Talk:Asexuality/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Recent additions

Englike, I reverted you here. This is because the quote, if it is to remain, should have WP:In-text attribution. Read WP:In-text attribution. I also reverted you because the "The first online asexual community may be the comments section of an article" material you added is WP:Original research and this source you added for it does not count as a WP:Reliable source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn but you’ve removed real facts: 1) Haven for the Human Amoeba (HHA); 2) “Official Asexual Society” by Geraldin van Vilsteren; 3) the emergence of a small community of asexual women in 1997 (Leather Spinsters Newsletter). BTW, these facts are mentioned in de:Asexualität#Gemeinschaft and nobody removes them. I appreciate David Jay’s contribution to the expansion and strengthening of the world asexual community, but your article presents AVEN as the first asexual website which arose like Minerva appearing out of Jupiter’s head in full armour. Asexual communities that arose earlier than AVEN are not taken into account. AVEN did not take shape in a vacuum of course. There were some premisses for its appearance already. And it would be highly unhistorical to ignore its predecessors, e.g. HHA and the Nonlibidoism Society. Besides, I don’t understand what makes you remove books. Rle Eng’s book “Leather Spinsters and Their Degrees of Asexuality” is evidence that there really was an asexual female community which “Leather Spinsters Newsletter” was referred to. Vilsteren’s book “Nonlibidoism: The Short Facts” (United Kingdom, 04 Jun 2011 ISBN 1447575555) is cited by Jonathan Metzl (notable, see The Protest Psychosis) in his book “Against Health: How Health Became the New Morality” (NYU Press, 2010 ISBN 0814795935, p. 167, chapter “How Much Sex Is Healthy? The Pleasures of Asexuality”). Her book L'amour sans le faire : Comment vivre sans libido dans un monde où le sexe est partout ? (2005) is a bestseller in France and is listed in frwiki: fr:Asexualité#Bibliographie. I’m not engaged in WP:Original research. I adduce real facts and submit books for further reading. --Englike (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Englike, there is no need to WP:Ping me to this page. This page is on my watchlist. Except for the source you used for the quote (which, again, should have in-text attribution if we are to include it), the sources you added are poor, and regarding the non-English ones, I can't even judge them because I can't read them. But given the WP:Original research you added, I am not inclined to trust what you added based on the non-English sources either. You did engage in WP:Original research, more specifically the WP:Synthesis portion of that policy. WP:Synthesis means adding things not explicitly supported by the sources. You added "The first online asexual community may be the comments section of an article" material. You added this based on the dispatches.azstarnet.com source, but this source does not state that. Instead, it's you using that source to speculate. You also pointed to the comments section of the source, as if that counts as reliable in any way. Comments on a forum are not WP:Reliable sources. Do read the Wikipedia rules I am pointing you to. Beyond that, I do not think that the content you added needs to be there, but if you can provide WP:Reliable/WP:Secondary English sources supporting that material, I wouldn't oppose its inclusion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

As for the quotation "One of the most important differences between asexuality and HSDD etc." I agree that it isn't necessary. Of course, this proposition is not simply a statement of an empirically obvious fact, but a theoretical formulation of a certain conclusion made by a group of research workers whose point of view is largely debatable. You're right here. But I can't agree with you on other points. I think the first quotation from "Asexuality and Sexual Normativity: An Anthology" ("There is presently no academic work on the history of the asexual community") should not be removed because it provides a correct idea of the contemporary state of the question which constitutes the subject-matter of the section "Community." As for WP:OR, I didn't say "the first community WAS." I said: "the first community MAY BE." Well, we can re-formulate: "On-line asexual communities were already arising at the dawn of the Internet." Ok? Such an assertion is not OR because it is simply a statement of a real fact and can be substantiated by the existence of the Leather Spinster movement, HHA, and Vilsteren's website. It is well known that forums are not WP:Reliable sources, but here these websites are drawn to express the evidence available and are therefore only empirical facts rather than reliable sources of information. In other words, I'm merely pointing out that these websites (asexual communities) really existed. This fact warns the reader against a deceptive impression of AVEN as the sole asexual community that has ever existed in history. To my mind, your article (I know that it is you who has converted this article into a good one) has the disadvantage that it does not take into account the prehistory of AVEN. Your survey of on-line asexual communities is reduced to a description of AVEN. The reader is given the impression that there were no other asexual communities at all. It is an oversimplification distorting David Jay's real place in the moulding of the world asexual community. (P.S. The article about Balzac should not be removed on the grounds that you don't speak French.) --Englike (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't objecting to your "There is presently no academic work on the history of the asexual community." sentence that is based on the "Asexuality and Sexual Normativity: An Anthology" source, although, per WP:Copyvio, you probably should have changed the wording. Using the wording "No academic work on the history of the asexual community exists." would work in its place. But I feel that it may be confusing for readers to include that line and then continue with "A community of self-identified asexuals coalesced in the early 21st century, aided by the popularity of online communities.", and other stuff about the history of the community. As for the rest, I explained why I reverted you. Even stating "the first community may be" with the sources you included was WP:Synthesis. As for "On-line asexual communities were already arising at the dawn of the Internet.", I would change that wording to be more encyclopedic, but, per WP:OR, I wouldn't add it without a reliable source directly supporting it.

As for your statement that "The article about Balzac should not be removed on the grounds that [I] don't speak French.", that is not the same thing at all. That article is written in English. That's because this is the English Wikipedia. In addition to our text primarily being written in English, Wikipedia prefers English-language sources. And like I stated, given the WP:OR you have engaged in, I have valid reason to not trust the material you are adding based on non-English sources. If you continue to argue for your additions (and I don't mean the material sourced to "Asexuality and Sexual Normativity: An Anthology"), we should take this matter to the WP:Original research noticeboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

As for your wording "No academic work on the history of the asexual community exists," I think we are to put it in a more academic way. "Le style c’est l’homme" (Buffon). --Englike (talk) 06:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, there is nothing to do, but accept the fact that the section "Gemeinschaft" (community) in the German article is little more than WP:Copyvio. Cf.:

In den 1990er Jahren waren im Internet die ersten privaten Seiten zu finden, auf denen Menschen bekannten, kein oder nur wenig sexuelles Verlangen zu haben. Gruppen wie die Leather Spinsters (Lederne Jungfern) setzten sich gegen den kulturellen Druck für ein sexloses Leben ein.[12] Die niederländische Theater- und Filmstudentin Geraldine Joosten van Vilsteren gründete das Forum Nonlibidoism[13] und Yahoo offerierte das Forum Haven for the Human Amoeba. // de:Asexualität#Gemeinschaft

In den 1990er Jahren waren im Internet die ersten privaten Seiten zu bestaunen, auf denen Menschen bekannten, kein sexuelles Verlangen zu haben oder nur ein sehr geringes. Gruppen wie die Leather Spinsters (Lederne Jungfern) setzten sich gegen den kulturellen Druck für ein sexloses Leben ein. In den Niederlanden gründete Geraldin van Vilsteren das »Nonlibidoism«-Forum, und Yahoo offerierte das Forum »The Haven for the Human Amoeba« // Volkmar Sigusch. "Sexualitäten: Eine kritische Theorie in 99 Fragmenten". Campus Verlag, 2013. S. 485.

I've added this quotation from Volkmar Sigusch's book to confirm my assertion that on-line asexual communities emerged in the twentieth century. Now we have to re-examine the result of your own WP:Original research which you're striving hard to advocate, viz., "A community of self-identified asexuals coalesced in the early 21st century, aided by the popularity of online communities." Grüße, --Englike (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This is still WP:OR. The statement that "The first asexual websites arose in the 1990s." is not supported by this leatherspinsters.com source. And leatherspinsters.com is not a WP:Reliable source. No, despite your "let it be a reliable source" edit summary, we are not going to let it be a WP:Reliable source; we are going to follow the WP:Reliable sources guideline as to what a reliable source is in Wikipedia's terms.

As for your WP:Other stuff exists argument, a block quote is usually not a WP:Copyvio issue, not unless too much of the text is quoted. When a quote is attributed to the author using WP:In-text attribution, that is proper. When a quote is presented in Wikipedia's voice, with or without quote marks, but especially without quote marks, as though it is the Wikipedia editor's own words, that is a WP:Copyvio issue.

As for your comment about the "A community of self-identified asexuals coalesced in the early 21st century, aided by the popularity of online communities." line, I did not add that. And I am not striving hard to advocate a thing. Do read WP:Advocacy. From what I see, you are doing the advocating. I am following Wikipeda's rules. The line you claimed as OR was easily supported by two scholarly book sources added by me. And as you can see, those sources use the words "at the cusp of the twenty-first century," "at the dawn of the twenty-first century," "in the early 21st century" when it comes to the formation of the asexual community. You have provided no WP:Reliable sources stating that the asexual community formed before that point, or specifically in the 1990s.

And as for quoting French material, you should be translating it into English for me, per WP:Non-English sources, if you want me to trust your material. Not the whole thing, but parts that specifically support whatever wording you want to add. If the sources do not have text that supports your wording, it is WP:OR and will not be added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I see that you've taken the matter to the WP:Original research noticeboard. I'll comment there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Even though Wikis are not considered reliable sources you probably should have a look at the Aven Wiki in this case:

http://wiki.asexuality.org/Asexual_history

http://wiki.asexuality.org/Haven_for_the_Human_Amoeba

David Jay was likely active in the Yahoo Group "Haven for the Human Amobea" before he founded Aven. The "Official Nonlibidoist Society" was named "Official Asexual Society" at first and later changed the name because they believed the term Asexuality had become "tainted" by the more inclusive definition proposed by Aven. That change of name could have been confirmed via Wayback machine until recently but it seems the site owner changed and removed the information from wayback machine.

The problem with sources on history is that basically all modern sources such as Sigusch heavily rely on information they got from Aven. Some of those sources even copied the information from newspaper articles by journalists who had copied the information from Aven before. So citing those sources doesn't make any sense in terms of accuracy. --MightyMaz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@MightyMaz: Of course, this revision of mine was nothing but the result of the "copy-and-paste" command, with the text being borrowed directly from http://wiki.asexuality.org/Asexual_history#Emergence_of_asexual_communities As Flyer22 was not happy with these borrowings, I decided to satisfy her and find a secondary source. It being difficult to find a source in English, I had to look for publications in other languages. French authors did not succeeded in satisfying Flyer, but she became quite happy with a German scientist. This being so, I'm very glad because I only wanted to add the above-mentioned websites to Flyer's article. To my mind, Frau Vilsteren is too prominent figure to be missing from an article about asexuality. To tell the truth, I'm surprised at the fact that Vilsteren has succeded in publishing and selling her book about "nonlibidoism" in France although Frenchmen are conspicuous for their amorous disposition. Despite this characteristic feature of the French people, many French journalists (among them Jean-Philippe de Tonnac and Peggy Sastre) publish books on asexuality. So French acquires immense importance in tackling the most essential problems of the theory of asexualuty. --Englike (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

(I'm German native speaker by the way and member of Aven since 2004). I understand that procedure is important in Wikipedia. However what Sigusch writes is quite a bit "off the mark". For example Geraldine's site was founded as "The Official Asexual Society" (and was a rather exquisite club. In order to join you had to answer a lot of questions to prove you were truly asexual/nonlibidoist) and Yahoo groups obviously weren't offered by Yahoo itself. I'm not much into Wikipedia's rules but I find it strange that quality of information shouldn't be valued higher than the "reliability" of a source in cases where the information is both important and books and (scientific) articles clearly rely on internet sources themselves. --MightyMaz (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@MightyMaz: I've already guessed that you ain't a native speaker of English (e.g. your "copied THE information from newspaper" is evidence that English is not your first language). I think you'd better ask Flyer22 Reborn because I follow her instructions. I said above that my aim was not to describe these websites but to mention them in the article. Not until I cited Sigusch's monograph did Flyer permit me to introduce Geraldin van Vilsteren to our audience. I'm not defending the quality of information in scholarly publications relying on AVEN. I'm only defending the opinion that Vilsteren's activity including her books on "nonlibidoism" is worth noting. Ich bin nur für Fräulein Vilsteren eingetreten. No sex, please! Wenn du kein sexuelles Verlangen hast, so neide ich dir. Grüße, Englike (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot information is uncountable in English. Strangely enough you can still cut it to pieces of information. ("beneide ich dich darum" wäre übrigens besser als "neide ich (es) dir")  ;-) --MightyMaz (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

This thread on apostive also contains some interesting historical information about Geraldine's site. http://www.apositive.org/viewtopic.php?t=448 --MightyMaz (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Danke schön! --Englike (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Gern geschehen! --MightyMaz (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Objecting to the content had nothing to do with sources being French or German, other than accessibility issues, per WP:Non-English. My main concerns were what I stated above and what I stated at the WP:Original research noticeboard. I'm not "quite happy" with the Sigusch material; this is because it's one source and I see no others supporting the statement except for the "Leather Spinsters" aspect. So, like I noted at the WP:Original research noticeboard, the Sigusch material could very well be argued as WP:Undue. Either way, including it in the way that we have does make it clear that this is one author claiming all of that, while others focus on the "emergence during the 21 century" aspect and other things. So I'm not overly bothered by the inclusion. And, per WP:OWN, this is not my article, by the way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@MightyMaz: Many thanks for your correction of my proverbial style (aus dem Sprichwort "Wer neidet, der leidet"): "neide" --> "beneide" wäre besser. Yeah, I'm learning German, but I don't know it very well. I see you've undertaken a revision of the German article in accordance with this discussion. But there is a strong objection to your substituting the words "In den 1990er Jahren" by "Gegen Ende der 1990er Jahren." Unsere Fliegerin remarks apropos of that: "we can only go by what the sources state. ... If the sources state "1990s," then so must we. And in this case, the Sigusch source states "1990s." I think we are to take her approach because she has the rules of WP at her fingertips. Besides, several lines of evidence indicate that small asexual groups arose in the 1990s: I am an asexual person (12/17/90); I plan to die a virgin. ... If you are really asexual, you aren't crazy, you're just asexual (11/5/96) etc. --Englike (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Englike: If the text in the German article is not interpreted (and also rewritten) in a way such as that it only partially/loosely refers to Sigusch's newspaper article from 2011 (which seems to contain exactly the same information as the book you cite) it should probably be removed from the German article completely. Otherwise the whole paragraph is just c+p and on top of that from a low quality source. What Sigusch writes is more or less hearsay to me and he cites no sources himself. Also the German article doesn't contain much specific information and cannot be compared with the level of the English one. In it's current state personally I would greatly prefer to have more correct information in there over referring to proper sources by Wikipedia's rules. Stating facts like the one you mention above (old Newsgroup posts mentioning asexuality [which are no private sites however as Sigusch's statement would imply]) seems a much more reasonable approach to me than to cite secondary references that contain wrong or oversimplified information. So to put matters short personally I would remove the reference to Sigusch and just write about the facts. But I'm not going to attempt to rewrite the German article in this way. I haven't even got passives Sichterrecht in the German Wikipedia and every modification I make would take up to some days until it's accepted or rejected. So to be honest I don't really feel that much responsible for the quality of the German article besides having a proper definition of asexuality in it. Further discussion on that topic should probably take place in the discussion area of the German article now and I'm sure that every help with improving the German article will be appreciated in the German Wikipedia. --MightyMaz (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@MightyMaz: "I haven't even got passives Sichterrecht in the German Wikipedia." Spezial:Logbuch/rights Glückwunsch zum Sichterstatus in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia! --Englike (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Asexual Awareness Week

Hi. The Asexual Awareness Week AFD was closed as merge. I do not like merging marginal articles into good articles so am going to redirect it here for now. The article link can be found here so regular editors of this article can decide what, if anything, merits inclusion. If you do take information from that article don't forget to say that and link to it in the edit summary. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Latest edits

Pourelle, regarding this, Wikis and blogs are not WP:Reliable sources. And the formatting you used is not standard formatting; see MOS:HEAD. And creating unnecessary headings is poor editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

A in LGBTQIA

I just heard the abbreviation LGBTQIA and Googled it. Sometimes A means 'ally' or an inflection of it and sometimes it means 'asexual'.

• N.Y. Times: "'A' stands for 'ally' (a friend of the cause) or 'asexual,' characterized by the absence of sexual attraction.... Amherst College even has an L.G.B.T.Q.Q.I.A.A. center, where every group gets its own letter." (In following the "L.G.B.T.Q.Q.I.A.A." link to an error page, it appears that Amherst no longer uses the abbreviation and now has the Queer Resource Center.)
• Chicago Tribune: "[B]ecoming more prevalent is LGBTQIA, ... the 'A' for 'asexual' and/or 'allied.'"
• SWHelper: A social worker offers both meanings.
• Organization at Univ. Calif. Davis: "LGBTQIA+ Allyship: The practice of confronting heterosexism, sexism, genderism, allosexism, and monosexism in oneself and others out of self-interest and a concern for the well being of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex and asexual people...."
• NOW: "What does LGBTQIA stand for? .... Asexual".

(URLs as accessed 4-21-18.)

I'm more or less out of touch and would rather not edit the article myself, judging weight, etc.

Nick Levinson (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but is there a question here? EvergreenFir (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

A question mark is not necessary. I've provided information that likely is apropos for the article but I'd rather someone else made the judgment, and I said as much near the end of the post. Thank you for considering it. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

statutory law and other sources on asexuality as a sexual orientation

I finally happened to come across the following primary legal sources but am not clear on whether they're adequate for the article:

New York State law: "The term 'sexual orientation' means heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality or asexuality, whether actual or perceived." State of New York, Consolidated Laws, Executive Law § 292, subdivision 27. Section 292 is part of the Human Rights Law, which is Executive Law, Article 15. The short citation is N.Y. Exec. L § 292, subd. 27. That definition also applies to the State's Civil Rights Law § 40(c), subd. 2. In another context, asexuality is not listed as a sexual orientation. Education Law § 11, subd. 5. Possibly nonlisting occurs in other state statutes as well.

New York City law: Certain forms shall contain "questions regarding sexual orientation, including heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual or asexual status or other, with an option to write in a response". City of New York, New York City Charter § 15(k)(1). "When practicable, when ... [certain] forms are updated they shall request voluntary responses to questions about sexual orientation, including heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual or asexual status, or other". City of New York, New York City Charter § 15(k)(4). While the portions are only about forms, what is more important is that, in both cases, the phrasing "sexual orientation, including ... asexual status" means that "asexual status" is legally defined in the jurisdiction for the purpose as within "sexual orientation". In contrast, when used in a certain chapter, "[t]he term 'sexual orientation' means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality." New York City Administrative Code § 8-102, subd. 20. There, in the chapter on the Commission on Human Rights, the City's principal antidiscrimination enforcement administrative agency, asexuality is omitted, and, by law, omissions are usually considered deliberate and therefore binding. (There is a legal principle sometimes colloquially referenced as coulda-woulda-shoulda, 'I could have, I would have, and I should have', to which a lawyer or a court may reply, "but you didn't and that's that".) (I thought asexuality was included; I don't know if it was only in a bill or if there was an amendment or whether it has been added to Rules of the City of New York (RCNY).)

The source from which cited supports searching for a caseless string and "sexual orientation" (without quotation marks) has multiple matches, most of which I did not check.

A secondary source might be a court opinion interpreting the statute, unless Wikipedia considers that, too, to be a primary source. To a lawyer, if such a court opinion is in support of a decision on a legal question of other than asexuality, such as homosexuality, so that resolving the issue at bar does not require resolving any legal question on asexuality, then any part of the opinion that is on asexuality is obiter dicta (singular obiter dictum) and, as such, potentially persuasive but not legally binding on anyone, but whether that affects Wikipedia's decision about such a court opinion being a secondary source I don't know. There may be few or no court opinions in which asexuality is necessary to a legal decision; there may be few in which it is even dicta.

Citing URLs for the above quotations is a bit of a challenge, since one URL serves a bunch of different pages. Try these:

State law, Exec. L.: either:

• http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/lawssrch.cgi?NVLWO: > Consolidated Laws > EXC > Article 15 > 292
• http://nyassembly.gov/leg/ > Laws > Consolidated Laws > EXC > Article 15 > 292

State law, Educ. L.: either:

• http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/lawssrch.cgi?NVLWO: > Consolidated Laws > EDN > Title 1 > Article 2 > 11 > 5.
• http://nyassembly.gov/leg/ > Laws > Consolidated Laws > EDN > Title 1 > Article 2 > 11 > 5.

State law, Civ. Rts. L.: either:

• http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/lawssrch.cgi?NVLWO: > Consolidated Laws > CVR > Article 4 > 40-C > 2.
• http://nyassembly.gov/leg/ > Laws > Consolidated Laws > CVR > Article 4 > 40-C > 2.

City law (a provision on forms): either:

• http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/lawssrch.cgi?NVLWO: > Miscellaneous > NYC > Chapter 1 > Article 15 > k. > 1. or 4.
• http://nyassembly.gov/leg/ > Laws > Miscellaneous > NYC > Chapter 1 > Article 15 > k. > 1. or 4.

City law on Commission on Human Rights: either:

• http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/lawssrch.cgi?NVLWO: > Miscellaneous > ADC > Title 8 > Chapter 1 > 8-102 > 20.
• http://nyassembly.gov/leg/ > Laws > Miscellaneous > ADC > Title 8 > Chapter 1 > 8-102 > 20.

As I write this, the citations are as accessed Feb. 10, 2018, and the page is dated Feb. 1, 2018, with, with respect to the State law, the Laws database current through 2017 session laws chapter 506 (I assume 506 was the last for 2017 but I didn't check) and 2018 session laws ch. 1 (with respect to the City law, comparable information is not provided). In that State, session laws are the statutes in the sequence in which enacted before some appear in a codification or consolidation. For that City, local laws are the statutes as enacted, some of which are codified.

I have not researched regulations, much on case law, or Federal, national, or international law.

Nick Levinson (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2018

"Acephobia" redirects to this article, but shouldn't it redirect to the "Discrimination and legal protections" section instead? GeographyAholic talk 22:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Such a change would be made at the redirect page, not here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2018

Asexuality should be defined simply as "a lack of sexual attraction" a lack of interest in sex has more to do with libido than asexuality, and while asexual people may experience a lack of interest in sex, it is not necessarily a characteristic of asexuality. BlanketQueen (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Look at the sources in the article and how they define asexuality, including the ones in the "Definition, identity and relationships" section. Asexuality is not defined only one way. That is why the lead sentence is the way it is and why the "Definition, identity and relationships" section mentions what it mentions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought this was interesting because Asexuality is not talked about too often and it seems to be misunderstood by some cultures Kanieves97 (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)kanieves97

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Kinsey Scale.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Sexual attraction

Something I've struggled for years is that while asexuality is widely defined as "absence of sexual attraction", especially by activists such as at AVEN, I've never found a satisfying definition for "sexual attraction" itself. (Even our attraction sexual attraction is rather vague and unhelpful – for practical purposes – in its definition.) For whatever reasons, this complication is rarely noticed. Some time ago I experienced a lightbulb moment when I learned that this puzzling circumstance – that there is a definition for "sexuality", but not for the crucial term in this definition, "sexual attraction", itself, is probably deliberate and a clever trick employed by AVEN founder David Jay to hamper gatekeeping. See here. While Jay did apparently have a definition for "sexual attraction" in mind, namely "desire for partnered sex", compare here, he never made this explicit in official material (the AVEN wiki amazes with its unhelpfulness on this point). (I am aware that the AVEN forum is not a RS for Wikipedia.)

(In fact, I wonder if a parallel trick is employed when transgender is defined as "a mismatch between assigned sex at birth and gender identity" while leaving "gender identity" itself vague in its meaning.)

However handy this situation may be for activists, I do not think, though, that sexologists can live with such vagueness – they do need an operational definition for research purposes, one that is not itself dependent on ill-defined concepts. I wonder how they solve the problem.

Just a heads-up on a possible overlooked complication in Wikipedia's coverage of this topic. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The definition of sexual attraction currently seen in the lead of the Sexual attraction article is straightforward, and is what sexologists mean by the term. I'm not aware of sources defining it in a significantly different way. When it comes to what sexual attraction may involve for an asexual person, the "Definition, identity and relationships" is clear about it. Like I stated above, asexuality is not defined only one way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The confusion that arises from the attraction based definition is the main reason why AVENde defines asexuality as an absence of desire for sexual interaction (where interaction has a broader meaning than just partnered sex). The majority of users in Germany prefer this definition over the attraction based definition (roughly 78% according to a poll in the forum). The term attraction is somewhat more ambiguous than the term desire so an attraction based definition tends to make things more complicated than they generally are. --MightyMaz (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any confusion based on the "lack of sexual attraction" or "absence of sexual attraction" definitions for asexuality. Well, except for some people wondering if "lack" means "absence." Some sources on asexuality use "lack" to mean "absence," while others sources don't. AVEN defines the matter as someone who "does not experience sexual attraction." You, however, stated "AVENde" above; so you are talking about this German site. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes I was referring to the German site (other definitions such as "no desire for partnered sex" are discussed on international Aven but have never become the "official" definition). So I just wanted to note on a general level that the attraction-based definition is not the only one used in asexual communities. If you are involved in the community you probably know that quite a couple of (especially new) users are confused as to what sexual attraction actually means and how to differentiate it from other forms of attraction (e.g. emotional attraction or aesthetic attraction). "Are my feelings really sexual attraction?" still is a common question on the international Aven forum. So to avoid that "confusion" the definition on AVENde was changed back in 2005. Clearly also desire and attraction to someone or something (at least in common understanding) are not the same thing and not necessarily dependant on one another either (someone could e.g. feel sexually attracted to another person without any desire to act on that attraction but someone could also feel a spontaneous desire for sex without experiencing any attraction beforehand). I'm not aware of any scientific studies explicitly referring to the German definition or any other "uncommon" way of defining asexuality tough. --MightyMaz (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2019

In the Media: In TV shows and movies suspected asexual characters may show asexual tendencies. Such as not being interested in sexual or romantic activities. Audiences may feel as though asexuals are are “boring” or “inhuman” or “robotic”. The media builds asexuality into a “fixable condition” in three ways: That asexuality is temporary, that asexuals are lying and confused about their sexuality and asexuality is a barrier to sexuals who want to have sex with them. So more often than not they are used as a comedic trope or apart of a “fix-it” plot device. Most characters that are stated to be asexual are not stated to be asexual. Or if they are, it is used as a “fix-it” plot device. Such as Olivia in The Olivia Experiment. Her sexuality is doubted as not being asexual but, just shy. In The Big Bang Theory, Sheldon Cooper is a suspected a sexual. He is often used as a robotic yet sarcastic personality. Several others that are not stated but suspected are Bilbo Baggins (The Hobbit), Dexter (Dexter) and Ariadne (Inception).

Discrimination: Heterosexuals and those in the LGBT+ community discriminated against asexuals. Groups expressed negative emotions toward asexuals. They did not want contact with asexuals even to go as far as not wanting to hire or rent an apartment with asexuals. They are presented as less than human by other groups. Heterosexuals went as far as separating them into two categories machine-like or animal-like. Asexuals are deemed emotionless and cold or impulsive, less sophisticated, and unrestrained. In a paper, researchers found that most that disliked homosexuals and bisexuals disliked asexuals as well. The anti-asexual bias comes down to the differences as deficit model of sexual orientation. Meaning, due to their sexuality or lack thereof being outside the norm, they are easy targets for others prejudice and scorn. Asexuals are seen as substandard and less than human. They are targeted due to their lack of sexual attraction as opposed to their bisexual and homosexual counterparts.

Sources: “Asexual Representation.” SiOWfa15 Science in Our World Certainty and Controversy, 15 Apr. 2014, sites.psu.edu/elisabethscivicissueblog/2014/04/15/asexual-representation/. Hodson, Gordon. “Prejudice Against ‘Group X’ (Asexuals).” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers, 1 Sept. 2012, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/without-prejudice/201209/prejudice-against-group-x-asexuals. Jankowski, Lauren. “We're Not Broken: Asexual Characters in Pop Culture.” Bitch Media, 3 Aug. 2015, www.bitchmedia.org/post/were-not-broken-asexual-characters-in-pop-culture. Knt82500 (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 17:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Timeline of asexual history

Hello, I am working to update the Timeline of asexual history page. I admit, I am a bit outside of my realm here (my typical area of expertise is radio stations), but I am trying to help. I am working with the fine folks over at AVEN who are giving me information that they think is notable and I am doing my best to source and add it. For the most part, I have sourced all of it. I have gotten a little backlash saying my entries, while good faith, had "Multiple MOS issues and non-notable individuals. WP:WTAF". I can't find any MOS issues and all the indiviuals are notable to the asexual history timeline in one way or another. Also, no redlinks are listed on the page or in the references.

Would you all give the page a once over and see if there is anything I missed, anything that needs changed. This is your realm of expertise and I am more than willing to work with you all here and I welcome any and all suggestions you all might have. I want this article to be inclusive, sourced, but up to Wikipedia standards as well. Thanks for your assistance. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:19 on April 17, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

• This post has been reposted on Talk:Timeline of asexual history and Portal talk:LGBT for further suggestions from multiple Wikipedia users. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:22 on April 17, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Neutralhomer, that article was created by a Dante8 sock -- JaneSwifty. I would rather that WP:EVASION be enforced and the article be deleted. That stated, the article has existed since 2017 now and you seem to care about it. I don't feel strongly about it being retained. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no qualms about it being deleted and me remaking it immediately so it falls correctly within EVASION. But, for the time being, I am going to continue to edit it. But, I don't have any qualms doing it that way. I've done this before in the past so a notable article is "started" anew by a non-sock. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:23 on April 17, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

@Flyer22 Frozen: I am pinging you for this, because it is important. I spoke with an admin and he said that a CSD Deletion is not necessary because "While the article may have been created by a sock, it was done before the they were blocked as a sock, meaning CSD G5 (creation by a blocked/banned editors) doesn't apply here." So, we are good. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:11 on April 17, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Still no need to ping me. I don't agree with that admin. And either way, I already stated that I don't feel strongly about that article. I'll leave it to others to worry about possible BLP violations and such. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

And replied there to the admin. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Feminsit Research Edit

I would encourage the editors for the Asexuality Wiki page, in the subsection “Feminist Research” to add into this section information on “Reconsidering Asexuality and Its Radical Potential,” an article by CJ DeLuzio Chasin. Chasin's article qualifies some of the statements on asexuality made by Karli June Cerankowski and Megan Milks in their paper “New Orientations: Asexuality and Its Implications for Theory and Practice,” which is included under the “Feminist Research” subsection. The addition of Chasin to this subsection would add an additional viewpoint as well as further relevant insight as Chasin discusses the different types of theoretical asexual and non-sexual experiences. Chasin also discusses the definition of asexuality as well as the controversy around the definition as a member of the asexual community. For further reading see: Chasin, C. J. D. "Reconsidering Asexuality and its Radical Potential."Feminist Studies 39, no. 2 (2013): 405-426,571. Claire-ish (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2020

Please change "asexuals may identify as heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer," to "asexuals may identify as heteroromantic, lesbian, gay, biromantic, queer," because that's how us aces usually describe ourselves, to make it clearer that we mean romantic attraction and not sexual. It's in the fifth paragraph of Definition, Identity and Relationships 2601:282:4201:F4F0:B089:5E73:B595:F55A (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect redirection

When attempting to view the page on the Asexual flag, users are redirected to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.26.176 (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No, the redirect is correct; we don't have a discrete article on the flag, as it's not notable enough for one. Rather, the flag is covered in a section of this article, which the redirect points to. Adam9007 (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed new article

I would like to split off an expanded version of "In the media" section of the main article into its own article titled Media portrayal of asexuality. It would be similar to a page I recently turned into a redirect, titled Asexual characters in fiction, but even better! There are already pages like Media portrayal of lesbianism, Media portrayal of LGBT people, List of media portrayals of bisexuality, Media portrayals of bisexuality, and Media portrayals of transgender people, so why not have this page? Please indicate whether you support or oppose this proposal. @Equivamp, and all that are interested, I have put together a draft version of the page in my sandbox, pulling in as many resources as I could find, without duplicating everything on the List of fictional asexual characters page. With that, comments are welcome. Historyday01 (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

To have a discussion, for maximum clarity, it should be on the basis of the status quo. I therefore reverted your unilateral merge of that article to this one. That said - why not simply rename (or propose to rename) that article rather than take the convoluted steps of unilaterally merging it here and then asking to split it out again under another name? Now, as for your question, I am inclined to believe that it is better not to have too much of that material here for WP:WEIGHT reasons. So I think it should stay a separate article; I have no preference for the name at this time. Also, I don't see why we need articles on "media portrayals of X" and "list of fictional X characters". We should be trying to avoid redundancy as much as possible because people are going to have to maintain all these articles despite vandalism, people fighting to put in their fan speculation from poor sources, etc. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

All good questions. After seeing the previous discussion on the Asexual characters in fiction, with someone saying the tone wasn't right, it wasn't written correctly, etc., I wanted to start from scratch, which is why I turned that into a redirect and moved the information here, as it seemed like a better place for it. In the case of creating such an article, I would argue that it has value. Yes, there is already a list, but an article, like the one I am proposing, would be a good idea if such a page is well-sourced, the draft version of the page I have put together in a sandbox has done. --Historyday01 (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I just renamed that article to Media portrayal of asexuality and moved the content there, so the discussion is basically over now. Historyday01 (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Move Asexual flag to top of page? Suggestion

I would like to propose moving the Asexual Flag from Asexuality#Community to somewhere towards the top of the page. This would visually bring the page into alignment with other pages from similar topics. Examples of similar pages which feature the flag higher-up would be Bisexuality, where the flag features below the sidebars, Transgender, where the flag features at the top of the page and Pansexuality which has a complete sidebar including flag. I didn't want to move the flag without a discussion about this, can anyone suggest a good place to move it to, or a reason why it should remain where it is? I'm open to discussion, I was just surprised that it was so far down the page. Jthekid15 (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Jthekid15, I would say that's a good idea, but I think the infoboxes are fine there. But, I'd be willing to change my view on that, however. --Historyday01 (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting moving the infoboxes themselves, just to move the flag to above or below the infoboxes. Hope this clarifies. Jthekid15 (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Jthekid15. I would leave it where it's at, really. If you move it under the infoboxes, it'll be under the "Definition, identity and relationships" subhead or under the "Research" subhead, and I don't think it jives there. It's under the "Community" subhead, which is appropriate. The bisexuality page has the flag under the "Definitions" subhead,[1] but it's also under the "Symbols" subhead.[2] I don't think it's needed under two subheads. Gender Roamer (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I guess it could fit seamlessly under the "Definition, identity and relationships" subhead, but, if it shows up on the page there instead of under the "Research" subhead, it'd look excessive with the infobox that shows up there. Don't you think it's more at home under the "Community" subhead? Gender Roamer (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

International Asexuality Day

Hi @Historyday01: following your recent edit to this article I thought I'd direct you to a draft-space article for International Asexuality Day here: Draft:International Asexuality Day. The main difference between the draft article and the section of the main article is the listing of any additional sources that would count towards notability (but otherwise don't contain useful information).

Since there isn't much content at the moment I decided to add another section to the main article instead. I still plan to revisit the stand-alone article concept at some point and see if I can't collect enough information to justify its existence.

On the same topic of international asexuality day, I'm currently liaising with internationalasexualityday.org to clarify what license their logo is under so it can be included in the main article. Also, a link to IAD should be added to the asexuality topics sidebar.

Cheers –♫CheChe♫ talk 15:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Oop, I missed this. But, I think it being added as a section to this article makes sense currently but I'd support making it a stand-alone article if there is enough information to justify it becoming such an article. --Historyday01 (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Only recently

“Only recently researchers started accepting asexuality” (not direct quote) in intro. This is a vague time reference which goes against Wiki MOS. Any chance team here could tighten up either through Timeline of asexual history or some other route? I’d love to understand what is meant here... are we looking at 21st century? Dakinijones (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Dakinijones, are you referring to this part in the intro? "Acceptance of asexuality as a sexual orientation and field of scientific research is still relatively new,[2][11] as a growing body of research from both sociological and psychological perspectives has begun to develop.[11] While some researchers assert that asexuality is a sexual orientation, other researchers disagree.[4][5] Asexual individuals may represent about 1 percent of the population.[2]" Or, is there something else in the intro? Because the Timeline of asexual history page says the same thing, from what I can tell: "...The briefness of this timeline can be attributed to the fact that acceptance of asexuality as a sexual orientation and field of scientific research is still relatively new." --Historyday01 (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

One of those sources is from 2017, and 4 more years is still relatively new compared to the other categories of sexual orientation (which date back at least to the 1800s). Crossroads ^-talk- 03:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction in definition section

The following paragraph from the definition section of the article seems to be contradictory at first glance and should be clarified to remove any possible confusion:

Asexual people, though lacking sexual attraction to any gender, might engage in purely romantic relationships, while others might not.[4][20] There are asexual-identified individuals who report that they feel sexual attraction but not the inclination to act on it because they have no true desire or need to engage in sexual or non-sexual activity (cuddling, hand-holding, etc.), while other asexuals engage in cuddling or other non-sexual physical activity.

The first sentence above define all asexuals as as "lacking sexual attraction to any gender" while the second states that some asexuals who report "they feel sexual attraction.". Well, which is it? Since the latter sentence does not define what this specific subgroup of means when ther refer to "sexual attraction" it comes across as contradictiory. We should try and expalin exactly what these particuler asexuals mean when they say they "feel sexual attraction" since it seems something to be detached from the need/desire to enagage in sexual activities/kissing/hugging/hand holding/etc with others. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Likely they will experience sexual arousal in connection with other (sexually attractive) people but without any desire to act on it. They might also experience emotional/romantic attraction but will lack sexual desire directed towards others. --MightyMaz (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

What MightyMaz said. Also, it's been said in prior discussions that "lacking" will not always mean "absent." Just report what the sources say. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

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. Student editor(s): CitlaliE, Giannacupo. Peer reviewers: Enteryourcleverusername.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 18 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ramen.01. Peer reviewers: JoelyB, Katelynn.parker.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yrodriguez7. Peer reviewers: Dianabmorales, CalebTerronez.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Asexuality is not actually a sexuality.

It's name deceives us all. Let's prove it with a little bit of logic first...

sexuality sĕk″shoo͞-ăl′ĭ-tē noun - The quality of being sexual, especially sexual orientation and behavior. - A manner of being sexual or engaging in sexual activity. - Sexual activity.

expression ĭk-sprĕsh′ən noun - The act of expressing, conveying, or representing in words, art, music, or movement; a manifestation. - Something that expresses or communicates. - A symbol or combination of symbols that represents a quantity or a relationship between quantities.

Okay, so under this definition the word sexuality does not include the condition for using the word as an expression of oneself.

Actually I want to point something important out, and nobody really notices this stuff until you start to look for it, so look for this: how often do people use the word behavior anymore? Sexual behavior is more of a correct definition than sexual expression would be. Behavior and expression are different too. Let's look at behavior now...

behavior bĭ-hāv′yər noun - The manner in which one acts or behaves. - The actions or reactions of a person or animal in response to external or internal stimuli. - One of these actions or reactions.

Okay... Now does it make more sense what I'm trying to explain? The use of the word expression is not correct in any way when using it to describe what type of sexual preferences, and or behaviors a person prefers to exhibit, for instance smiling is an expression, and the thing it expresses is happiness. Similar to that if sexuality could be an expression, it would just be the simple fact that you either are sexual or you are not sexual or somewhere in between maybe you could argue... But even then you either have sex or do not, and it deserves to remain your own personal business unless you are telling someone who you are being intimate with sexually then it becomes something sort of important to express, but people used to have more respect for one another, and kept politics religion and sex talk for the private company when the kids were in bed late at night. 98.157.97.159 (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

See WP:OR. Larry Hockett (Talk) 03:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Asexuality is an orientation. Asexuality is not about perception of sex but rather about who you are attracted to. There are asexuals who are sex negative, there are asexuals who are sex positive/indifferent. There are asexuals who do desire a sexual relationship or feel indifferent about it and there are asexuals who do not like the idea of having a sexual relationship or even feel repulsed by sex in general.

Asexuality has nothing to to with attitude towards sex and can have any combination of attitude same as any other orientation.

Little to no attraction towards all genders is what all asexuals have in common, not lack of interest in sex. As a result asexuality is an orientation because it is about the gender(s) you are attracted to/lack attraction to. Grasshoper47 (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: LLIB 1115 - Intro to Information Research

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ejgrimm (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ejgrimm (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Suggested Quality Edits: Neutral Point of View (NPOV)

In line with the Wikipedia Neutral point of view guidelines: I believe the article currently places a disproportionate level of emphasis on views opposing asexuality's nature as a sexual orientation. Specific comments below - largely focused on the introduction, though also reflected in some of the sections further down in the article.

Firstly, the introduction states: "While some researchers assert that asexuality is a sexual orientation, other researchers disagree". The issues with this wording is that it is unclear which proportion of researchers assert which view at the present time. Additionally, neither of the citations on this section appear to name any researchers that have denied the validity of asexuality - the first simply uses the term "some researchers", and while I'm unable to access the second, I note that the author (Anthony Bogaert) is a researcher that certainly supports asexuality as a valid sexual orientation. Are there any known researchers that specifically oppose it, and are they credible? If not: I suggest removal or reworking of this section. It may be valid to reference HSDD and similar conditions here, but considering that the APA (author of the DSM) and various health organisations around the world recognise asexuality as an orientation, it is certainly not a debate with an equal number of qualified advocates and qualified opponents.

The introduction also states that sexual orientation must be "enduring": it is not necessary to further qualify the validity of asexuality in this way, especially considering the fluid nature of sexuality and the presence of asexual minorities such as grey-asexuals or fraysexuals. This section also includes a statement that some asexual people may engage in sexual activity with people they are not attracted to - technically true, but I question the relevance of this (noting for example that the Lesbian page does not contain a similar "technically true" statement).

Finally, the introduction indicates that asexuality is a "relatively new" phenomenon. This is not correct. See for example the Timeline of asexual history. Asexual awareness may have increased drastically over the past few decades, but asexuality itself has existed long before the advent of the Internet. 202.53.59.153 (talk) 11:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The earliest point on the linked timeline is 1869. By comparison, the earliest date on the timeline of LGBT history, for example, is 9600 BCE. I think the statement that asexuality is "relatively new" is fair.

Regarding other statements of neutrality, see articles such as this one [3]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21541791/, which discusses difficulties in identifying asexuality as a discrete orientation and makes similar allusions to the split amongst researchers. I have no doubt that researchers who focus their studies on asexuality will hold that position it is 'a thing' but I think it would be hard to name someone who equivalently devotes their career to a specific null hypothesis. 2607:FEA8:A480:350:C8A5:2C18:8B5A:93C9 (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Why not just say that directly: "Asexual history can be traced back to 1869"? DecafPotato (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

"Asexuality/GA2" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Asexuality/GA2 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 8 § Asexuality/GA2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 01:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2023

"Most scholars agree that asexuality is rare, constituting 1% or less of the population" under the prevalence subsection should be changed to "Most scholars agree that asexuality is rare, constituting around 1% of the population".

I believe this should be changed because the article clearly mentions multiple studies that have found asexuality to have a prevalence that is above 1%

some examples from the article:

Kinsey labeled 1.5% of the adult male population as X.

1.05% of the respondents replied that they had "never felt sexually attracted to anyone at all".

he believed that the 1% figure was not an accurate reflection of the likely much larger percentage of the population that could be identified as asexual Theaxeisaxe (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment: most scholars can agree on something while others don't agree. Essentially; as long as the statements are derived from good sources, due weight and a neutral point of view are maintained, with good summary style writing, making clear the disparities, the claim need not be altered. I'm currently near sleep at well past 4 am so not gonna even try and review the section. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that scholars usually have differing opinions, but I believe that saying "[asexuality is] constituting around 1% of the population" is better than saying "[asexuality is] constituting 1% or less of the population", because that better reflects the differing views of scholars.

While it's true that some scholars believe that asexuality is constituting less than 1% of the population, many scholars disagree and therefore I think saying "[asexuality is] constituting around 1% of the population" reflects better the differing views that are held by scholars. I think the original statement leaves out some research done by scholars and therefore should be changed.

I also believe that the change I have proposed is still derived from good sources, gives due weight to the differing views, maintains a neutral point of view, and is still a good summary. Theaxeisaxe (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Lightoil (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Theaxeisaxe: Although it seems on the face of it a perfectly reasonable and minor change, the issue in this case and many similar cases is avoiding synthesis (taking multiple sources and smooshing them all together to arrive at a novel conclusion (i.e. original research)), while also creating a summary of all the valuable, sourced details. Writing good encyclopedia articles, particularly on sensitive subjects, isn't easy (which is why there are so many guidelines and policies, with special attention to e.g. biographies of living persons). The change you suggest would alter a single statement in such a way that it disagreed with its single source. To alter the statement to account for other sources (to summarise them all), the statement and attribution would need to be very carefully crafted. I don't think the section is perfect now, and any improvements should always be welcomed, and with that said, if you have the time and inclination; perhaps consider proposing a more thorough rewrite of the section, such that the summarisation of the sources is more balanced throughout, where no single statement sits in apparent opposition to others (without proper explanation). That one sentence is not wrong, but how it fits with everything else could definitely be improved. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 13:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I see how my proposed change does not follow the guidelines. Maybe something like "Studies on the prevalence of asexuality disagree on the exact percentage, but most find it to be around 1%." would be better. Although that would kind of disagree with the source of the original statement, which I presume found the prevalence to be 1% or lower.

I'm probably to lazy to do a rewrite, but if I did how would I go about doing that? Would I just do the rewrite and then paste it onto the talk page? Theaxeisaxe (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Since the page is only semi-protected, there is little between you and the right to make any changes you deem fit directly to the article; you could do editing work elsewhere on the project until you are autoconfirmed and in good standing, then return to this article to freely edit. Bare in mind that people watching the article will review your work as usual and reversion and discussion could still ensue. It could also be considered rude since a discussion about the changes is already underway. This is just an option.

Otherwise, sure; just copy the section and, for ease, paste it into your user sandbox, make the changes you think are appropriate, then either post an update here, with a link to your sandbox, asking for feedback or, post the result of your labour here (this talk section) in its entirety, again asking for feedback.

We may often seem officious and grumpy, but anyone making an effort here, is doing this because we care about the quality of the encyclopedia; so as long as the work is good, people should be supportive and appreciative, and also forgiving of any non-disruptive method of discussion :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 14:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)