Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adultism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article needs improvement, not deletion.  Sandstein  15:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Adultism

Adultism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Well-written article. However, a close review reveals that it is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, made by quoting sources like "antiauthoritarian.net" and "freechild.org" (a principal contributor is User:Freechild). I started removing WP:OR material before realizing that it makes up 80-90% of the article. Is the remainder even notable? This needs to be dealt with. I want it deleted, since I strongly suspect that without the OR this does not have enough notability to be separate from Ageism. Let's discuss. Shii (tock) 11:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Selective merge to ageism; the topics don't seem to be separate, and there are a number of good sources here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Shii, you really should be more careful before making such a claim. In the current revision, only reference 1,2,7, and 49 out of 49 references are related to Freechild.org, so the percentage of the article that can be suspected to be OR is closer to 8%. There were plenty of references on Google Scholar when I contributed to this article, and there still are. Feel free to improve upon it or raise issues with specific passages, but there is no basis for deletion. EIFY (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Some examples of OR:

While not meeting universal acceptance, one national media organization promotes the notion that "adultism is the foundation for all forms of oppression," due to the commonality of every person's having experienced said discrimination.[10]

Makes general statement about the subject based only on an advocacy group's claim (also a poorly written sentence)

Illustrating the commonality of this problem, local youth-serving organizations increasingly address adultism. A program in Oakland, California, describes the impact of adultism, which "hinders the development of youth, in particular, their self-esteem and self-worth, ability to form positive relationships with caring adults, or even see adults as allies."[11]

Makes a conclusion citing only advocacy group's claim

The Texas Network of Youth Services offers a list of traits associated with adultism.

Cites advocacy group without commentary (also inline link)

University of Michigan professor Barry Checkoway asserts that internalized adultism causes youth to "question their own legitimacy, doubt their ability to make a difference" and perpetuate a "culture of silence" among young people.

Repeats advocacy group's claim without commentary

This aspect of internalized adultism leads to such phenomena as tattling on our siblings or being the 'teacher's pet,' to name just two examples."[27]

Repeats random website's claim without commentary

Other examples of internalized adultism include many forms of violence imposed upon children

Repeats advocacy group's claim without commentary

Common practice accepts the engagement of youth voice and the formation of youth-adult partnerships as essential steps to resisting adultism.[49]

Repeats advocacy group's claim without commentary

There may be many negative effects of adultism, including ephebiphobia and a growing generation gap.

Repeats advocacy group's claim without commentary

Discrimination against age is increasingly recognized as a form of bigotry

Repeats advocacy group's claim without commentary

A parenting magazine editor comments, "Most of the time people talk differently to kids than to adults, and often they act differently, too."[34]

"Parenting magazine" is an alternative views magazine, see e.g. [1]; not a reliable source

Shii (tock) 03:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• OR in a nutshell: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought". Advocacy group's publication, website, and university professor's essay are primary sources, not OR. If your objection is more about the lack of commentary, it's a NPOV issue. As discussed in the article's talk page before, you are welcomed to add pro-adultism commentary if you can find reliable source to back up alternative point of view. EIFY (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep I will not state that this article does not without problems but the fact of the matter is that adultism is a real concept and should be talked about at the very least as a concept. Adultism is a beleived oppression by many forms of people and needs an article to explain what it is. If you wish to get rid of over 80% of the article due to original research and you can prove it is original research and not just something you do not agree with then feel free to do so. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Can the users advocating to keep the article please explain on what basis and in which ways it is different from ageism? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Adultism is a subset of ageism, with its own unique circumstances and implications, e.g. the legal restrictions that apply only to minors. The same question can be asked of the ageism article: we do have a discrimination article already. EIFY (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Adultism is a predisposition towards adults and a discrimination againist those who are not considered adults (whether they are or not). Ageism is discrimination based on age but you will almost always find it being used to refer to discrimination againist the elderly as opposed to the young. A similar argument would be advocating for the deletion of the article Antisemitism on the grounds that there is already a racism article that rarely even mentions antisemitism.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm - that's interesting because I've always heard it used to refer to discrimination both against the old and against the young. The current article Ageism currently covers discrimination against the young, so if this article is to be kept then the content about young people in the ageism article should be trimmed, with a note explaining that the term is sometimes used to refer to something else and directing them to this article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

At this point there seems to be little overlap between the ageism article and the adultism article. Overall, the ageism article is not organized to distinguish between discrimination against older people or younger people, and some of the material in the adultism article can't be easily merged with the ageism article (e.g. Etymology and usage). It may make sense to migrate or repeat some of the material in the ageism article, e.g. the paragraph about youth rights advocacy groups, but massive edit or reorganization is probably unnecessary. EIFY (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Shii, as the creating editor of this article (and 600 others), I am committed to following all Wikipedia rules, and I believe that I am within boundaries here. Citing oneself is not wrong, and in this case The Freechild Project website is recognized across the Internet for providing key content about this topic. About the validity of the topic, it is cited hundreds of times in Google Scholar and Google Books. I will allow that some of the citations in the article could be changed to more valid sources; when I created this article in 2005 and in the years I edited it strongly the information available online was weak and I was relying on my organizational library. Today there's more information, so when this AfD is closed I will continue to update the article. However, according to the article's topic, there is ample evidence of WP:POV in this AfD, and I hope that's considered by the closing administrator. • Freechildtalk 13:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete, OR merge into the ageism page. For the logical reasons listed by the nominator. Curiously, why aren't any arguments in favor of "adultism" allowed on the page? Bhrundle (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Ageism. I agree that the topic is valid and notable, and may indeed merit its own article. However, as it is now, the article seems a bit silly. In the first paragraph it is directly claimed that "adultism is ostensibly caused by a fear of youth, and the lists of 'adultist' acts sound a little like a teenage rant. I'm not claiming that claims such as these are invalid; I"m saying that the overall tone is silly, and there's too much of a focus on the perceived bigotry and fear behind adultist and not nearly enough explanation of the rationale. Judging from the discussion page it seems that this sort of slant derives from the simple fact that the people who are most interested in editing and viewing this page are likely to be affiliated with 'anti-adultism'.

If this article were merged with ageism the presentation of "adultism" would probably become more neutral, since it would be viewed and edited by a much wider audience with more varied POVs. After a while, once a good summary has developed of adultism, then it should be spun out into its own article again.theBOBbobato (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

While the sentence "adultism is ostensibly caused by fear of children and youth" might not accurately capture the position advanced by the book so therefore be guilty of WP:SYNTH, the source ("Childhood" in Crisis? edited by Phil Scraton) does claim that fear is a factor behind modern society's treatment of youth, and it's certainly ironic to describe a matter-of-fact list in the adultism article as teenage rant.

I am all for raising the awareness of this article and the issue itself. However, adultism is already mentioned and linked in the ageism article, and pro-ageism arguments are also absent there. I am not sure merging the articles will achieve the intended objective. EIFY (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the problem. The ageism article is already very large and there is a ton of information about adultism therefore making it larger. As for the arguments for adultism they are about as valid as arguments for sexism. The fact that people consider women inferior is discrimination period. True women are often times physically weaker than men but does that legitimize misogynistic sexism? In the same way people of color are often less educated but it might suprise people that this is not their fault it is actually due to the systems of white privilege and the difficulty experienced by people of color in the educational system, does that legitimize racism? My point is that if you tried to legitimize many of the more well known prejudices you would bigoted. Don't try to create a double standard. The "we need a pro-discrimination" campaign is also happening on the page for homophobia, transphobia etc. If you can find legitimate reasons why youth in general (everyone under 18, 21 or in some cases even 25-30) are incapable than do so but I can tell you the elderly often have the same mental defieceny as youth because of things like dementia including alzheimer's. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll stick to adults being at the cockpit controls when I go to catch a plane, but that's just me. Bhrundle (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, I will trust whoever with a pilot's license. I do hope that the pilot won't be drunk or dozing off, however... EIFY (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again you completely ignore everything I said. Adultism is not limited to who can be a pilot. Its about Compulsory Eduction based on age and not ability. Its about Curfew Laws and Child Abuse. And in a perfectly unadultist society people would be looked at by their ability to pass certain tests in general not by their age specifically. I still guarantee you that most people under 12 would fail to be able to fly a plane. However somepeople who are 15-19 might be able to. And this still dosn't explain compulsory education which does not go by ability but age. Or what about the right to choose your public school or the right of the child to choose his adoptive parents. If a child could tell you who they want to live with it would certainly end alot of child abuse. What about homeless children shouldn't they either get money from the government or the ability to get a job. Try to deligimitize these needs that affect the youth of today. And btw being drunk is a choice. Being an age is not. Don't make two completely incorrect comparisons.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

[Well if we're going to discuss the validity of adultism instead of the article ] You speak of 'age' as if it were some static group that is perpetually oppressed. To be somebody who is fifteen years old, the argument goes, is to be somebody who has been deprived of their rights merely because they are a person who is fifteen years old. How outrageous! What a terrible bigotry against fifteen year olds! Well, perhaps we should look at the matter from a different perspective - instead of freezing with the snapshot of fifteen year olds, we should follow one fifteen year-old boy as he ages. Let's see what happens. A year passes, and the fifteen-year old is sixteen, another, seventeen, and the third, eighteen, and then suddenly, his persecution is at an end.

An age is not a choice, and neither is it a type of person. It is a stage through which all people pass. Every age-restriction involves, at the very least, an unspoken yet. "You are not allowed to vote because you are not eighteen - yet". The key assumption behind the prohibition of certain age groups from certain activities is that people are always developing for the better. Some of them simply have not yet reached an appropriate level of maturity - yet. And, you know, in most cases that is the correct assesment. Isn't an adult really just a teenager who has more years of self-improvement under his belt?

Now, you claim that this isn't always true. There are some minors who have comparable capabilities to adults. Well, to that I respond, "so what?". So they haven't been given the benefit of the doubt and have been assumed to be as incapable as their peers. What does it matter? This is a blip in a lifetime we're talking about. By your own volition, it is really only teenagers who are ever "mature enough", which means that any "persecution" of "capable minors" would last at the very most about four years. It simply doesn't matter whether a fifteen or sixteen or especially a seventeen year old is being restricted from some privelege, because they're certain to be granted it before long. You know, I first contributed to the adultism article in September 2009 - not a long time ago at all . Since then, about half of the "persecuted teens" of that time have become adults. A blip in a lifetime.

This is not a cause worth fighting for. What do you think would happen to a group of fifteen year olds who fought for the right to vote? They'd set up an organization, fight, propagate their views, attract new members, and then they would reach the age of 18, and the issue would no longer be relevant. C'mon, this is a joke issue. All adults, according to your worldview, were once persecuted as minors. How many still care? Most got over it, if it was ever really a problem at all. It's just not worth it.

Now, of course there is still the matter of minors who have been mistreated, who have been sexually abused, or are homeless, or what-have-you. But that is a completely different issue - in fact, it is totally contrary to the spirit of the previous one. It posits that adults mistreat children by not caring for them properly, which is of course a paternalistic attitude.

My point in all this is not to belitle the notion of adultism. If there are certain prohibitions against minors, and if they have been mistreated, then it is a legitimate topic. It is also legitimite to attempt to explain such treatment, and describe criticisms, and so on. If there is an actual widespread hate against minors, then it is legitimate topic. It is also appropriate to refer to adultism in general as a form of discrimination.

But Do Not make ridiculous comparisons between adultist prohibitions and actual bigotry. Homophobia and transphobias and so on are completely different from adultism. You are making a mockery or those other real bigotries in comparing them. If somebody thinks that the experiences of minors in developing towards maturity is in any way comparable to the experiences faced by gays, transpeople, women, or blacks in the present and especially in the past, then they truly do not understand the nature of those very real discriminations. Sex, gender, race, and orientations are thought to define people's very soul. A woman will always be a woman, always faced with hateful and irrational discrimination. Women and gays do not have the yet children and teenagers do. They have no way to escape the attributes that make their tormentors hate them.

In comparison, the kids have it easy. The adults don't consider them to be "the other", that group that they do not understand. Kids are always considered to be just people like themselves, only younger, less experienced, and thus less capable. The attitude goes, "they are changing, are continuing to change, and pretty soon they will be able to share our rights". If ever adults hate them, then they simply do and that is deplorable, but it has nothing to do with the 'adultist discriminations' you have described. Actual, persecuted groups do have to face such hate as a motivator for institutional discrimination, and as a deformed left-handed non-lusophone Portuguese Anglophone Montrealer Gay Man, I can assure you that makes all the difference.

Now lets go back to discussing the deletion. My vote hasn't changed - merge, keep core info, tone down the outrage and crank up the neutrality.theBOBbobato (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Overlooking your tone and wording, I think what you are saying boils down to "temporary discrimination doesn't matter because people grow out of it". I beg to differ, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Now about the neutrality, it's an old issue now. The problem is that to the best of my knowledge, there is still no coherent pro-adultism argument, properly sourced, therefore fit to be on a Wikipedia article. If I had to venture a guess why such an argument doesn't exist, I would say that it's because people who actually give serious thought to it invariably come to the consensus that the society should treat all individuals according to their capabilities, not age. Feel free to prove me wrong and balance the article with the addition of properly-sourced pro-adultism arguments. However, the absence of such argument doesn't mean that the article is biased, or is of insufficient quality. EIFY (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Refocus. I'm concerned that there is little or no receptivity to arguing the validity of the topic of adultism here, as witnessed in the above conversation. This AfD should be argued on it's merit as a worthy topic to be included in WP, not whether it's a worthy topic - because that argument is proved through the literature cited in the article. That will be obvious to anyone who actually reads the article, as will the inanity of the proposal to merge this article with ageism. • Freechildtalk 17:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The reason people are arguing over the validity of the topic is because there are no sources defining exactly what adultism is outside of advocacy groups trying to create a neologism. Shii (tock) 12:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Your dismissal of the article's citations, which include academic journals and books published by mainstream publishing houses, doesn't make the validity of your AfD any more certain. The fact of the matter is that you are singling out a particular subject because of your own bias against that topic, rather than having a valid argument against the article itself. You couldn't win this debate on the defamation of the article alone, so you assert the need to slam the topic. That just demonstrates my point. Keep going. • Freechildtalk 12:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Shii, definitions in social sciences are not precise and may vary between authors. Your labeling of academic sources [2] [3] [4] [5] as mere advocacy only proves that this is a WP:IDONTLIKE nomination. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

---

• Keep. There are thousands of Google Books hits on this topic, and as such it deserves an article of its own. Ageism is too big already. There are some minor problems in the article, but those can be solved through WP:EDITING. The vast majority of this article is based on reliable sources with no trace of WP:OR. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Noone under 35 should be allowed to vote.. But as poor as some of the sources used in the article are, there are plenty of good ones out there, and the article is not written in a particularly unreasonable tone. Nevard (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
• Well, it's a bad article, but I can't see any policy basis for outright deleting it. It's a User:Freechild special, and it's an advocacy article (a particularly noxious form of advocacy to my mind (I love the "For examples [of "Institutions perpetuating adultism"] see... Drinking age... Age of consent... Voluntary employment" -- don't those people know that 12-year-olds need a couple cold ones after their voluntary shift in the coal mines or as a sex worker? Sheesh.). User:Freechild is nobody's fool and he's an energizer bunny when it comes to digging up enough refs for these things. He's done his homework and he's got us over a barrel. If his hobbyhorse was global warming denial or Scientology or whatever he'd have his head handed to him, but that's not going to happen given the subject and the Wikipedia demographic, so I'd say we have to let it go. It's a weakness of the Wikipedia the we have articles like this, but nobody said we were perfect. I'd volunteer to take a scythe to it after it's kept, but I don't have access to all those off-line refs and I don't have the time or interest. Oh well. There are articles such as Child protection or whatever, so maybe it all comes out in the wash. Bad article. Keep. Herostratus (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No personal attacks. Please refrain from personal attacks, Herostratus. • Freechildtalk 15:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Alright, you're right, I apologize and didn't mean to denigrate your many fine contributions, which we all appreciate. I'm frustrated by the situation but there was no call to be shirty. Herostratus (talk) 06:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Poor quality of sources and potential OR parts do not require article deletion, they require tagging / removing / discussing of the affected parts. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Article has problems, and needs tagging/improvement; but (neologisms aside) the term has definitely passed into the public domain, and we should have info on it (of best quality possible) Jacobisq (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Note: And so goes another attack AfD where a bunch of editors who have never edited this article, including the nominator, get to slag off the quality of the article without providing any substantive editing to it. THIS is exactly what is wrong with WP, where the cabal of anti-inclusionary/pro-exclusionary editors attacks everything that offends their petite, faux-academic sensibilities. I am completely discouraged by the lack of respect and inability of many editors in this AfD to see beyond their narrow lenses of interest. Just because you don't like a topic doesn't mean it's not valid for inclusion on WP. Luckily, it looks like the majority here are in support of keeping this article. However, I am greatly discouraged with the process that has led us here. This AfD is absolutely indicative of the problems in this project. • Freechildtalk 15:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Why thanks for your kind words, Mr Lets-All-Be-Civilpants! =/ I'll take you up on your offer. But freechild.org is currently redirecting to a page that implies the domain is for saie. Refs pointing to that site may well be no good anyway per WP:RS, but I can't check them if this isn't going to be fixed. Herostratus (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I've been told it will be up in a few days. This impacts the quality of the article but I think we can let that go for a few days, and the AfD can be closed any time, an obvious Keep I'd say. Herostratus (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    • It's up now, and will remain up indefinitely. • Freechildtalk 15:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is what I think the article should focus on. 1) Child Abuse is the most violent form of adultism is should really be the main focus. 2)The lack of childrens ability to adopt new parents in cases of abuse. 3)Their inability to choose their own public school when instances of extreme bullying including homophobic and other discriminative actions occur. 4) The use of anti-teenage stereotypes. This might not seem like it needs focus but law enforcement pulls over more teenagers for drug and alcohol tests than any other age group. 5) If adultism is okay because it is a temporary state in humanity why would dementia elderly still be able to vote and drive etc. Wouldn't they have had their chance (I don't actually believe in this I'm just using the same argument as used on youth) 6) Yes it is escapable but one can easily escape prejudice based on religion as well. To a lesser extent you can change your socioeconomic class and weight although this is considerably more difficult. Any thoughs?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Rainbow, while I think you make some interesting points and have a great perspective, I don't think what you're proposing has a citable basis. The information currently in the article is heavily cited, and needs to remain on its own warrant. This AfD is based on discrimination against the topic, and not on the verifiability of the citations in the article; let's respond to the latter instead of the former. • Freechildtalk 02:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep There are content quality issues to be resolved but there is no case for deletion.--Penbat (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Plenty of sources are cited, showing the topic is notable. The article could be improved, but which couldn't? --GRuban (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment It seems to be a trend these days for AFDs to be neglected and inexplicably go on for weeks on end.--Penbat (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment True that! I have seen it a few times now over the last few months. I do appreciate the volunteering of the AfD folk, but this was originally opened five weeks ago, and relisted 4 weeks ago... • Freechildtalk 14:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ill stick a note on the admin notice board. --Penbat (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.