Talk:Youth rights

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

Citations

I removed the "not verified" tag as per new citations. In the future, please notate concerns individually with |‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› | 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)

Rights and liberation

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)

I generally see it as a difference of tactics, if anything. Though it seems to me that those with a bit of a leftist bent (or those who started a movement in the 70's) are more likely to call it 'youth liberation' and those seeking to appeal more to the main steam (or non-leftist radicals in any event) are more likely to call it 'youth rights'. A youth lib section within youth rights might be a good idea. KPalicz (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

But where did you get that notion? I've always envisioned "youth rights" to be an aspect of youth liberation as a whole. I never considered the terms synonymous. Agnapostate (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to view each as autonomous, with their own ends and means to accomplish different goals. But all of that said, we're discussing the topic here and not the article. Unfortunately the fact of the matter is that there are no reliable sources that clearly differentiate between the two approaches, and therefore there is no place for this conversation or any other like it in the article. • Freechild'sup? 01:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, we're discussing the issue for the purpose of determining how to identify various components of the youth liberation movement in the article. Agnapostate (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Early commentary

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

Let's go for it

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)

This is not a competition. Please see the WP policy on not disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. • Freechild'sup? 13:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it's not a competition, but you're apparently a pederast. poochie 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edits on the youth rights article are disruptive and have been done to prove a point, both of which are against Wikipedia policy. Please stop. • Freechild'sup? 05:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Any further vandalism of this page is unacceptable. There has been vandalism of a number of pages relating to youth rights recently. Accusing others of condoning "pedophilia" is partially what got Xavier Von Erck banned. Inserting thoroughly POV entries is prohibited. Please stop now.Agnapostate 16:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys, troll troll is troll. Can someone ask an admin to delete this whole talk section? 219.77.142.24 (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That could be an option, unless it's an PAW supporting editor who wants to heavily saturate the article with POV themes. Agnapostate (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV!

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)

Censorship for children

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)

This is an old comment and I probably won't be seen but it might be better to vent on the talk page. Censorship and privacy are a huge issue relating to youth rights, I'm surprised it isn't even mentioned. It has more to do with big tech than anything though, with the parents propagating it. Anything under the disguise of "fighting terrorism" and "protecting the kids" just translates to more spyware. I don't know If examples are necessary since they will probably never be added anyways. To whoever edits these articles, I'd like to state that kids can't go to events without getting their pictures taken, can't hide their identity online, are at the mercy of parents posting their pictures online, can't avoid school bloat spyware, and just generally awful scapegoating of the actual REAL issue. 2D Is Better Than 3D (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

edited "adolescent" and "perceived"

(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.

"Children"

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)

Yes. If they are under the age of majority, "minors" would be better. Paul Magnussen (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer "youth". Orthogonal1 (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)