This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Youth rights article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Katchyaa.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I removed the "not verified" tag as per new citations. In the future, please notate concerns individually with | citation needed| or other appropriate tag. From here out, please do not add new content to the article without appropriate citations. - Freechild 20:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Are youth rights and youth liberation the same thing, as this article suggests? Or are they inherently different movements that aim for two unique ends? It seems to me that the Youth Rights Movement is about concessions, while the youth liberation movement - if there is one - is more anarchistic, calling for a specifically radical departure from the current condition of youth towards a fully-engendered personhood. Perhaps "youth liberation" doesn't deserve a seperate article, but at least its own section in the youth rights article might be called for. - Freechild 19:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Wait a minute, as long as a group can't vote on anything, how do they get things their way? How did women get suffrage? Men voted that in, right?
The role of youth in the development of the country
Hey gais! I added NAMBLA and the Girl Love wiki to the list of websites advocating 'youth rights' because most of the article seems to suggest that organisations trying to prevent and mitigate the effects of abuse are in fact walking all over the rights of children.
Also, none of the legitimateorganisations you listed - and Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions is not legitimate, it's full of pedophiles, and the website is ultimately and totally hacked - call for a reduction in the age of consent. Prove it's full of pedophiles? Okay. They want to abolish the age of consent - ie. they want to repeal the law which lets adults have sex with children. Good enough?
Oh, and if you disagree with me, you're a child molester. Win. poochie 11:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Freechild is a contributing editor to this page. Therefore mentions of the Freechild Project (which I presume was removed because he created and edited it, rendering the concept of NPOV complete moot and leaving Wikipedia looking completely ridiculous in this respect) should be removed until an independent editor is available to validate the claims made of the Freechild Project within the youth rights movement.
And yes, I am a troll, but I also know what a proxy is and a sock puppet is. Best you leave me to it, eh?
My main gripe is that articles such as this are written by adults attempting to support their own agenda, whatever that may be. And yes, you can potentially include the P word in there too, as by their own definition and the definition of many of the youth rights organisations mentioned explicitly the idea of the abolishment of the age of consent, which is there for protection of young people, not restriction.
Deleting the talk section would not only get rid of my offensive comments, which I stand by, but it would also remove the highlighting of the idea that this category as a whole is potentially NPOV because it is run and maintained by those intricately involved with those organisations, which have an open agenda.
Of course, I have one too. But at least I don't try and cover mine up. poochie ( talk) 22:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
There appears to be no mention of the controversy surrounding censorship aimed at protecting minors. There have been several arguments disputing using the "harmful to children" standard to restrict access to minors of supposedly objectionable material when there is no serious evidence of any benefit of such censorship. For example, take these books by Marjorie Heins, Judith Levine, and Nicola Beisel. This is a broad topic, including such things as the V-chip, internet censorship, abstinence-only vs. comprehensive sex education, ESRB and MPAA ratings, and censorship of children's literature. Perhaps this requires its own article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.75.176 ( talk) 02:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
(1) the phrase 'young people' linked to an entry on 'adolescence', yet important youth rights advocates (sociologist mike males, for instance) consider 'adolescence' an unscientific and inherently biased term.
(2) the word 'perceived' in the original opening is loaded. would we say of 'women's rights', they're a response to a 'perceived oppression'? no.
still, i'm not satisifed with the uncritical use of the word 'oppression' (as a brute fact) either. perhaps 'subordination' or 'restriction of freedom' would work better - terms that even opponents of youth rights would use to describe the position of young people.
alternative suggestions welcomed.
Calling people in their teens (who are old enough to be in the military and go to adult prison, and work and pay taxes) "children" is insulting and I respectfully ask for you people to please stop. Americans . . . Why must I live here? Sbrianhicks ( talk) 21:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Youth rights article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Katchyaa.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I removed the "not verified" tag as per new citations. In the future, please notate concerns individually with | citation needed| or other appropriate tag. From here out, please do not add new content to the article without appropriate citations. - Freechild 20:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Are youth rights and youth liberation the same thing, as this article suggests? Or are they inherently different movements that aim for two unique ends? It seems to me that the Youth Rights Movement is about concessions, while the youth liberation movement - if there is one - is more anarchistic, calling for a specifically radical departure from the current condition of youth towards a fully-engendered personhood. Perhaps "youth liberation" doesn't deserve a seperate article, but at least its own section in the youth rights article might be called for. - Freechild 19:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Wait a minute, as long as a group can't vote on anything, how do they get things their way? How did women get suffrage? Men voted that in, right?
The role of youth in the development of the country
Hey gais! I added NAMBLA and the Girl Love wiki to the list of websites advocating 'youth rights' because most of the article seems to suggest that organisations trying to prevent and mitigate the effects of abuse are in fact walking all over the rights of children.
Also, none of the legitimateorganisations you listed - and Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions is not legitimate, it's full of pedophiles, and the website is ultimately and totally hacked - call for a reduction in the age of consent. Prove it's full of pedophiles? Okay. They want to abolish the age of consent - ie. they want to repeal the law which lets adults have sex with children. Good enough?
Oh, and if you disagree with me, you're a child molester. Win. poochie 11:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Freechild is a contributing editor to this page. Therefore mentions of the Freechild Project (which I presume was removed because he created and edited it, rendering the concept of NPOV complete moot and leaving Wikipedia looking completely ridiculous in this respect) should be removed until an independent editor is available to validate the claims made of the Freechild Project within the youth rights movement.
And yes, I am a troll, but I also know what a proxy is and a sock puppet is. Best you leave me to it, eh?
My main gripe is that articles such as this are written by adults attempting to support their own agenda, whatever that may be. And yes, you can potentially include the P word in there too, as by their own definition and the definition of many of the youth rights organisations mentioned explicitly the idea of the abolishment of the age of consent, which is there for protection of young people, not restriction.
Deleting the talk section would not only get rid of my offensive comments, which I stand by, but it would also remove the highlighting of the idea that this category as a whole is potentially NPOV because it is run and maintained by those intricately involved with those organisations, which have an open agenda.
Of course, I have one too. But at least I don't try and cover mine up. poochie ( talk) 22:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
There appears to be no mention of the controversy surrounding censorship aimed at protecting minors. There have been several arguments disputing using the "harmful to children" standard to restrict access to minors of supposedly objectionable material when there is no serious evidence of any benefit of such censorship. For example, take these books by Marjorie Heins, Judith Levine, and Nicola Beisel. This is a broad topic, including such things as the V-chip, internet censorship, abstinence-only vs. comprehensive sex education, ESRB and MPAA ratings, and censorship of children's literature. Perhaps this requires its own article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.75.176 ( talk) 02:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
(1) the phrase 'young people' linked to an entry on 'adolescence', yet important youth rights advocates (sociologist mike males, for instance) consider 'adolescence' an unscientific and inherently biased term.
(2) the word 'perceived' in the original opening is loaded. would we say of 'women's rights', they're a response to a 'perceived oppression'? no.
still, i'm not satisifed with the uncritical use of the word 'oppression' (as a brute fact) either. perhaps 'subordination' or 'restriction of freedom' would work better - terms that even opponents of youth rights would use to describe the position of young people.
alternative suggestions welcomed.
Calling people in their teens (who are old enough to be in the military and go to adult prison, and work and pay taxes) "children" is insulting and I respectfully ask for you people to please stop. Americans . . . Why must I live here? Sbrianhicks ( talk) 21:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)