but I'll do it again here, for the sake of convenience:

• The big problem here is that you're assuming that we have to accept your changes unless we can convince you that we have a valid argument against them. That's not how it works. Once your edits are reverted (even for subjectively wrong reasons), you should come to the talk page and attempt to convince people that your edits improve the article. If you can't get a consensus, then you need to back off and stop trying to insert that prose.
• The reason why people object to your edits is mainly because of POV issues. You're pushing a specific POV instead of neutrally presenting the subject matter. I have already suggested that you go through your sources again and try to find some neutral or positive things to add, instead of continually pushing this same POV. You're violating WP:NPOV, a core principle of Wikipedia. That's why Jaytwist deleted so much of your prose – it violates Wikipedia policy. The fact that you keep adding it back is antagonizing everyone and pissing them off. Instead of pushing an agenda and turning this article into a rant, try to add some balance to it. We've already got quite enough negative material; instead of adding even more, try fixing what's already here so that it's more neutral.
• Many of your sources have nothing to do with hookup culture. Jaytwist removed many of them... and now they're back again. Consensus was that they should be removed, but you've ignored this.
• Women try to trick men by wearing short skirts? Seriously? What does this misogynist bit of trivia have to do with hookup culture?
• The majority of the article has once again become highly negative toward hookup culture, and the little bit of dissent that I added has now become shuffled into a diplomatically named controversy section and then refuted at the end. I objected to this, yet you pushed forward with it and refused to further discuss the matter. I specifically stated that I wanted further input in the matter before action was taken, but you ignored my rather reasonable request.
• You're adding material from highly POV sources, removing sources that disagree with your POV, and, as mentioned, moving all dissent into its own section where it can be easily dismissed. Why don't you find some positive things to say about hookup culture, instead of constantly quoting a religion professor? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• The Adults section has to go. All of it. EBY (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Might I ask why? --Illuminato (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess I should have been more clear - my mistake and thus my apologies. I was looking for an objection to some specific material in my recent edits. Your comment about short skirts is what I was looking for - something concrete that we can do something about. That information came from either Scott Barry Kaufman, or Glen Geher, both psychologists and academics, and it gets to the motivations for why women hook up. It is, in their terms, a short term mating strategy, and it dovetails pretty nicely with what other academic sources say about why women hook up - they hope it will turn into a more long lasting relationship. You may think the implications are misogynistic, but that's what the data says. Do you have any other text that is bothering you? When EBY quoted some text he was uncomfortable with, I went and tried to address his concerns. I even went through to find other similar passages and edited them. I'd be happy to do the same with anything you have.

You keep calling it a "criticism" section, when all along it has always been a "commentary" section, and you yourself have offered no better recommendation. You agreed that those statements didn't really fit where they were, and even after I asked you couldn't come up with a better solution. You also said you would go along with it as long as no one else objected, and no one else has. I don't see what your complaint is here.

Additionally, what you call "negative" or POV information is what I see in all the studies I've been reading on the topic. If you can find a paper that says hookup culture makes everyone happy and is good for society or whatever, I would not object in the least to including it. Please, go ahead and add it. I'd welcome the addition. However, if your source is a college junior who says she enjoys hooking up, or a comic book editor who is complaining that he didn't get laid while he was in college, well, I don't think those should get the same play as published academic papers, and neither does WP:RS. Furthermore, there are 75 citations in this paper (there were over 100 before Jaytwist cut huge sections of it), and the religious studies professor you mention wrote a book on hookup culture. (A book, incidentally, where she says she offers her personal opinion that hookups should be an option for people.) It is obviously more in depth than a research paper or personal blog entry, and thus has more quotable material in it.

Finally, I am more interested in what you think about EBY's readability concerns as I think that is something that we can agree on and work together on, and hopefully build off of that experience. I offered a proposal for a restructuring. Do you have any thoughts on it? Want to tweak it? Have a better structure proposal? I am all ears. --Illuminato (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• This article was originally written as a research paper - it condensed but clearly represented the original sources, forwarded their arguments and posited opposing views, synthesized where there was agreement, and included mainstream criticism. And whether by design or not, the POV of "hookup culture=bad" pervaded the language choices throughout. Whether that is in the original sources or not doesn't matter because WP uses NPOV. It's non-negotiable. An article can say "so-and-so said this was a danger to modern society because..." but NOT "this can be dangerous to modern society." Unless it is FIRE or ACID, WP does not have an opinion about the dangerousness of things to society. And even then, someone is going to cite-tag the statement.
• WP articles answer the question "what is it?" in a certain way, following guidelines. To bring this article in line means tackling the issues as outlined above - a lot of hard work will be lost, yes, unfortunately. But the material, as it was written, was a poor fit for Wikipedia. The preferred approach of articles tends (post-lead) to: what it is, history of its existence, current understanding of it and its perception (mainstream), criticism and fringe theory. The RSs should lead the article in terms of content. Language, for readability, tends towards (for lack of a better analogy) Time Magazine. Length and granularity varies depending on the editors involved but shouldn't reach the level of a research paper.
• Having now read most of the readily available secondary RS on this topic (about 10 of them; NYT, CNN, ABC, Boston Globe, Time, etc.) - they seem to be about (and this is meant broadly): Freitas & Garcia source reviews, anecdotal stories, hookup culture as a lifestyle, hookup culture as a gateway/alternative to traditional relationships, promiscuity, mainstream understanding of hookup culture, and moral panic (propagating, noting, dismissing, etc.). This, then, is what the Wikipedia article (generally) should focus on because, again, WP follows the secondary RS.
• Discussions about skirt length and menstrual cycles as drivers for female promiscuity were thus inappropriate for this venue on many levels (and - notably - part of original source, not preferred secondary). That is why it was boldly cut ahead of having replacement material ready.
• On that note,Illuminato, your resistance to allow this article to be re-written into something suitable for this venue has become tendentious. I recommend a wikibreak. EBY (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• This is a reasoned comment that sheds more light than heat, an offence I am surely guilty of as well, so than you for that. However, I disagree with the large cuts you made, and here is why. I understand that the article may have been presented in too academic of a tone. However, WP:PRESERVE says that "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained... Do not remove information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage." This, I do not believe, has been done to this article. You cut, for example, "Of all 7th to 12th graders, 28% reported having a hookup." This came from a secondary source, and I can't see why that fact wouldn't be included in this article.
• Can you cite for me where it provides the "preferred approach of articles?" I'd like to read it for my own edification, if not for this current dispute. As to the length of the article, the last version before you made cuts was about 4,500 words; it is now less than 1,000. As long as the content was relevant, the WP:Length policy says the previous version was well within, and perhaps even below, acceptable size. Length is also not one of the WP:RVREASONS for content removal.
• Yes, secondary sources are preferred, but they are not the only sources that may be used. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, primary sources are also considered reliable in certain circumstances.
• Finally, I have been screaming up and down that I am more than willing, eager, even, to rewrite the article to improve it. What I object to is the wholesale cutting of huge portions of relevant, cited material, for all the reasons listed above and more.--Illuminato (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing the matter here, instead of immediately going to an edit war.

WP:PRESERVE also says that the text must adhere to WP:NPOV if it is to be preserved. This means that it must present all major viewpoints in a neutral tone without giving the reader any idea where the writer's sympathies lie. As a rule of thumb, if one can correctly deduce how you feel about a given topic just from reading your additions to a Wikipedia article, you have violated WP:NPOV. Unfortunately, the text that was removed presented only a single, biased POV, and it was an egregious offender of WP:CHERRYPICKING.

Some of the prose may be salvageable. I have not reviewed it in depth, and I can not yet suggest anything in particular. My hope is that Jaytwist, AndyTheGrump, or other involved editors will contribute to this discussion, so that we can find some kind of consensus. I suspect that the drama and ranting may have driven them off. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wanted to say that the aforementioned "drama and ranting" was referring to my own posts, not anyone else's. I just realized that my comment could be construed as a passive-aggressive insult, and that was not the intention. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Illuminato - Wikipedia has a help desk, a teahouse, a village pump, a research desk, and dozens of "how-to" & policy articles - the fact that you have appealed to policy with active wikilinks is proof that you know how to find & apply any help you need. Fresh editors may be willing to go line-by-line however I am the editor here now and have no patience for gaming the system. As to your specific request: you cherry-picked that that "statistic" (not a fact). The context of the source was completely different than how you inserted it into the article: (Page 2): Understanding these various CSREs is important, given that the different types of CSREs increase in prevalence during late adolescence and early adulthood. For example, Fortunato, Young, Boyd, and Fons (2010) found that 28% of 7th to 12th graders reported having a hookup.. You wrote: "Of all 7th to 12th graders, 28% reported having a hookup. This is more common among boys than girls. Most teenagers, about 75%..." This is synthesis. Thus, cut. EBY (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of all the places you mentioned, and I suppose I could have searched through all of them, but it was you who put forth what the "preferred" article looks like. I didn't think it was unreasonable to ask you where I can find it. I didn't want to include a laundry list of items and have you defend each one, so I picked one statement as an example. I also don't believe that it is WP:SYNTH as SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition. What new argument is being advanced by that paragraph that isn't supported by the sources? More importantly, and for the second time, why didn't you try to improve the prose rather than cut it out? --Illuminato (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

*It is a misrepresentation of the source to pull out a single statistic from another source. Cutting it WAS an improvement. EBY (talk) 06:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to thank EBY and Ninja for so clearly and eloquently expressing Wikipedia policy and working hard to pull this article from the abyss of POV-pushing and abstruseness into which it has repeatedly sunk. However, in reading over the back-and-forth on this talk page, it appears clear to me that Illuminato is not trying to engage in productive discussion, but simply using verbiage and obfuscation to continually push a POV with which we are all now so familiar. If this continues, I feel strongly that a topic ban is in order. Do any of you feel differently at this point? Jaytwist (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• The editor hasn't made any active edits on the article in the last few days so my recommendation would be to wait to request the ban until/if the behavior re-asserts. EBY (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with EBY. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Characteristics

With all of the cutting and condensing that went on, statements and facts got pushed together where they don't really belong, creating some WP:SYNTH issues. For example, in the Characteristics section, the first paragraph has some statements that talk about college students, and others that talk about younger adolescents. Reading it, however, you would think that it was only college students who were being discussed.

With that in mind, I would like to propose that we divide it into two sections. After all, in just about any developmental or social category, the lives of a 14 year old high school freshman and the lives of a 21 year old college senior are going to look very different. I have some proposed new text below. I would also keep the existing two subsections, though I didn't see a need to include them here. This new text includes data that is currently in the article, prose that was cut, as well as some new sources. Aside from the two introductory sentences, however, it is all statistical and I don't think anyone should have a POV issue with it.

==Characteristics==

Most research on hookups has been focused on American college students, but hookups are not limited to college campuses. Adolescents, emerging adults, men and women engage in hookups for a variety of reasons, which may range from instant physical gratification, to fulfillment of emotional needs, to using it as a means of finding a long-term romantic partner.

===Adolescents===

Some North American surveys have shown that upwards of 60% or 70% of sexually active teens reported having had uncommitted sex within the last year. This is more common among boys than girls. Among sexually experienced adolescents, 28% of boys and 16% of girls will lose their virginity to either someone they have just met, or to a friend who is not a dating partner.

Boys are more likely than girls have several hookup partners at the same time, and are also more likely to hookup with someone they are not dating. For both genders, hookups are more likely to be with an ex-boyfriend, an girlfriend or a friend than with an acquaintance. The majority of teens (68%) who hook up with a friend or an ex will hookup with them again.

About half of all hookups among adolescents were a one time affair, and this is the same for both boys and girls. Only 6% of teens have had sex with someone they just met, and these encounters are a one time affair 75% of the time.

Over all, 25% of those who had sexual experience with a dating partner have also hooked up with someone they were not dating. Additionally, 40% of those who had hooked up with someone they were not dating had also hooked up with a dating partner in the previous 12 months.

Mainline Protestants are the least likely to report having three or more sexual partners, while Black Protestants are the most likely. Teens who attend church infrequently or not at all are six times more likely to have 3 or more partners than those who do attend.

===College===

According to one study the vast majority, more than 90%, of American college students say their campus is characterized by a hookup culture, and students believe that about 85% of their classmates have hooked up. Studies show that most students (most recent data suggest between 60% and 80%) do have some sort of casual sex experience. Of those students who have hooked up, between 30% and 50% report that their hookups included sexual intercourse.

However, most students overestimate the amount of hookups in which their peers engage. Only 20% of students regularly hookup. Roughly one half will occasionally hookup, and one-third of students do not hook up at all. The median number of hookups for a graduating senior on a college campus is seven, and the typical college student acquires two new sexual partners during their college career. Half of all hookups are repeats, and 25% of students will graduate from college a virgin.

One study has found that the strongest predictor of hookup behavior was previous experience hooking up. Those who have engaged in hookups that involve penetrative sex are 600% more likely to hookup again during the same semester.

Subculture can affect gender roles and sexuality, and youth subcultures are particularly susceptible to peer pressure. Self esteem is also an indicator: men with high self-esteem and women with low self esteem are more likely to have multiple sexual partners, but hookups are less likely among both genders when they have high self-esteem. Most predictors among males and females rarely differ.

One third of gay and bisexual college men have met an anonymous sexual partner in a public place such as a park, bookstore, or restroom. Other venues such as public cruising areas, Internet cruising networks, and bathhouses are popular for gay men, but not for lesbians or heterosexual couples.

At colleges, hookups are common between students at parties, in dormitories and fraternity houses, at surrounding bars and clubs, and at popular student vacation destinations. For example, a study of Canadian college students who planned to hookup while on spring break showed that 61% of men and 34% of women had sex within a day of meeting their partner.

What do you all think? --Illuminato (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You're getting better at following Wikipedia guidelines, but I think it still needs some work.

Some North American surveys have shown that upwards of 60% or 70% of sexually active teens reported having had uncommitted sex within the last year. This is more common among boys than girls. Among sexually experienced adolescents, 28% of boys and 16% of girls will lose their virginity to either someone they have just met, or to a friend who is not a dating partner.

This sounds like it's giving evidence that we live in a hookup culture. That's not encyclopedic, and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not be used to propose arguments, even if they're correct. Can you rewrite this so that it doesn't read like it's advancing a POV or trying to convince me of something?

Boys are more likely than girls have several hookup partners at the same time, and are also more likely to hookup with someone they are not dating. For both genders, hookups are more likely to be with a previous romantic partner or a friend than with an acquaintance, and the majority of teens (68%) who hook up with a friend or an ex will hookup with them again. For both genders, about half of all hookups among adolescents were a one time affair. Only 6% of teens have had sex with someone they just met, and these encounters are a one time affair 75% of the time. Over all, 25% of those who had sexual experience with a dating partner have also hooked up with someone they were not dating. Additionally, 40% of those who had hooked up with someone they were not dating had also hooked up with a dating partner in the previous 12 months.

I combined all the choppy paragraphs and copy edited it. The big problem is that it doesn't really add anything of value to the article. It's statistical trivia about adolescent sexuality.

Mainline Protestants are the least likely to report having three or more sexual partners, while Black Protestants are the most likely. Teens who attend church infrequently or not at all are six times more likely to have 3 or more partners than those who do attend.

This strikes me as more trivia. It doesn't really expand my knowledge of hookup culture. If the article on The Godfather said that 55% of fans cited Marlon Brando as their favorite actor, 23% of fans were Italian-American, and 89% of the people who liked the film also liked Godfather 2, I'd say, "Well, that's interesting, but it doesn't tell me anything about the film." That's the same problem I have with all these statistics about hookup culture. Telling me that Protestants have fewer hookups than their peers doesn't actually tell me anything useful about how society perceives hookup culture, who coined the term, or why it's become such a big talking point in the media recently.

I only skimmed over the rest. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

As to the first paragraph, I've tried, I've thought about it, and I just can't come up with a formulation that I think is any better than what is there. I think the problem is that I don't see it as advancing an argument at all. It is some basic, statistical information. If you are making an inference, I think that is on you. That said, if you can come up with some better verbiage, I'd be very glad to read it. As to your second proposed paragraph, I think it works better separately. The first section is about hooking up with an ex, the second is about hooking up with a stranger, and the third is about hooking up with a dating partner. However, I don't feel so strongly about it as to want to make it an issue.

For the third paragraph, I would agree with you that those statistics wouldn't make much sense in an article about The Godfather. However, much of that would be appropriate in an article about Fans of The Godfather. Likewise, this is not an article about hookups. This is an article about hookup culture. A parallel example might be about drugs and drug culture. An article on the former would talk about the intoxicating substances themselves, and on the latter would likely talk about just how big this subculture is. You could also pick deafness vs deaf culture, emo music vs the culture surrounding it, etc. If you read an article on deaf culture, without knowing that only 5% of the population was deaf, you would come away with a very different perspective than if you thought deafness was widespread. Along those lines, we see that 90% of college students say their campus has a hookup culture, but only 20% of students regularly hookup. There is a big mismatch between perception and reality. Including these kind of numbers is an important part of explaining and describing hookup culture.--Illuminato (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

With regard to statistics, they are always valuable (and important to have in some cases)...such as with regard to medical articles (for example, Autism and Cancer) or more so social articles (for example, Teenage pregnancy, which is also significantly medical), and so on. It's just that it's often that it should be placed in a Prevalence section (what is the Epidemiology section in medical articles). Flyer22 (talk) 10:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

And Wikipedia does present arguments, such as various arguments regarding the Big Bang, but it has to be done right. Flyer22 (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of the phrases could really use some work:

• "For both genders, hookups are more likely to be with an ex-boyfriend". Should this be "with a former romantic partner", or "with a former boyfriend or girlfriend"? Because the way it reads now, both genders seem to be returning to old boyfriends.
• "Mainline Protestants" vs. "Black Protestants". What exactly is defined as "Mainline" here? Because our article on the Mainline applies the term to certain groups of Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians (Anglicans), Baptists, Congregationalists, and Quakers. Without dividing them into ethnic groups. Is this article instead using "Mainline" as a synonym to White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, or are there perceived ideological differences excluding "blacks" from the wider grouping? Dimadick (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

More POV articles from same author

I don't know where else to start this discussion, so I'm going to start it here. The same author created a number of hopelessly-POV articles related to young people and sexuality. Effectively all of the text expressed a negative POV with regards to sexual behavior and it was heavily reliant (in some cases, basically completely reliant) on the questionable work of Mark Regnerus, whose studies involving same-sex parents have been entirely discredited.

• Psychological effects of adolescent sex
• Religion and adolescent sexuality
• Sexual behavior of American adolescents (a clear POV fork of Adolescent sexuality in the United States)
• Pornography and adolescents

I stubbed all of those articles, except I redirected the "sexual behavior" article to its parent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd seen those POV messes because, as noted in the #Edits discussion above, the Adolescent sexuality in the United States article is on my WP:Watchlist. I was considering posting here about them, or alerting Maunus (the editor who first expressed problems with the Hookup culture article) to them, but I was busy with other matters (on and off Wikipedia) and also didn't fully feel like addressing Illuminato's problematic editing again. However, minutes ago, I alerted NorthBySouthBaranof to problems expressed with Illuminato's editing in general. Flyer22 (talk) 10:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I can't see this ending in anything but a topic ban for Illuminato unless he makes a dramatic change in his entire approach. He needs to understand that Wikipedia isn't a platform for moralising, or for 'righting great wrongs'. And incidentally, he needs to grasp the simple fact that there is a world beyond the borders of the United States. Once again, he is taking material from US sources and generalising (or at least appearing to, from the article title), leading to nonsense statements like this "Religious adolescents lose their virginity 3 years later than the average American"... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I would endorse a topic ban. In his last message to me here, he dismissed my concerns about his POV prose and claimed the problem was mine. I don't think he sees any problems at all with his edits, even after all this discussion. I suggest contacting User:EBY3221 and User:Jaytwist if anyone takes further action on this matter. They may have further input. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't just create those article out of thin air for the purpose of creating more POV articles. I created them to wp:split them off from Adolescent sexuality in the United States, an article that was WAY WP:TOOBIG. The article, before I created spin offs, was over 180k. It is now at 124K. Obviously there is a long way to go with this article, but it is a start. You will notice that for each one of the new articles created, the section on the parent article was dramatically reduced, summarized, and a link to the daughter article was provided. This wasn't an attempt to right great wrongs, or to push an agenda, or anything else. It was simply an effort to bring the parent article in line with wp:Article size. --Illuminato (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for proving one point at least - that you are apparently incapable of recognising that there is a world outside the United States. It is grossly inappropriate to fork an article based on a single country into a general topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is that? Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. There's no reason someone couldn't have come in and added information from studies on Japanese youth, or Egyptians, or wherever. You could even do so, but your MO is generally to poke holes, make accusations, and tear people down, not to add anything constructive to the article, even when explicitly asked for suggestions. --Illuminato (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Progress implies improvement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Improvement requires editors to work together on the article, not attacking each other on talk pages. --Illuminato (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding POV-pushing, to take a random example look at Illuminato's version of Religion and adolescent sexuality. The section on 'Religious influence' tells us that "if teens do not internalize their religious belief system, if they don't believe their actions will have an impact on their relationship with God, then church attendance alone probably won't prevent him from becoming stealing, doing drugs, having sex, or other actions prohibited by his church". [5] It is untenable for an encyclopaedia intended for a general audience to assert that anyone can have a "relationship with God". Wikipedia does not assert in its own voice that a god (or gods) exist. Ever. Save that for the pulpit, Illuminato. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair, valid, and good point, but I have three replies. First, you are commenting on another article's talk page. I think that discussion is best held elsewhere. Secondly, I don't have any sort of a pulpit, nor would it be appropriate for me to preach from one, nor would I imagine any church would allow someone to doesn't believe in God to use theirs. Finally, this is one more example of you attacking an editor, instead of using the time and effort required to improve the article. --Illuminato (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you'd prefer that we didn't discuss your inability to contribute in a neutral manner here - or anywhere else for that matter. That is however the topic of this thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

What I would prefer is that you make a constructive edit once in a while instead of just bashing others on the talk pages. --Illuminato (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Illuminato, in the #Edits discussion section above, I stated that I feel that with one of the recent huge expansions you made to the Adolescent sexuality in the United States article, you were hoping to expand that article so much so that it is an article that needs to be split into spinout articles. I feel this way because, before you'd made that big edit, you pondered on that talk page whether or not to create WP:Spinouts of that article. An editor essentially told you "not yet." So then you, what's clear to me, you attempted to force the creation of spinouts by not only adding that huge edit, but by adding more huge edits. From what I see, you intentionally expanded the Adolescent sexuality in the United States article just so it could be split in those articles listed above in this section, and nothing can convince me otherwise. Like I stated in the #Edits discussion section above, "You need to significantly exercise moderation in your editing. It is not Wikipedia's job to cover every single detail of a topic in as much detail as possible. Wikipedia articles are summaries of the in-depth material that can be read elsewhere...or at least that's what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be." Flyer22 (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I did add a large portion to the article. As read up on the topic and find material that is germane, I add it. However, before the recent additions, when I suggested that the article be split, it was at 140k. The Wikipedia:SIZERULE which says that an article over 100k "almost certainly should be divided." That article has been over 100k since 2008. Adding more information was not my way of trying to "force the issue." --Illuminato (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC) PS - You will notice that on that page I took it to talk first, made a suggestion, and only one other editor responded. He wasn't in favor "just yet," but also said that "And no, I don't have any ideas" on how to improve the article without splitting it. I took it to talk, there was almost no objection to it, and then went ahead several weeks later. Now I am being vilified for it? --Illuminato (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I already stated that nothing can convince me otherwise as to why you expanded that article so much after suggesting the article be split into spinoffs. And we have plenty of Wikipedia articles that are bigger than the Adolescent sexuality in the United States article, such as articles about religions or presidents, and yet it's often decided at such articles that they should not be split into multiple articles or (as is often) not into further spinoffs. As much as possible, like WP:Content fork states, Wikipedia should strive to keep the material in one article instead of causing readers to go to multiple articles. Further, you should realize that references add to kilobyte size as well, and that, per WP:SIZE, the readable prose (meaning not the references, etc.) is all that should be counted as adding to kilobyte size when considering whether or not a Wikipedia article is too big. Unnecessary and/or redundant subsections (meaning ones that are not needed because they repeat a topic, are small, or are relatively small, and can be merged with one or more existing sections) can also make an article look much bigger than it is. You often create such subsections, but the small ones (especially very small ones) are generally against MOS:PARAGRAPHS. And the only reason that the Adolescent sexuality in the United States article is the size that it's currently set at is because you do not significantly exercise moderation in your editing, and want to cover every single detail of a topic in as much detail as possible; that is not how Wikipedia articles should be, and is also partly why WP:Due weight exists. As for vilification, your failure to understand or adequately understand the problem that several editors thus far have with your editing is mind-boggling and exhausting. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: With the exception of the Sexual behavior of American adolescents article (which, as noted, is a POV fork of the Adolescent sexuality in the United States article), Dimadick restored the content of Illuminato's new spinoff articles, claiming that removing all that content amounts to vandalism. As for this...well, all Wikipedia articles (or almost all Wikipedia articles) that have significant sexual content are tagged as being within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. Pornography concerns human sexuality, and is definitely a topic of study among sexologists. Flyer22 (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

While Illuminato has obviously failed to provide global perspectives to the relevant articles, he/she does have a point about these being rather notable topics that could not fit to any single parent article. And the best way to deal with certain biased sources, overly moralistic or religious in perspective, is to counter them or replace them with better ones. There is no research or literature out there that treats the subject in a more neutral or positive way? Dimadick (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Honestly it is Illuminato's responsibility to find and include sources with neutral viewpoints and not just the sources that favor his/her own view. It is not reasonable to knowingly write slews of clearly biased articles and then when alerted be unwilling or unable to do the work needed to make them conform to policy. There are cases of editors who have been topicbanned for this kind of systematic POV editing. If Illuminato is not able to write from a neutral perspective then his/her work is not helpful to the encydlopedia. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I have re-blanked the articles. They are unacceptable as-is. End of story. Wikipedia *cannot* regurgitate a single study and a single person's research as fact, which every one of those articles does. They must be rewritten from scratch in a balanced, neutral manner. WP:NPOV is not negotiable and none of the content currently meets that policy's standard. A more appropriate title for the current content would be "Mark Regnerus' views of pornography and adolescents", "Mark Regnerus' views of religion and adolescent sexuality," etc. Of course, those would be obviously POV forks and unacceptable. So they are.

If the user in question wants to take them back to userspace and begin working on a new draft that complies with policy, that would be fine by me. But having that content live as a Wikipedia article is completely out of order at this point and I reject your claim that we have to just live with a terrible, hopelessly-POV article until someone else completely rewrites and improves it. That's not the way Wikipedia policy works. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that blanking the articles is the correct course of action; it could be construed as vandalism. I would suggest a more formal solution, such as deletion. As POV forks, they shouldn't have been made in the first place. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not vandalism to remove material that doesn't conform to policy with a reason given on the talk page or in an editsummary, as long as a stub remains it shouldn't be a problem. But yes, deletion would be another way to handle it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course. However, someone not familiar with the disputes (recent changes patrollers, for example) may mistake the blanking for vandalism. I fail to see how an NPOV article could even be written for "Psychological effects", and I'll nominate that one myself. By the way, we should probably be discussing this on a relevant WikiProject (such as WP:SEX) or an administrative noticeboard. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)