Talk:Asexuality

GA Reassessment

Asexuality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Speedy closed (kept), per what everyone except the nominator has said below, and my closing comment below. -sche (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

---

My rationale is that this article doesn't meet criteria of good article criteria:

• It has no Verifiable references. All provided references and references to research papers either directly or indirectly refer back to AVEN with attempt to circumvent criteria of Verifiable references;
• It doesn't satisfy criteria of Broad in its coverage. It goes in unnecessary details like describing particular natural person personal website i.e. AVEN;
• It doesn't satisfy criteria of being Neutral. Article is strongly affiliated with AVEN website;
• It is not Stable. The evidence is that the Article has semi-protected status, which means there are ongoing editorial wars.

The whole my point is not to remove the Article itself, but to:

• delist it first, because editors affiliated with AVEN use GA as an argument to state that AVEN is Verifiable resource trying to circumvent Wikipedia policies and rules. The article couldn't be improved by providing Verifiable references to the claims made, because Verifiable references simply do not exist and claims made in article are not correct.
• When there would be no argument that AVEN is Verifiable source it would be possible to proceed to change the claims in Article to correct ones with references to Verifiable sources like Oxford University Press, which is the most authoritative and most reliable source for definitions, lexicography and words usage with most recent developments in English language taken into account, which is a concern of the Article. In fact AVEN itself has no even its own article, which makes it unreliable in the first place and in fact reflects definition of Questionable source.
• The Article will be nominated for GA again when claims stated in Article will be changed and referenced to Verifiable sources.

Unfortunately, without these 3 steps process there is no way to fix Article to satisfy GA criteria as editors affiliated with AVEN are using GA status argument to circumvent Wikipedia rules and policies on Verifiable sources. AceRebel (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the article shows this nomination to be patently absurd and conspiratorial in its rambling about AVEN. I also note that this user (or I should say, account) has a grand total of 23 edits. CU would be a good idea. This should be speedily closed. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, you are making serious allegations without providing any proof. You attempt to discredit me on the basis of my account statistic, doesn't make any sense as you do not address any points I made, but trying to divert conversation from the good article criteria discussion. AceRebel (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

No type of solid rationale provided for this "reassessment." Seems to be retaliatory for Crossroads reverting the editor here. The editor was also reverted by Adam9007. Although AceRebel is being disruptive like a newbie, it's clear that AceRebel is not a newbie. Not sure what AceRebel is trying to achieve except for trying to get the article delisted because of their views on AVEN (and possibly due to other personal feelings). Close this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Flyer22 Frozen, please stop engaging in misleading technics and address points I made that article do not satisfy good article criteria. If you have no argument just attempts to divert the topic of the discussion, then your irrelevant argument makes no sense. AceRebel (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This user also accused me of being affiliated with AVEN. I didn't realise that being asexual (or creating the related article Discrimination against asexual people) automatically affiliates you with AVEN. Adam9007 (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Adam9007, please stop engaging in misleading technics and address points I made that article do not satisfy good article criteria. If you have no argument just attempts to divert the topic of the discussion, then your irrelevant argument makes no sense. AceRebel (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain exactly how this article is strongly affiliated with AVEN website? Adam9007 (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain what point of my argument are you looking to address? AceRebel (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The fact that you haven't at all explained your argument that this article is somehow affiliated with AVEN. Adam9007 (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Adam9007, your rephrased statement makes no sense to me. In my Community reassessment request I'm challenging four criteria, specifically: Verifiable, Broad in its coverage, Neutral and Stable. What challenges are you addressing? AceRebel (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Your claim that this Article is strongly affiliated with AVEN website makes no sense whatsoever. Adam9007 (talk) 01:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Adam9007, please, specify explicitly criteria you are talking about. I will help you. Are you talking about Neutrality? Am I correct? To be efficient in our discussion we have to focus on specific criteria, rather then trying to delude the conversation talking about something in general. Please, specify the context of your question. I will not be able to address your question until you will specify the criteria you are talking about. Are you talking about Neutrality? AceRebel (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. You haven't at all explained how this article isn't neutral, or how it's affiliated with AVEN. Adam9007 (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Great. Now let's move on to the next step. We have to agree on the definition of word affiliated. When I wrote my contention the definition I was using was as follows: closely associated with another typically in a dependent or subordinate position. Do you agree with this definition? AceRebel (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I was going by the Oxford English Dictionary's definition: officially attached or connected to an organization. No Wikipedia article is officially associated with another entity. The fact that this Wikipedia article happens to mention AVEN a lot doesn't make it associated with AVEN. Adam9007 (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You see? It was a good idea to agree on the definition of affiliated, before moving on. Because I was the author of contention and I was choosing words to describe the problem we should stick to my version of definition, because this is what was on my mind at the time of writing. I added link to definition of word affiliated I was using in my initial text to prevent confusion. Does it sounds reasonable? AceRebel (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Both definitions are pretty much the same. How is this article "closely associated" (your definition) with AVEN? Adam9007 (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Word associated means related or connected. Let's take last sentence of the first paragraph: "It may also be categorized more widely to include a broad spectrum of asexual sub-identities." If you open this source and scroll to the "Methods" section, you will see the statement: "To undertake this objective, I recruited participants from asexuality.org, also known as the Asexuality Visibility and Education Network, (AVEN) [...]". Therefore, this "source" is connected (closely associated) to AVEN, i.e. biased. Shell I continue about other sources? Those sources either connected to AVEN, i.e. biased (not Neutral) or not Verifiable. AceRebel (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

You said the article itself is biased, not its sources. Sources are allowed to be biased (if you can call that biased). Adam9007 (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The familiarity of this "new" editor with GAR processes is rather ducklike, the opening of the request right after their edit regarding AVEN was reverted has led editors above to speculate that the request was retaliatory, and the editor has refused to substantiate their belief that all of the article's hundred-plus sources are a conspiracy linked to AVEN, despite being repeatedly prompted to do so. As suggested by multiple users above, I am speedy closing this. If anyone would like to CU the nominator, as also suggested above, that's up to them (and the CU policies). -sche (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

Definition of asexuality needs to be edited.

Asexuality should be defined according to wider sources as no sexual attraction, limited sexual attraction or conditional sexual attraction, as said by Julie Sondra Decker, who goes over demisexuality and gray-asexuality, saying that primary sexual attraction might be lacking in those individuals, but they are still part of the ace community. And the AVEN website says those are limited or conditional, so it should be included in the definition.

No sexual attraction and no desire for sex is Black Stripe Aces. Which was the section of the ace community who defined themselves as such, but not the whole tof the ace community, so I'd like to have a more expansive definition for asexuality at the top, which does include aven's own definition on asexuality. (If you go digging.) This is for accuracy sake.

Also, gotta say, I still hate Anthony Bogaert as an ace. He keeps boasting about how everyone in the ace community agrees with him, when they don't.--KimYunmi (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I can agree that the page should be improved, but if you could share some sources that would allow for such improvements, that would be great. Historyday01 (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Sexual attraction to others, common or not, falls under allosexuality (an umbrella term derived from the greek prefix "allo-" meaning "other", including graysexuality and demisexuality), not asexuality (derived from the prefix "a-" meaning "without"), and the article for this and aromanticism should be updated accordingly. Furthermore, a black stripe asexual is just an asexual - a gray stripe graysexual is a graysexual. --WikiEditor7448729858 (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Both asexuality and aromanticism are considered a spectrum, under which greysexual and greyromantic fall, and as such, the main articles on Asexuality and Aromanticism are defined as this spectrum with "little to no" per the reliable sources supporting the definitions. Raladic (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

'Graysexual' (little desire for partnered sex) cannot fall under 'asexual' (no desire for partnered sex), else they would be redundant. Hence, 'graysexual' would fall under 'allosexual', an umbrella term for any sexual orientation that leads to a desire for partnered sex; this is corroborated by the Wikipedia article for Allosexuality in which the linked sources indicate that any "sexual attraction" would put one under the allosexuality umbrella. WikiEditor7448729858 (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

This does not accurately define asexuality.

Asexuality is a sexual orientation. Asexuals are not attracted to any gender at all. People who have low sex drives, or who require romance before sex are found in all sexual orientations (asexuality, hetrosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality), and they are not asexuals. Deshaar (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

You may note that another editor, in the section just above this, is also suggesting the definition should be changed, but to something different to yours; do you see the problem?

Good Wikipedia articles are duly weighted summaries of verifiable, well sourced information. It's not our place to create our assessment of the subject, a practice we call "original research", but to follow some arduously discussed and mostly agreed policies and guidelines as best we can.

There is a simpler response to these this should be fixed concerns, and that is "WP:SOFIXIT". That's a snippy shortcut to one of Wikipedia's five pillars. Give it a read for a deeper understanding of this situation, then follow the links it contains to build a comprehensive understanding of how good articles are curated. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 00:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The broadly agreed on definition of asexual is little to no sexual attraction; to imply otherwise would be making a judgement about the “validity” of a particular identity, which is not the purpose of wikipedia.

If you have credible sources for your claim, I suppose it could be framed as “Some definitions of asexuality…”, but I can’t find any Saturniapavonia (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Honestly I think this is a troll, but here I go. Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction, sex positive, neutral, and negative asexuals are how we describe weather or not they want sex. Aromanticisim is the lack of romantic attraction. Asexuals can have romantic attraction, and vice versa. Karl Collins The One Millionth (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Minor edit: If you have at least three credible sources that have your definition you could put it into an 'other definitions'section. Karl Collins The One Millionth (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Ace ring

@Kencf0618 - you tried to replace the current image for the ace ring with a different one. The big problem with this different image is that it doesn't show the symbol on the finger that indicate the symbolism - the ring hand middle finger. We should not introduce ambiguity of the symbolism, which per WP:RS is a black ring, worn on the right-hand middle finger, so an image showing a ring on a different finger just causes confusion that is counter to what our article and RS says. Of course individual people can chose to wear rings on different fingers for personal reasons, but this here is an encyclopedia that should show the common usage as documented by RS of the symbols we document. Raladic (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)