Talk:Adolescence

Template:Vital article

Lede sentence is patently absurd, on its face

"...physical and psychological changes that generally occur from[...]until legal adulthood." (emphasis mine). Law has no effect on anyone's physiology or psychology; if adolescence is defined by material reality, then an arbitrary point in time defined by a state cannot be part of the definition. Further, the age of legal adulthood varies from place to place: it is 18 in some places, 21 in others, and a few other variations also exist. Do people in 18-majority countries magically attain physicsl and psychological maturity three years earlier than their counterparts in 21-majority countries? Clearly not! Suggestion (for now): change "legal adulthood" to "late teens or early 20s". This describes nearly the exact same thing, but does not arftificially tie the definition of a physical andpsychological state of development to a legal definition. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:99BE:44C4:D550:2282 (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

A lot of sources agree with you on this

, here's three. Adolescence ending in the 20's a common definition in the field. Changing "legal age" to "late teens or early 20s" makes more sense and isn't going to throw off the article much if at all.

MemeTrooper (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)MemeTrooper (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

There's a marked out author's note in the lead about this. It says the issue had two discussions. I saw it when I added updated resources to the lead sentence last month.[1] I agree with previous consensus. "Ends in early 20s" isn't most typical. Most of the resources I saw said "legal adulthood" or "adulthood." Legal adulthood is what's most typically declared as adulthood, and the "18-majority countries" are the big majority for defining adulthood. I find that acknowledgement of "into the 20s" is made in the article because the lead also says, "Adolescence is usually associated with the teenage years, but its physical, psychological or cultural expressions may begin earlier and end later. Puberty now typically begins during preadolescence, particularly in females. Physical growth (particularly in males) and cognitive development can extend into the early twenties. Thus, age provides only a rough marker of adolescence, and scholars have found it difficult to agree upon a precise definition of adolescence." GBFEE (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I also challenge "isn't going to throw off the article much if at all." The article isn't about 20-somethings. 20-somethings are very superficially related to the topic. If you want to talk about 20-somethings, there's emerging adulthood and early adulthood. You also have to remember that adolescence itself is a social construct. So when it ends is going to be socially constructed and only a rough marker. GBFEE (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

MemeTrooper, thank you for providing academic citations for consideration. I saw your retracted reply.[2] Your first resource says, "Historically, this typically spans from 12 to 18 years of age, which roughly corresponds to the time from pubertal onset (i.e., specific hormonal changes) to guardian independence (i.e., the legal definition of 'adulthood' in many countries)." So it has awareness as to the legal definition of adulthood and says "roughly corresponds to." It says "recent work has expanded the definition and timeframe of adolescence to include young adulthood, often up to about 25 years of age." But a question we must ask is whether adolescence is now typically defined as including people in their early 20s, with 25 being the usual oldest age. To say adolescence includes early adulthood changes its standard conceptualization, or how it's typically understood by the general populace, which is adolescence preceding adulthood. In an old discussion, an editor who's a Professor of Psychology, said, "You're talking early adulthood when you're talking 25-30 years olds - most people in the world have taken on all adult roles at that point." GBFEE (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The Lancet resource says, "Rather than age 10–19 years, a definition of 10–24 years corresponds more closely to adolescent growth and popular understandings of this life phase and would facilitate extended investments across a broader range of settings." But it's speaking of a hypothetical when it says "would facilitate", and it says this because its more inclusive definition isn't the traditional one.

I think it's a good idea to review many recent resources on defining adolescence to see if the traditional view is no longer the most prevalent one. That's not what I saw when I skimmed the scholarship last month, but I could be wrong. However, the practice of avoiding an age range for the lead sentence because the age range is different in different resources is a strong practice I agree with. Perhaps one thing we should do is remove "legal" from "adulthood" and let the parenthetical "age of majority" be all that's required to indicate "legal adulthood." Or remove "legal" from "adulthood" and change the parenthetical "age of majority" to "typically the age of majority." GBFEE (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for responding. I retracted the reply because I accidentally sent it before I was finished. This is what I had upon further writing "Of course article isn't about 20 somethings alone. It is about adolescence in general. Are we going by recent sources in developmental and social science? I'll assume so, since they would most likely have the latest ideas in developmental science. Correct me if I am wrong about this. Most of the sources I saw said it either ends at 19 or 21, some even up to 24. Are we mainly going by legal definition, what most people say in everyday language, by what researchers in the field are saying? If it's mainly the latter, many do say it ends at 18, but just as many, if not more, say it goes past that. Adolescence being socially constructed and only having a rough marker defends the point of saying "late teens to early 20s."A legal definition of adulthood doesn't change development, like what the person above us said, and most researchers recognize that, as development goes past what the legal definition is. If we are going to call adolescence a developmental stage, shouldn't we be going by the development said stage is based around? Cognitive development is one of the main one's. Most reseachers agree that the main development that occurs during adolescence go past 18.

If we are mainly going by social definitions as well, researchers agree that the traditional milestones that marked adolescence or the end of adolescence are happening later. The traditional milestones that most people agree to be a marker of adulthood are also happening later (this was basically already addressed in one of the quotes, but i can add a source if needed) Because adolescence is a social construct as you said, the definition is not going to stay the same, rather it'll update with time. Adolescence being socially constructed and only having a rough marker defends the point of saying "late teens to early 20s." Since it still includes the ages that are most often noted to be the end. Adolescence is a social construct, but it still needs to be defined as accurately as possible. "Ending at legal adulthood" doesn't seem to be the most accurate, as most researchers say it goes past that. I do agree that the "early 20s" is acknowledged on that quote you sent. Though, it would also further support the point "late teens to early 20s" if it were to added, and would show people what is meant by "late teens to early 20s" But, I also believe that the statement "generally occurs during the period from puberty to legal adulthood" is no longer an accurate statement in today's understanding of developmental and social science. Rather, the statement "Generally occurs during the period from puberty to the late teens or early 20s" would make more sense if we are trying to incorporate the range developmental researchs consider to be the most probable.If we are trying to make the article as accurate as possible, that ultimately needs to be updated"

Mostly the same but just with some added detail.

I do believe that we should go off the latest developmental science rather than legal definition. But, adding onto your options that you mentioned in at the end of your reply, perhaps it could also just say "to adulthood" since that would include both legal definitions and definitions many developmental and social scientists say, since the definitions often conflict with eachother, making there no concrete definition. If not that, then changing it to "typically the age of majority" would make the most sense until further notice. MemeTrooper (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)MemeTrooper (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

This is what I did: "Legal adulthood" is removed. "Age of majority" is now "typically corresponding to the age of majority". After "development can extend into the early 20s", the article says, "Age provides only a rough marker of adolescence, and scholars have not agreed upon a precise definition. Although it traditionally includes ages 10 to 19, an expansive definition incorporates ages 10 to 24 to account for a more comprehensive understanding of this phase of life." I also changed the author's note to be succinct, less abrasive, and reflect recent discussion.[3]

When major health organizations such as the World Health Organization still describe adolescence "as a period in human growth and development that occurs nominally between the ages of 10 and 19",[4] as said in the Systematic Reviews citation,[5] and many medical resources mean that group when they study and talk about adolescents, it would be too forward of us and a bit misleading to only include the 10 and 24 age range. The first resource you listed, an editorial,[6] also offers criticism for the expanded age range definition: "While this encompasses some of the neural changes that occur beyond 18 years of age, it creates challenges in the clinical approaches to adolescents and the policies that guide them. It also exacerbates the challenges of both studying and treating young people throughout this time, as the brains, behavioural profiles and social demands and roles of a typically developing 12-year-old and those of a 24-year-old are strikingly different." GBFEE (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

There should also be something about definition difficulties in the body. GBFEE (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I think I agree with what you put here and the changes. Along with the body needing to mention definition difficulties. MemeTrooper (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)MemeTrooper (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'll labor on that, and put more work into other parts of the lead. GBFEE (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd change "Although it traditionally includes ages 10 to 19, an expansive definition incorporates ages 10 to 24 to account for a more comprehensive understanding of this phase of life" to "Traditionally, it includes ages 10 to 19, but an expansive definition includes ages 10 to 24 to account for more comprehensive understanding of this phase of life," so that it flows better with the previous sentence

Edit: Edited it. I like the changes you put. Pretty good. MemeTrooper (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I was going to consult you about adding back the "a" because I wondered what's best grammatically. Then, I forgot "more" was still there when I was going to add back the "a" and consult you about it. You added did it back, though.[7] The reason I think "a more", or some version of "more", is needed is because the research on the 10 to 19 age group can also be said to be comprehensive. Without the "a more", it's like we're saying it's not and the research only became comprehensive by expanding the age range. GBFEE (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks like a few other things need to be updated in the article as well. Mainly outdated statistics that have changed considerably since the source was made. MemeTrooper (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education assignment: LLIB 1115 - Intro to Information Research

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hronnie223 (article contribs).

File:Yelena y yo.jpg

File:Teens sharing a song.jpg was traded for File:Yelena y yo.jpg. I did a rvt on it.[8] The editor didn't give a good reason for the swap. All they said was, "replace image with less eurocentric picture." The image isn't even good quality. GBFEE (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The status quo image looks fake to me, and I agree that wanting diversity is a valid reason to change it. The background could blurred to improve the image. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Wanting less european people on the pic isn't an argument in itself. The proposed image has the teenagers looking directly at the camera, which is less encyclopedic than a photo with people taken "on the spot".--Aréat (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Aréat. It's great to see you. I don't care if an extra pic is added to the lead for diversity. But I think it should be a good one. I looked in the archives and at older versions of the article, and there was actually two lead images before. The lead was more diversified in the past.

Kolya Butternut, after what you pulled on my talk in August 2021 and even after that, how do you think it's okay to approach me like this? You've been on a harassment campaign against me and it doesn't ever seem to stop with you and those you're aligned with. I was informed of everything about your editing history and how you got into arguments with that editor about diversifying images. And now you're here, at a talk you've never participated at, following days of not editing anything. You only made one edit to this article.[9] But you're here out of the blue. It doesn't seem you care about the harassment policy. So I should email an authority about this because I feel harassed by you. GBFEE (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Editors interact with editors they've taken to WP:SPI all the time. Please comment on content, not the contributor. If you have concerns about me personally please discuss those on my talk page. I would like to get back to discussing representation in lead images, one of my most edited areas. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, but you didn't take me to SPI. Well, you tried to, but then the authorities shut it down. You accused me and started a storm. And your rich history with that editor has continued to get you in trouble because you just can't help yourself. Look at your contribs. It seems you're ever only motivated to edit now if the discussion is about that editor or involves one of the people you keep saying is that editor. I have no wish to give you any more attention, and so I have no wish to visit your talk. I've been advised what to do if you get out of hand.

Aréat, do you think we should use a more diverse image? One of the previous ones maybe? Should we do the two-lead-images approach? GBFEE (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)