Talk:Asexuality/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

WP:Class assignment

Transunicorn, regarding this alert, would you explain what you and/or Mschm24 have planned for this article? It is often important for student editors to discuss such plans with more experienced Wikipedia editors to ensure that the edits are in compliance with WP:Policies or guidelines. This is for reasons noted at WP:Class assignment. In the case of this article, for example, your class should be mindful of the fact that asexuality is not a well-studied topic, and that it is easy to go overboard with WP:Primary sources. Do read the WP:Primary sources policy. Simply adding study after study, especially primary studies, is not a good way to build an encyclopedia. Also read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) and WP:Fringe; those are important guidelines for this article.

In my opinion, especially given that this article is a WP:Good article, it would be best that your class post your proposed additions to be evaluated, either in your sandbox (with a link on this talk page to that sandbox) and/or directly to this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Flyer22, I posted on your talk page instead of here originally, I apologize for that. I know that you were working on this page at one point and did not want to expand the topic of demisexuals at the time. I, however, would like to add the definition of what demisexuality is, explain the type of relationships demisexuals experience, as well as where they fall on the asexual spectrum and other information regarding demisexuality as a sexual orientation and sexual identity. I feel that expanding on this subject is important in order to allow questioning people to find the information and possible validation that they may need. Though this is a fairly new topic, there is a lot of information on it. I would like to make this information easily accessible for curious people. Ideally I would like to make a separate page for this topic but if not I would like to at least expand on the subject via the Asexuality page. What do you think of this? Mschm24 (talk) 05:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Mschm24, I appreciate that you posted here as well. I would have copied or linked to that post (the one you left on my talk page) here if you had not. I fixed your WP:Indentation above. As for the content at hand, you stated that I "did not want to expand the topic of demisexuals at the time." Where did you get that impression? As noted at Talk:Asexuality/Archive 6#Demisexuality made by girl on forum? and Talk:Asexuality/Archive 6#demiromantic or demisexual, the previous issues with including demisexuality or demiromantic were that it was unsourced or poorly sourced, WP:Original research, not WP:Notable with regard to having its own Wikipedia article, and that it is a neologism. Wikipedia has a policy and a guideline about neologisms, and they are clear that we should generally avoid them; see WP:NEO and MOS:NEO. That stated, I never had a problem with demisexuality or demiromantic being briefly mentioned and sourced in the Identity and relationships section of the Asexuality article. As you can see, it's still mentioned in that section. And now that there is a Gray asexuality article, I don't see that demisexuality should be significantly expanded here at the Asexuality article. The Gray asexuality article is the place for such expansion. I have mentioned at Talk:Gray asexuality that gray asexuality doesn't need its own Wikipedia article, but I also noted that I'm not pursuing a WP:Merge of the articles at this time. I likely will never seek a merge of them. So my suggestion to you is that you expand on demisexuality at the Gray asexuality article, and keep in mind what I stated about sourcing above in this section and at Talk:Gray asexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Kittiexkat (talk · contribs), I see that you are with Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Toronto, Mississauga/WGS 455 Queer Theory (Fall 2015), which is a different class than above. I reverted you, per what I stated above. Do read what I stated to understand why I've reverted you. I apologize for the "sigh" in my WP:Edit summary when reverting you. I will also now relay at Talk:Gray asexuality#Possible Expansion that the additions you made are not the type of additions editors should be making to either this article or to the Gray asexuality article (or anywhere else on Wikipedia), with perhaps the exception of the "Catherine R.H. Aicken, Catherine H. Mercer, and Jackie A. Cassell" material; that material will likely be re-added, since studies on asexuality are scarce and this is one of the cases where WP:Primary sources will be used more so than they will for more established topics. But linking directly to the asexuality.org forums (which currently aren't showing up in that link anyway) and using ace-book.net as a source is not acceptable. Neither is using the AVEN wiki. Wikis are not WP:Reliable sources. AVEN, on the other hand, which is a WP:Primary source, can be used sparingly in the article; the article already does that, however. And as for the following wording: "The term may also be used as an umbrella term to indicate not only asexuality itself, but also a spectrum of diverse sexual orientations that fall outside of strict asexuality or complete allosexuality." I disagree with that wording because gray asexuality is also asexuality, as is made clear by the Identity and relationships section, which, in addition to noting the term gray A, addresses how researchers and people who identify as asexual use the term; the definition/terminology is clearly varied, no matter how much some people want to define asexuality strictly. Furthermore, sexual identity is not necessarily the same thing as sexual orientation. Calling all of these asexual identities "sexual orientations" is WP:Fringe; keep in mind that asexuality is not even widely accepted by researchers or the general public as a sexual orientation. And its identities are aspects of it, not separate sexual orientations. Flyer22 (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 (talk · contribs) I do understand why the section on Community was reverted, and it was something I had a sneaking suspicion would happen based simply on the nature of the section. I suppose the truly unfortunate part of being such an understudied field is that the richest resources - the community itself - does not provide sufficiently 'reliable' resources for a scholarly set up such as this. I do not, however, understand why the the information I added to the section on Prevalence was removed. The article was published in Psychology and Sexuality, a journal which I felt was a reliable source. If it is not, I would appreciate some clarification so I know how to direct my remaining research for my assignment. As for the sentence I added about asexuality as an umbrella term, I do understand why it was removed, due to the section further in the article that discusses it, but I felt that it was important to include it in the intro, as well, as it is the space for the most immediate overview of the term.Kittiexkat (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Kittiexkat (talk · contribs), thanks for replying. There is no need to WP:Ping me since this article/talk page is on my WP:Watchlist. Also, since I assume that you will check back here or put this article on your WP:Watchlist if you want to read replies, this is my last time WP:Pinging you to this section unless you'd rather that I WP:Ping you or unless I feel that I need to get your attention. As for the Prevalence material being removed, it got removed as part of a wholesale revert (me going into the edit history and reverting all of your edits instead of preserving any of the valid content). I mentioned above that the "Catherine R.H. Aicken, Catherine H. Mercer, and Jackie A. Cassell" material would likely be re-added, since studies on asexuality are scarce and this is one of the cases where WP:Primary sources will be used more so than they will for more established topics. I've gone ahead and re-added the prevalence material, but we should still take it easy on WP:Primary sources. See the WP:Primary sources policy (already linked above) for what I mean. As for the content you added to the lead, I object to that specific wording, per what I've stated above. A bit about the definition of asexuality being varied can be added to the lead, however, per WP:Lead. Something else I objected to in your previous editing is that you added a visible note in the article; we don't add notes like that in our articles unless they are hidden (see WP:Hidden note); well, we usually don't anyway. Just like I suggested to Mschm24, I suggest that you post proposed additions to be evaluated, either in your sandbox (with a link on this talk page to that sandbox) and/or directly to this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

If you wish, you may follow my sandbox here. However, I will warn you that I suffer from anxiety and do not like being monitored and, as such, may end up expanding on my work in a private document instead, although I will try my best not to as that defeats the purpose of opening up my revision plans to you. I also hope you will consider that it is still largely a work-in-progress, and, as such, is vague and potentially incoherent in places. I appreciate your feedback and your re-addition of the Prevalence content (I did not wish to add it back myself too quickly, lest an editing war be triggered), and apologize for any troubles I've caused you. I should have reviewed the article on Primary Sources again before editing as I had forgotten that reporting on one's own research findings falls into that category, but, as you agreed, there is limited research on the subject matter. I will see what I can do to revise the wording of my addition to the lead; is it simply the use of "orientation" instead of "identity" that you take issue with, or is there more to it than that?Kittiexkat (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in monitoring your work; I'm interested in your additions being suitable for the article before they are added to the article, which is why I suggested that you post your proposed additions to this talk page first, either by linking to a specific addition in your sandbox or by typing (or copying and pasting) it here. I mean, once you think it's ready to be added to the article. As for your addition to the lead, other than my issue with the "sexual orientation" aspect, I reiterate that I take issue with the wording making it seem like asexuality and gray asexuality are distinct when, really, they are not when considering that the definition/terminology for asexuality is varied; I've addressed (more than once) at this talk page that asexuality does not only mean "no sexual attraction"; it also means "little to no sexual attraction," and, going by some definitions, a significantly low interest in sexual activity. That is not to say that everyone with a low sex drive is asexual, of course; I've also made that clear in the past. Flyer22 (talk) 07:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I know, I didn't exactly mean to insinuate otherwise. It's just that the very fact that it's been linked in public will make me feel monitored, as I will not know at any given moment if my plans are being reviewed. I completely understand your desire to maintain the integrity of the page! Personally, I disagree, in that I think asexuality and gray-asexuality (and demisexuality, for that matter) are all distinct, just as, say, bisexuality and pansexuality are. I do, however, know that Wiki articles are not the place for personal opinions. As they are, however, meant to be unbiased, they should reflect both opinions and the current lead states that "Asexuality (or nonsexuality) is the lack of sexual attraction to anyone, or low or absent interest in sexual activity," which indicates variation only on the interest in sexual acitvity, and not on the side of sexual attraction. Would you be opposed to something along the lines of, "Asexuality (or nonsexuality)[1][2][3] is the lack or limited experiencing of sexual attraction to anyone, or low or absent interest in sexual activity.[4][5][6] It may be considered the lack of a sexual orientation, or one of the variations thereof, alongside heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality.[7][8][9] It may also be an umbrella term used to categorize a broader spectrum of various asexual sub-identities. A study in 2004 placed the prevalence of asexuality at 1% in the British population.[7][10]"? I think this shows compromise onto both sides, indicating that asexuality itself can be varied, and that it could alternately be an umbrella term for the varied identities within the category. Kittiexkat (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, we disagree on the asexuality and gray asexuality distinction, but that's okay. Indeed, Wikipedia is about sticking to what the sources state and not biasing content with our own feelings. I also don't agree that bisexuality and pansexuality are necessarily distinct; for why, see this discussion and the sourced content about the distinction in the Pansexuality article, if you have not already seen it. The term pansexuality is distinct from the term bisexuality, depending on which definition of bisexuality is used. But other than that, they are the same thing for the vast majority of research purposes, and many people who identify as bisexual disagree with the bisexual vs. pansexual distinction. But, yes, that debate is addressed in the Pansexuality article. Regarding your proposed wording, I do not like your suggestion for the WP:Lead sentence; it is an awkward and unnecessary change, in my opinion. I don't understand your objection to the current lead sentence. I am fine with your "It may also be an umbrella term" sentence, however. Feel free to go ahead and make that change. I suggest that, per WP:EGG, the WP:Pipelink you've included in it be moved from "spectrum" to "asexual sub-identities." I also suggest that you wikilink "umbrella term." Flyer22 (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not have time to read that particular debate, unfortunately, but I do know of and understand some critiques on the distinction based on the idea of gender binary being enforced by the differentiation and all of that. But that's fine with me, to leave the starting sentence as it is, and simply add the sentence about being an umbrella term. And I'll take your suggestion on what to link and where to link it, as well. Thank you for your feedback! Kittiexkat (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! I wanted to warn you that my assignment is due tomorrow (in its first incarnation), and that I'm doing the bulk of it right now. I will try to keep my sandbox actively updated so that you can provide feedback like you wanted to, but there will come a point where I'll need to move my work to the live site whether or not you've had a chance to review it. Part of our assignment is actually to work with other users who reply to our work after "we go live", anyway! Still, I'll try to edit in chunks so that if you come across something you want to revert, you don't have to revert everything just to take out pieces here and there. I've already started to add some of my work to my sandbox, which was linked a few posts earlier!Kittiexkat (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Kittiexkat, I am mostly fine with your November 2, 2015 edits, but there were some issues. You can see that with this edit I made (followup edits here and here). My main issues were MOS:Head, WP:REFPUNCT, WP:ENGVAR, WP:Citation overkill, WP:SAID, there being inconsistent quotation mark style, comma style, and that it was WP:Undue weight to have the entire Psychology section be about Bogaert; I renamed the section so that it is clearly about him. If you plan to add psychological views from others to that section, then we can rename the section "Psychology." Also, since Bogaert is introduced in the Prevalence section, there is no need to introduce him again. And I feel that the Prevalence section should remain a part of the Research section. I disagree with the setup (section setup) in your sandbox; I'd rather the article not have that layout. For one, per MOS:Paragraphs, I'm not keen on unnecessary subheadings (especially for a little bit of content). For two, subheadings can make an article look significantly bigger than it is (from the table of contents) and therefore harder to navigate through. And for three, I see no need for such a drastic change in the article's setup. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22_Reborn (talk · contribs) I'm doing this from my phone, so I really hope I don't mess up the formatting! Thank you for your feedback! I noticed that you'd reverted my choice to move Prevalence to its own header. I understand, and I can work with that (after all, the stats had to come from somewhere!), but I just wanted to say I was trying to model after the Bisexuality and Homosexuality pages that have prevalence/demographics as their own headers, but I understand your qualms and, honestly, that's a compromise I don't mind making! As for the Psychology section, I had intended to address other work, but ran out of time; your subheader is much more fitting, so thank you for that. As for the Citation Overkill, I had suspected as much, but wanted to be safe rather than sorry. My apologies for causing you to have to adjust them, but it is greatly appreciated all the same.

Additionally, in regards to my earlier edits, I’ve noticed that the AVEN Wiki is cited on the LGBT Symbols page in reference to Asexuality, and I wondered if this precedent changes your opinion at all on my including the AVEN triangle in the community section (so you don’t have to go hunting for it, the caption was, “The AVEN triangle. Originally the logo of AVEN, this triangle has come to be regarded as a symbol of asexuality. The gradient pattern is intended to indicate the varying levels of sexual attraction across all sexual orientations.” with a citation to http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=AVEN_Triangle)? It's okay if it doesn't, I just thought that it might be worth asking. Kittiexkat (talk)

Thanks for explaining. And no worries. You are new at editing Wikipedia, and I understand that it takes a lot of time to get good at editing this site. You are taking the time to communicate and compromise, and I appreciate that. As for the AVEN triangle, I don't mind if you include the image since it's a WP:Free image supported by WP:Commons, but, like I noted above, wikis are not WP:Reliable sources. That section in the LGBT symbols article currently has other poor sources as well. I or someone else should fix that. The triangle had been in the Asexuality article, but an IP recently removed it, stating, "AVEN Triangle Logo is no longer in widespread use outside of AVEN itself, having been supplanted by the flag and 'ace cards'." I replied, "IP, that's not a good reason to remove that image, especially since it was noted in the caption as being an AVEN flag. But since it was poorly sourced, I won't revert you on that."

On a side note: Remember that there is no need to WP:Ping me to this section since this article/talk page is on my WP:Watchlist. But since I've had a rename, pinging my old username doesn't work anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I had noticed that your user had changed (and still managed to ping it incorrectly anyway, go figure), although I could have assumed by your quick response to the edits that you were still watching the page! I also appreciate how understanding you've been - writing for Wiki is definitely a different experience, there are so many little things that make sense once I've seen them, but that I just didn't consider at all. I'm afraid the over-citing is still going to trip me up for a while, but I'll work on it. And okay, thanks! I just wasn't sure if it was proper to add the image if I wouldn't be able to find a proper way to cite an explanation of what it was.Kittiexkat (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Mental health

Our article states that asexuals "do not have disproportionate rates of alexithymia, depression, personality disorders or social withdrawal," and the source supports this. However, the study it cites, Brotto et al. (2010), actually found that asexuals had high rates of social withdrawal (p. 608). A more recent study, Yule, Brotto & Gorzalka (2013), found that asexuals had elevated rates of depression, anxiety, psychoticism, suicidality and interpersonal problems. With these conflicting results, we shouldn't make any conclusive statements about the mental health of asexuals. KateWishing (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your comment above and this edit, you are aware that WP:MEDRS discourages WP:Primary sources. While WP:Primary sources are unavoidable for the topic of asexuality and we therefore have to keep the "may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published" portion of WP:MEDDATE in mind, we should not be using WP:Primary sources to counter what WP:Secondary sources state; WP:MEDRS is clear about that. Flyer22 (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if my addition was removed or reduced, though I don't think it contradicts any secondary source. It might be better as "A 2015 study found that asexuals differed from people with HSDD in terms of sexual desire, experience and distress." instead of a whole paragraph. Back to mental health, I see your point, though I still think we should remove the mention of social withdrawal since it appears to be an error. There are several sources that secondarily refer to the high rates of social withdrawal reported by Brotto et al. (2010). Quoting from the Google Scholar results: "some described a relationship between asexuality and social withdrawal", "About half of participants did report elevated scores on the Social Withdrawal scale" "(Brotto et al., 2010), formed links between asexuality and disorders such as Schizoid Personality Disorder/social withdrawal" "The same study, however, found higher rates of social withdrawal", etc. KateWishing (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I was just about to state that I would not mind rewording to be less definitive, per what you relayed (your "15:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)" post above); for example, by using WP:In-text "According to" wording. As for your latest comment, very well then. Tweak the content as appropriate...keeping in mind what we can get away with as far as WP:MEDRS goes. Flyer22 (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. KateWishing (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I tweaked the text since stating "According to a 2013 book" is vague and it can come across as though the book is making that statement without evidence. And if I worded it as "According to researchers Richards and Barker," it could be taken to mean that the statement is based on their own research. I therefore went with the "Researchers Richards and Barker report that" wording. Followup edit here. And a hidden note about the "social withdrawal" aspect here.

Going back to what you stated about the book source compared to the primary source, "disproportionate rates" is not the same thing as "high rates." Furthermore, though the source states "do not have disproportionate rates," perhaps it means "generally do not have disproportionate rates"...just like it uses "in general" for the "do not lack physical arousal" part. Flyer22 (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Before simply going ahead and doing it, I wanted to propose moving the paragraph, "The first study that gave empirical data about asexuals [...] and autoerotic activities" to the new "Mental Health" subheader that I added, as I feel it is more fitting there than in the broader "Sexual activity and sexuality" subheader. Thoughts?Kittiexkat (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the content you added, I moved it to the section that already talks about mental health and its relation to asexuality. I don't see that the mental health text should be divided. As seen, I also renamed the section. With this edit, I then moved the section under "Research" since it has more to do with research than with definitions; I'd been thinking about doing so, and your latest addition helped push me in that direction. Per WP:Undue weight, that content you added did not need its own section. I also want to remind you of WP:MEDRS; we generally shouldn't be relying on single studies like that, no matter that research on asexuality is scarce. Also remember MOS:HEAD (lowercase headings) and WP:REFPUNCT. On a side note: Per the #WP:Class assignment section below, I thought you were done editing the article. Either way, I appreciate your help with the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Then again, I did note above in this section that WP:MEDDATE's advice to relax the sourcing standards in less actively researched fields applies in the case of this article. It's the going overboard with primary source studies that I worry about. In this case, I prefer if we are citing from a book or a review. Also, when you added "causation" for the mental health text, is that what you meant? Not "Caucasian"? I ask because "causation" was capitalized before I de-capitalized it and it doesn't seem to fit with the sentence it's used in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You meant "Caucasian"; I fixed it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I did mean "Caucasian," I am so sorry! Must have picked the wrong correction in my spellcheck list, how embarrassing. I was concerned about the undue weight, although I had thought that the above proposed move would negate that. Your merge in the other direction makes sense, though! Might as well just add mental health into that header, rather than having to tweak and reword transitions by moving chunks of text out of their original habitats! I guess I hadn't considered that myself as the header and section already seemed a bit broad. As per the less-researched fields/primary sources issue, that is sort of what I anticipated, although I think some of it is still me getting confused because these articles are peer reviewed journal articles, which makes them secondary sources in most contexts? I am now done my assignment; this morning's edits were part of my work for the final draft, although I can't promise that I won't pop in from time to time. Hopefully once there's been more research done.Kittiexkat (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I would also still argue that the above-mentioned paragraph be moved from the "Sexual activity and sexuality" header, however, as it disccuses the self-esteem and depression results of the study. Perhaps just the "Results showed that asexuals were more likely to have low self-esteem [...] this for a variety of reasons" part that ought to be moved, but as the section it is currently in is after the section for mental health, the intro to the study would need to be tweaked and moved around, too.Kittiexkat (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

We all make typos, including embarrassing typos (such as occasionally mixing up "they're" and "their"); so I certainly don't hold that typo against you. I originally didn't pay much attention to your "07:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)" comment about moving material. You're right that part of that content is better placed in the section discussing mental health; with this edit, I moved part of it there, and left the sexual activity part in the Sexual activity and sexuality section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

As for "these articles are peer reviewed journal articles, which makes them secondary sources in most contexts?", there has been a little debate at the WP:MEDRS talk page (past debate, not recent) about there being some sources that are primary for some aspects but secondary for other aspects. I think it's best to simply go by what the WP:Primary sources policy states. And because people often confuse what peer review is, I also sometimes state, "peer review by itself is not the same thing as literature review or systematic review; WP:MEDRS prefers the latter two." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

But again, per WP:MEDDATE, we have more leeway in the case of this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Aromantic flag

Currently, there's an image for an aromantic flag on this page. I'm aware that a couple designs have been used, but have any of them gained enough traction to be appropriate for this article? It's not explained in the text and aromanticism itself isn't exclusive to asexuality. Furthermore, the source is a Tumblr post. Is there anything that makes it notable for inclusion? WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ace (Asexual slang)

I think "ace" as slang for "asexual" should be mentioned somewhere. See also Talk:Ace (disambiguation)#Ace (Asexual slang). SoniEx2 (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree, it's a very commonplace and widely used term in the community. If there aren't any objections, I think I may as well add it in somewhere. MapleSyrupRain (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

After an editor added the content to the lead, I removed it from the lead since it's not quite a WP:Alternative title and does not need to be noted in the lead (see WP:Lead). I moved it to the section about definitions, etc.), and added sources to it. On a side note: I'd seen the dispute at the Ace disambiguation page before the matter was brought here, but I kept out of it because I did not see such a strong need for "ace" and its relationship to asexuality to be noted there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Introduction

There is a reference here to sexuality as a static versus fluid thing, and its referenced as if there is no debate... but there is a debate on this.... I think this needs altering and a source for fluid sexuality linked to support that side of things. Some sources could be taken from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fluidity 80.80.177.122 (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC) 17/3/16

Late to reply, but I'm not sure what you mean. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Nonsexuality

Why was nonsexuality removed from this article? It is a historical alternative word for asexuality. I noticed in the editing notes someone just removed the word and said it was "bullshit." Who gets to make this decision and why was the word not restored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddietheace (talk • contribs) 13:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

As seen with this edit, an IP removed it and I did not restore it since it is not a significant WP:Alternative name for this topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Edward Gorey

Please add Edward Gorey back to the section "Famous asexual people". He's already deceased (2000), so he is not affected by WP:BLP.

Also please add David Jay to the section "See also". He's the founder and webmaster of AVEN, so I like it's quite appropriate to add him to that section. Thanks Q. C. D. L. (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Q. C. D. L. (talk · contribs), I was clear that I deleted the recent "Famous asexual people" section because it was trivia and because of WP:BLP issues. I pointed to Talk:Asexuality/Archive 6#Removing "Notable Asexuals" section. Whether we are listing alive or deceased asexual people, the section is not needed and would attract problems -- the unsourced and WP:Synthesis type of problems. I also don't think such a section is encyclopedic. Furthermore, it's already clear from the article that David Jay is asexual. Per WP:See also, Edward Gorey can be linked in the See also section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This article could be improved by discussing community in more detail. For instance, social media's influence and impact could be added to the article.

Some possible sources for the article could be:

MacNeela, Pádraig, and Aisling Murphy. "Freedom, Invisibility, and Community: A Qualitative Study of Self-Identification with Asexuality." Archives Of Sexual Behavior 44, no. 3 (April 2015): 799-812.

Van Houdenhove, Ellen, et al. "Stories About Asexuality: A Qualitative Study on Asexual Women." Journal Of Sex & Marital Therapy 41, no. 3 (May 2015): 262-281.

Chasin, C.J. DeLuzio. "Reconsidering Asexuality and Its Radical Potential." Feminist Studies 39, no. 2 (2013): 405+. CitlaliE (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbols

There is a section on symbols but it doesn't include an Ace of Spades or Ace of Hearts which has come to represent the ACE community. See AVEN wiki which says "Ace of Hearts and Ace of Spades: these playing cards represent asexuality because "ace" is a slang term for an asexual." See: https://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Symbols_of_asexuality and https://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Asexual_slang and http://theasexualityblog.tumblr.com/post/115695074156/ace-visibility-day and http://anagnori.tumblr.com/post/69567959214/asexual-symbols Tomandzeke (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Tomandzeke, we need WP:Reliable sources for that, and/or at least a free image via WP:Commons. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

All the reference and the graphic that is needed is here. AVEN is the most respected resource. References and a symbol listed as shown in this Talk section. It just requires someone who can handle graphics to do the work because I can't move the Ace from the Commons to the article. The references are above. An image of an ace is already used in Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ace_of_spades. Tomandzeke (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Tomandzeke, AVEN is okay to use as a WP:Primary source. But AVEN Wiki is not. Wikis are not WP:Reliable sources; see WP:QUESTIONABLE. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

In that case use this LGBT.NET reference: http://lgbt.net/asexual/ Tomandzeke (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Still not a good source to use. Take the time to read WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Ace of Clubs and the Ace of Diamonds are also being used now, representing Greyromantic Aces and Demiromantic Aces respectively. See: https://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Asexual_slang Cattnip (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be irresponsible to add info about the Ace of Clubs or Ace of Diamonds without context, criticism and the reasons why people have largely abandoned them. The Ace of Clubs & Ace of Diamonds were made up in 2014 by Sara from "TheAsexualityBlog" for "Ace Visibility Day" which was widely criticised on many levels. The name, timing and purpose of the day were changed in response (Ace Day-- and no longer about selfies). In particular, 4 card system adding the ace of diamonds and clubs was harshly criticised for making "romantic orientation" mandatory and breaking it up in particular ways according to homonormative neoliberal identity politics which simply do not reflect the diversity of lived experiences. (More about the history here: http://www.theasexualityblog.com/information.html) People have backed off from that and even Ace Day no longer uses the ace of diamonds and clubs for the purpose of this day. (More info here: http://www.theasexualityblog.com/ace-day-announcements.html ) The AVEN wiki articles are generally lacking in ace community history and context and often include biased information. That page contains misleading information about explaining "ace" and leaves out the part about how it wasn't used the way it is now as an identity label/descriptor until it was deliberately adopted for an unconference in San Fransisco circa 2011 to be an umbrella term for everyone on the asexual spectrum: while it is a phonetic abbrieviation of "asexual" it is not "short for asexual". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.155.124 (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

--Gerdesk (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)== More WP:Student editing ==

Eeverso1 (talk · contribs), Figuresk8ter94 (talk · contribs) and Rrdominguez (talk · contribs), what do you have planned for this article? Whatever it is, do see WP:Student editing. As seen with this edit (followup edit here), I tweaked and downsized one piece from your class. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Gerdesk (talk · contribs), regarding this, what does your class have planned for this article? Whatever it is, see WP:Student editing and Talk:Asexuality/Archive 7#WP:Class assignment for what is commonly expected of student editors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Enteryourcleverusername, since Gerdesk has yet to explain, perhaps you and/or Kmwebber are willing to explain what edits you are looking to make to the article and why? And again, for why I am concerned, see WP:Student editing and Talk:Asexuality/Archive 7#WP:Class assignment. It is important that student editors communicate with the senior/usual editors of the article, if possible. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Flyer22 Reborn I just wanted to let you know that I don't have any intention to further edit this article as a student editing project or in general. Also, I do not know and am not working with either of these other editors on this or any other project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmwebber (talk • contribs) 17:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Kmwebber. Thanks for replying. I guess just have to wait and see what happens. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, sorry for the delay in response. I'm working with Wiki Education's platform on this project for a Sexual Ethics class. There is only one student from my class (I believe) working on this article, and the student is required (as are all students through the Wiki Education platform) to undergo training on Wikipedia's policies and procedures as they learn how to contribute to the Wikipedia community. While I have been a Wikipedia editor in the past, this is my first time using it as a pedagogical tool. I intend to follow Wikipedia's guidelines, and monitor student's contributions to make sure they, too, are following guidelines, to the best of my ability. I welcome constructive feedback about this, as I understand certain pages have dedicated editors who are understandably invested in maintaining the integrity of those pages. Any edits submitted to this page would be for the purposes of improving it, if possible, as the field of asexuality studies develops. Gerdesk (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources and Community

Some sources on this article might be considered out of date. I want to find some new research on asexuality, especially in the mental health section. I will be looking at new studies and seeing if there is new information or updated information. Also I'd like to improve the community page with any new events, organizations, etc. that have been started recently. I want to look into a journal by Robert R. Warner to see if there is any left out information that may help improve the article.

Two sites I also want to look into are Asexualgroups.com and Asexualitic.com. These websites help people connect the more asexual people within their hometowns and around the world.

Giannacupo (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Giannacupo. Considering that asexuality is not much of an actively studied field, I doubt that much of anything in the article is out of date. As for the mental health section, I'm going to go ahead and repeat what I stated when there was a different class assignment just last year: Your class should be mindful of the fact that asexuality is not a well-studied topic, and that it is easy to go overboard with WP:Primary sources. Do read the WP:Primary sources policy. Simply adding study after study, especially primary studies, is not a good way to build an encyclopedia. Also read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) and WP:Fringe; those are important guidelines for this article.

Giannacupo, the two sites you've pointed to should not be used as sources for this article. See WP:Reliable sources for what I mean. We use AVEN, but mainly as a source about itself and/or as an adjunct to a secondary source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

___

I was wondering if this study would be useful to add to the article. Maybe only adding the results instead of the whole study? I know it has not been referenced on the page before and is fairly up to date. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-006-9142-3#enumeration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giannacupo (talk • contribs) 04:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Giannacupo. Do make sure to read the WP:Primary sources page, as Flyer22 Reborn suggested, if you haven't already. The idea is that Wikipedia articles are best when they rely on secondary sources. An interesting line of inquiry for the source you cite here might be to look at the number of articles in Google Scholar that cite this article, and for what purposes. Has this article contributed to or established a new concept, method, or practice that can be verified through its citation in other articles? The use of primary sources (like the study you cite) must be verified by a secondary source so as to prevent you from putting original research into the article - since having to sum up the article may lead to your interpreting it (i.e., contributing original research to Wikipedia), or to including something that hasn't been verified by other sources. Gerdesk (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Asexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090827232513/http://www.asexuality.org:80/home/relationship.html to http://www.asexuality.org/home/relationship.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ag.ny.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Research

I recently came across this paper on Asexuality and was wondering where other editors think it would best fit in the current Research Categories.

The Ontology of Asexuality: A Genealogical Analysis of Invisibility.

Ariadne (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Ariadne, stick to secondary and tertiary sources, and don't go overboard with university sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

LGBTQ issue

There've been a number of edits about the fact that asexuality is under the LGBTQ umbrella recently. None of these edits provide reliable sources and simply appear to be personal opinion. That said, asexuality is widely put under the LGBTQ/MOGAI umbrella as a minority orientation. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

What reliable sources do you have for LGBTQ inclusion? I'm not trying to take a side one way or the other; I'm just trying to ask for clarification. 71.63.240.155 (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain this is a good reliable source. As well, since Huffington Post is already sourced in the article anyway, I figure this should work. – 🐈? (talk) ^{(ping me!)} 21:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. I'd agree it's good enough. 71.63.240.155 (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927014407/http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/publications/PDF/PrauseGrahamPDF.pdf to http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/publications/PDF/PrauseGrahamPDF.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I have checked this. —♫CheChe♫ talk 12:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes reverted

I reverted these recent changes made by this, this and this IP. The second IP is likely the first IP. I reverted because not only did they change text away from what WP:Reliable, WP:Secondary sources state, they overly relied on AVEN sourcing. AVEN is a WP:Primary source, and Wikipedia articles should not overly rely on those. AVEN does not trump the reliable secondary sources. We already give AVEN's definition of asexuality in the "Definition, identity and relationships" section. Per WP:Due weight, that is all the leeway it gets when it comes to defining asexuality. Edits like this are problematic because they add WP:Weasel wording "some" (which should be avoided unless needed) and focus on what "many asexuals have described" via AVEN. This alteration does not help. Furthermore, the source does not state "many or most asexuals would describe themselves as merely having a different type of sexual orientation." It simply states that asexuality is a sexual orientation; we already note that asexuality may or may not be viewed as a sexual orientation. The lead does not need to go into about gray asexuality. Per WP:Lead, the lead is a summary. All gray asexuality needs is a sentence in the lead, not a paragraph. And per WP:Lead, the lead should ideally not exceed four paragraphs. The IP made the lead into five paragraphs to focus on gray asexuality. The %1 aspect that the IP added to the lead should not be there since that percentage focuses on Britain and is perhaps not accurate regarding the overall prevalence of asexuality; this is made clear in the Prevalence section. This is why the 1% aspect was removed from the lead before.

The IP is more than welcome to come here and make his/her/their case. I will alert the IP to my revert and why I reverted, pointing the IP to this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll also go ahead and address the IP adding the following to the lead paragraph: "many asexual individuals prefer to define 'sexual activity' as being limited to 'procreative type sex' only, and prefer to consider other forms of physical contact with the opposite sex as not necessarily forms 'sexual activity,' as they would define them." This bit is unsourced and should not be in the lead paragraph. It also should not be in the lead since the "procreative sex" argument is not made lower in the article first. Again, the lead is supposed to summarize. It should not contain elements not already summarized lower (not usually anyway). Furthermore, the lead already states in the second paragraph: "Some asexual people engage in sexual activity despite lacking sexual attraction or a desire for sex, due to a variety of reasons, such as a desire to pleasure themselves or romantic partners, or a desire to have children." And that is enough for the lead on how asexuals may view sexual activity. And, yes, "some" is fine in this case since it is speaking of asexual people in general, not anyone notable. By contrast, the "some" that the IP added could make one wonder what authoritative source or what scholar has stated such, which can then lead to a Template:Who tag. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Asexuality/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Although this is an important page with interesting and vital information, it is by no means a good wikipedia article, mainly because of its reliance on primary sources (university studies and opinion polls) and sometimes biased opinions.

A large proportion of the 'facts' claimed are based on research by Bogaert. - I followed a few citations from the main body and leading paragraph and found that of the 20 citations, at least 8 either directly or indirectly used Bogaert as a source. Bogaret's evidence from 1994 extrapolated asexuality based on an answer of no attraction to either sex when asked on sexual desire. While these positions are near, they are not synonymous and therefore his conclusions cannot be read as empirical evidence.

Another very large issue with this page and the evidence it is based upon is the fact that in surveys, rather than people with 'asexual' qualities and experiences being retrospectively labeled asexual, these participants are self proclaimed asexuals. I think that this has a bearing on how the surveys were answered. If i were to start a survey and first say 'yes i am an asexual', I would then (this is opinion) make sure that my answers were in keeping with what i believed asexuality to be. The survey i refer to is source [3] This study, in the intro, states its aim as to "provide exploratory data for future hypothesis-driven research". In its findings it also states: "further research is needed on the correlates of asexuality (it used a piece of 2004 Bogaret data in comparison to find this conclusion). This study is cited 13 times in the article, and considering that that is nearly 10% of all citations on this page, i think it must be taken into account that this pivotal and crucial piece of evidence says itself that it is only exploratory data, which used qualitative open question essays (which has lead to purportedly empirical evidence.

For me the section "Discrimination and legal protections" is really not great. Its portrayal of asexual struggles is not backed up by any empirical real world prejudice, just opinions and polls from people likely already interested in LGBT+ issues.

Of the 75 sources, under 20 appeared to be either secondary, reliable or even relevant; of the 146 citations, 50% (73) are from just 12 sources, which i analysed and found that 7 were written by or relied heavily on research by Bogaert. Meaning that 44 out of 146 citations (35%) are reliant on a single man's findings, which have been disputed (See source 31). I haven't got time to critique the rest of the article, but if you check out everything i've said, it quickly becomes clear that this article is not based on fact and is misleading - at best. Good, reliable, secondary sources are a must for any good article, and therefore the good article symbol must be removed and the evidence re-examined. Either better evidence must be found, or it must be accepted that as this is a relatively new field in social science, it will take more time before concrete, encyclopaedic worthy evidence is found.

(the 12 sources i researched were: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 17, 22, 31, 32 (sources with 4 or more citations)) Callum radiator (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted you on your removal of the "good article" template. I realize that you might not understand this since your Wikipedia account has very few edits edits attached to it, but, at this stage, you do not have the power to remove the "good article" template. Looking at your account, I also very much doubt that you are a newbie, but I may concern myself with that at a later date.

Now to address your points, asexuality is not well-researched; the article is clear about that. As seen here, the article is based on WP:Tertiary and secondary sources when it can be. Otherwise, it is based on primary sources, which is fine, given the limited data out there about this topic. Even WP:MEDDATE, which applies to some aspects of this article, states, "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published." Bogaert is the leading researcher in this field; so it is obvious that a lot of material will be based on his findings, but there is also a lot of material in the article not based on his findings. Good articles can exist even for topics that are relatively new in the field of social science; being relatively new in the field of social science is not a valid reason to delist an article that is generally well-sourced and is based on the available literature for that topic. And, for the record, all sexual orientation identity material is based on self-identification; there is no biological test that identifies a person's sexual orientation. Surveys, polls and similar is how sexual orientation identity material is gathered.

This article has been subject to significant WP:Student editing since it was elevated to GA status, and, as the edit history of its talk page shows (for example, see here), I have encouraged the students to use secondary sources, not primary sources. In some cases where they have used primary sources instead of secondary sources, this can be easily remedied. WP:Good article reassessment is not article cleanup. You did not follow the WP:Good article reassessment protocol. For one, it states, "Where possible, editors should conduct an individual reassessment, while community reassessment should be used if delisting is likely to be controversial." Why would you think an individual reassessment would not be controversial in this case? WP:Good article reassessment also states, "The outcome of a reassessment should only depend on whether the article being reassessed meets the good article criteria or not. The goal should not be to delist the article, but to restore it back to its former good article quality, if possible."

WP:Good article reassessment also states, "Before attempting to have any article delisted through reassessment, take these steps:

Fix any simple problems yourself. Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems.

Tag serious problems that you cannot fix with appropriate template messages, if the templates will help other editors find the problems. Do not tag bomb the article.

Make sure that the problems you see in the article are covered by the actual good article criteria. Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with the Manual of Style are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for delisting.

Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it."

You did none of that...unless we are counting this small edit you made (and I did re-remove that). Your main issue is with the sourcing. If you can find better sourcing, then you are supposed to do it yourself. This reassessment should be closed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I apologise for not following proper protocol, i was rushed and honestly i find a lot of the methods on wikipedia infinitely confusing. My main issue is with sourcing, but that means that my main issue is with the actual information too. I could not find better sources if i wanted to, because the information is only available from these few sources who's scientific information i dispute. It feels as though you haven't read my assessment and have just ignored my issues. On another point, for a page to be a good article, it needs be neutral in point of view. I disagree that this article is neutral and scientifically based, particularly in the discrimination section. I looked at the original article and it is distinctly different from the article as it stands now. It is not the same article, it has different information, and different sources. This page should be reassessed anyway on the basis that it is too different from the page which was originally listed as a good article. My source issue is much greater than you make it out to be, as the article relies on primary scientific data, and news companies reporting this primary data - these do not make for reliable secondary sources. wikipedia defines a primary source as "the original publication of a scientist's new data, results and theories". The discrimination section is based on one single poll. I do not need to find better sources, i honestly think a lot of the information must be removed as it is based on (as i said above) too few studies- some of which self admit to only being exploratory. Without proper hypothesis driven research, many of the main points are simply not valid as each point is generally backed up by one or two 'sources' which once i looked into them, lead back to one of three studies. I'm aware that i may not be making myself clear, and i may come off as a madman. I apologise. I want this article to be good. I think that this article needs to have a community reassessment due to the facts that: -it is almost a different article from the one that was given its good article status some years ago. -Its inclusion of certain information (discrimination) shows a clear bias -Some of the information cannot be purported as fact because there is simply not enough evidence. Again, i am not an internet wizz-kid so i apologise for my methods. please take this criticism seriously Callum radiator (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I read your assessment, which is why I explained why I disagree with it. Your assessment is mainly based on the fact that you dispute the validity of asexuality/whatever science there may be behind asexuality because the sources are based on self-identified asexuals. Like I've noted to you above, "all sexual orientation identity material is based on self-identification; there is no biological test that identifies a person's sexual orientation. Surveys, polls and similar is how sexual orientation identity material is gathered." I've read enough people disputing asexuality on the article talk page in the talk page's earlier days. The fact that asexuality is disputed is made very clear in the Asexuality article (including in the lead of the article), but the fact that it is disputed does not mean that we are not supposed to report on what these sources state. Wikipedia goes by WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability first and foremost, and there are enough primary, tertiary and secondary sources reporting on the asexual identity and on categorizing it as a sexual orientation. These days, it is not unusual for asexuality to be thought of as the fourth sexual orientation, alongside heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality. This article does not state the existence of asexuality as a definitive fact; it is very clear that asexuality is not yet widely accepted as a sexual orientation. It's also clear about it being accepted enough that researchers debate it. See the WP:Neutral policy; actually read it. Being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse. And either way, this article presents both sides when it comes to the existence of asexuality. Wikipedia does not state that we cannot use primary sources. It cautions against us relying too heavily on primary sources. In the case of asexuality, there are enough tertiary and secondary sources reporting on the primary research. I can easily find such sources on Google Books. There is certainly primary-sourced material in this article that I can source to tertiary or secondary sources; so the issue of using primary sources in some of the instances is easily fixed. In other instances, we can use primary sources until tertiary or secondary sources are available for the material, as long as we don't violate the WP:Synthesis policy or the WP:Editorializing guideline. The Discrimination and legal protections section is not supported by one source. If there are sources that challenge what is stated in that section, then we are supposed to present them if they are WP:Reliable and are not too WP:Fringe. If there are no such sources, then I do not see what you think should be done about what is stated in that section. Either way, the argument that this small section needs improvement is not a valid reason to delist this article. Your complaints about the article are not covered by the good article criteria, that is my point. Going by what WP:Good article reassessment states, it does not seem that you truly want to improve this article. It seems that you simply want to delist it because you dispute the validity of asexuality since we can't prove that asexual people exist other than by their claims and/or some researchers claims that they exist. That's not the way that delisting an article is supposed to work. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

As for how this article looked in 2011 when I brought it to WP:GA status, a lot of it has remained the same with some alterations. Anyway, today, I will replace some of the primary-sourced material with tertiary or secondary sources since we should generally be using the latter type of sources. In other cases, I might simply place a tertiary or secondary source beside the primary source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

With this edit, I added some tertiary or secondary sources in place of primary sources or in conjunction with existing primary sources, including this 2016 Introducing the New Sexuality Studies Routledge source that explains how a person might be identified as asexual by researchers. It's not simply a matter of a person identifying as asexual; well, not for a lot of cases anyway. The edit also shows that I removed some material. Most of the stuff in the article is indeed covered in the literature by tertiary or secondary sources; I'll see about replacing other primary sources, or adding tertiary or secondary sources alongside existing primary sources, at a later date. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Editing here is ideally a "consensus process"

I have noticed that the editorial-consensus-process does not seem to be taking place very much on this page. I hope that a more group oriented editorial consensus process might evolve here sometime soon. I was admittedly the editor whose last 16 edits here were most recently mass-reverted. I have now adopted an "alternate" user id specifically for the purpose of editing this article, which purpose, so long as I do not use any other user-id for the editing of this article (sock puppetry), is a legitimate purpose for the use of an alternate user-id. I have opted to use an alternate user-id here as I am a self described asexual myself who has edited here for some time, but due to what I pervieve as lingering biases against asexualism, I have opted not to associate my main user-id with my edits on this article.

While I can agree with a few of the explanations given for this mass-revert, other reasons, such as the preference to use the word "anyone" in the first sentence of the lead, may require a little more discussion and clarification before I could agree with the logic behind them. I must confess, the wording of the reverted lead currently appears to me to reflect a slight "anti-asexual bias" which so far, I have not been able to find in the actual sources on asexuality. Reading the reverted lead seems to me to lead readers to the conclusion that asexuality is still primarily viewed as a pathology, which the sources on asexuality do not seem to me to support. Rather, the majority of the current sources that I have found seem to me to support the view that it is now primarily accepted amongst researchers as a bonafide sexual orientation and no longer as primarily a pathology. It seems to me that we may have to do much more discussion on this page on these types of concerns in the time ahead in order to come to a consensus here.

Beginning with the first sentence, after carefully reviewing the refs already provided for the first sentence, I have slightly reworded the first sentence of the article to accurately reflect the refs. Please note that asexuals are known to masturbate, and as such one could say they are sometimes attracted to themselves, most probably thus the use of the words within the sources of "other individuals." I will go through the lead of this article line by line in similar fashion in the days and possibly weeks ahead, in my effort to try to improve this article.

Let us hope that we might be able to restore this article once again to its former "Good article" status as assessed in an uncontested peer-reviewed way by multiple established editors. May such a peer-reviewed assessment be achieved through a quality building editorial-consensus-building and genuine discussion process here. I would personally love to be able to provide a positive peer-review to the re-assessment discussion, thus strengthening this review, and enabling us to call our review a true consensus. Until we have had such fair and reasonable discussions here about this article, I feel I could not yet do so.

Thanks,

Warrenfrank (talk) 06:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC) (Notifications:@Flyer22 Reborn:,@Callum radiator:)

Proposed general direction for upcoming revisions to the lead

By comparing the last peer reviewed GA version of this article (from Dec. 22, 2011) to the current version, the wording in the lead seems to me to have clearly drifted away from preferring to highlight the preference within a majority of the sources to regard asexuality as a bonafide sexual orientation. During this same period, the lead of the article has stopped citing any statistics in the lead about researcher estimates for the percentage of the population that is asexual. As suggested, I agree that perhaps better cites and statistics on this one point could be used than previously used.

It also seems to me that the lead still lacks a clear and concise definition of what asexualism actually is rather than merely stating what it is not. EG paraphrasing the current lead. " ...asexualism is essentially a lack of sexual feelings..."

Any feedback from others on these concerns of mine here would be most appreciated, before I attempt to try to create a new revision of the rest of the lead. I like to believe that a good editorial consensus in an article can often reflect a broader and more helpful view than any one individual's opinion, and thus it can ultimately create a better article. Short of any willingness by others to try to freely discuss such things here, true consensus becomes undoable.

Thanks,

Warrenfrank (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Warrenfrank. No need to WP:Ping me since this page is on my watchlist. Callum radiator was a new account that showed up out of the blue to start Talk:Asexuality/GA2. It was started without much validity, as I made clear in that discussion. During that discussion, I edited the article to address sourcing issues, however. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

"Anyone" vs: "toward individuals" in lead sentence 1

As for your issue with the lead sentence, I do not see what you mean. I reverted you again because asexuality, as shown by the sources, is not solely about sexual attraction with regard to others. The sources address having a low or absent sex drive in general as well, meaning toward masturbation too. Some asexuals masturbate; some don't. You argue that asexuals are sexually attracted to themselves, in the case of those who masturbate, but the sources do not define asexuality as people being sexually attracted to themselves. And if they were able to find themselves sexually attractive, there is an argument that they should be able to find the bodies of others sexually attractive as well. For asexuals, masturbation is not about sexual attraction, seemingly so anyway, although one does wonder how they are able to become sexually aroused if no sexual attraction is involved. In the "Definition, identity and relationships" section, we note that "the need or desire for masturbation is commonly referred to as sex drive by asexuals and they disassociate it from sexual attraction and being sexual; asexuals who masturbate generally consider it to be a normal product of the human body and not a sign of latent sexuality, and may not even find it pleasurable." In the case of asking how people are able to become sexually aroused if no sexual attraction is involved, we know that women can suddenly become sexually aroused a little before and/or after menstruation. And we know that men can get an erection for different reasons (meaning without even thinking of someone sexually).

So, because some asexuals do not masturbate, I am opposed to changing "or low or absent interest in or desire for sexual activity" to "or low or absent interest in or desire for sexual activity with others." I can agree to changing "to anyone" to "toward individuals," but this can leave people thinking that asexuals might be sexually attracted to non-human animals. Yes, I have seen questions regarding that. Although non-human animals are not considered to be anyone (as in a person), it's clearer to readers to state "to anyone" as opposed to "toward individuals." And as for using "towards other individuals," this can leave people wondering why "other" is there. Clearly, you added it there because of your argument about asexuals being sexually attracted to themselves, but I addressed the "attracted to themselves" aspect earlier in this comment. I'm not sure why you think stating "to anyone" is pathologizing asexuality, but it isn't. Neither is excluding "with others." The lead sentence should make it clear that asexuality may be defined as not having sexual attraction to anyone or as having a low or absent interest in or desire for sexual activity. And per WP:Scare quotes, "sexual activity" should not be in quotation marks or italics like your editing did. The lead sentence changing from how it was in 2011 is a natural progression and improvement of the article. It is not a reflection of any deterioration of the article. In a number of ways, the article has improved from how it was back in 2011, and so has my knowledge of the topic.

You stated, "Rather, the majority of the current sources that I have found seem to me to support the view that it is now primarily accepted amongst researchers as a bonafide sexual orientation and no longer as primarily a pathology." We are not pathologizing asexuality; we are noting that it may or may not be considered a sexual orientation. And this is true. Asexuality still is not commonly listed among the sexual orientations heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality. It sometimes is, but not always or even mostly. Certain researchers, especially those specializing in or focusing on asexuality, defining asexuality as a sexual orientation is not the same as the wider sexual orientation and/or scientific community doing so.

You stated, "asexualism actually is rather than merely stating what it is not. EG paraphrasing the current lead. 'asexualism is essentially a lack of sexual feelings...' ." We go by what the reliable sources state. They mostly define asexuality by what it is not, which also happens to be what asexuality is. Asexuality is defined by "not having," "absence" and "lack of." It is not usually called asexualism.

I disagree with citing any statistics in the lead for precisely the reasons made clear in the Prevalence section -- that is, the much reported 1% applies to the British population and we do not know how many asexual people there really are.

You should reply to me here in this section instead of starting a new section. That way, an actual discussion is going on, instead of you simply responding to no one in particular and/or talking over me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Flyer.

One questions for now: Why do you prefer to insert your own opinion in the first sentence, rather than simply using the vocabulary of the sources already provided (please see the references which use the words, "others," and "another individual")? Please allow the sources themselves to speak here. As an asexual myself, your opinion in that sentence simply seems to me to be a bit of an "over-emphasis,"as opposed to what seems to me to be the more neutral phrasing actually found in the sources. Callum Radiator hasn't edited once since you reverted her here six months ago. So far here, you are beginning to seem to me to be one who prefers reversion over trying to make any real effort at actually answering my question about what the sources actually say regarding the phrasing of the first sentence.

Warrenfrank (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Above, I addressed why I prefer "to anyone" over "toward other individuals" or "toward individuals," but I also stated, "I can agree to changing 'to anyone' to 'toward individuals.'" The wording of the first source states, "Although asexual individuals lack sexual attraction toward others." In what way does this not mean "is the lack of sexual attraction to anyone"? You are interpreting this to mean, or allow leeway to mean, that asexual people are sexually attracted to themselves. None of the sources state that asexuality is about being sexually attracted to oneself. Therefore, I see no issue with stating "is the lack of sexual attraction to anyone" when it comes to asexuality. As long as no WP:OR is involved, there is no rule that I must use the exact wording of a source for that initial sentence. But I could add a source that directly supports "to anyone," such as this 2015 "Asexuality and Sexual Normativity: An Anthology" source, from Routledge, page 39, which states, "Human asexuality is defined as an absence of sexual attraction to anyone or anything." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, let's change it to "toward individuals" please. I appreciate that. I apologize for missing that above. Warrenfrank (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

No need to apologize. First, do you mind addressing my issue with "toward individuals"? I noted above that "toward individuals" can leave people thinking that asexuals might be sexually attracted to non-human animals. I stated, "Yes, I have seen questions regarding that. Although non-human animals are not considered to be anyone (as in a person), it's clearer to readers to state 'to anyone' as opposed to 'toward individuals.' " You haven't given me a good reason to discard the "to anyone" wording. All you've given me is the "sexually attracted to oneself" rationale, which is not supported by the sources. By contrast, I can provide sources that state "to anyone," and not just the ones that have copied Wikipedia. For example, I don't think that "Asexuality and Sexual Normativity: An Anthology" copied Wikipedia. For one, it uses "is an absence of sexual attraction." We instead state "lack of sexual attraction" due to the different definitions of asexuality noted in the article. Not to mention..."lack of sexual attraction" is perhaps the most common wording for defining asexuality. In my view, "to anyone" is clearer and less likely to cause confusion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

To agree, or not to agree, that is the question

So then you actually "can't agree" with making such an edit. Which is it, can agree, can't agree, or "might be able to agree?" Your lack of clarity here seems to me to make this discussion possibly a bit overly difficult to proceed much further. Let's stick with the the simple meaning of words like "agree" first, before proceeding to any other things. Do you then still disagree with the descriptions of asexuality as described in the actual sources provided? None of the scholarly sources I know of concern themselves with a potential confusion between bestiality and asexuality. Where might your concern about such an odd confusion come from? I would like to try to work together with you and to have a mutually beneficial conversation with you here, but so far I feel inclined to want to run like Callum did. Is that what you would really prefer, domination and solitude vs: mutual respect and mutual productivity?

I'm an asexual, I consider myself to be healthy and I consider myself to be "normal." I have many others in my life whom I feel an affinity and an affection towards, "love" if you will. Your opinion, as expressed through your choice of words throughout the lead and your unusual and frankly somewhat odd questions here, seems to me to imply that asexuals might be some rare breed of "loveless misfits." I share my own personal perspective here, only in the hope that I might better explain to you why some might feel uneasy with what I see as the seemingly slightly narrow views expressed in certain parts of the article's lead. The APA DSMV, and the majority of the other sources that I can find, seem to classify asexuality as merely another bonafide "sexual orientation."

I'm not really comfortable with your tone here which seems to imply some certain belief in a greater likelihood of other things about its true genesis, than the likelihood that the majority of the sources might actually warrant the lead of the article actually being weighted towards it being merely a "sexual orientation," as the majority of the scholarly sources seem to prefer. Certainly, minority beliefs can also be listed here, but should the lead of the article be weighted towards the "minority beliefs?" I'm also not comfortable with your seeming insistence on including what appears to be your terminology and opinion here as if it was supported by the actual refs, which it is not, starting with the very first sentence.

Do you have no "middle ground?" Please do actually agree to the edit about which you wrote earlier, "I can agree to changing (this)," or if you might prefer that I simply "dry up, and blow away" as Callum did, I would be happy to do that too. I sense that we both care deeply about WP. I would like to hope that those who might share such a deep care about what I believe may be one of mankind's greatest and most wonderful publishing projects, since the Gutenberg Press itself, might be able to work together, turning their shared concerns into a true learning asset for one another and for our readers, rather than allowing it to become a seeming liability and a general source of discord amongst editors.

Warrenfrank (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer that you don't split up my reply as you did above. There is no need for two or multiple subsections for the same topic. I asked you a clear question that you have not properly answered. I asked you this question because it is clear that "toward individuals" is not justified. Your explanation for wanting to change it is invalid. My concern about people interpreting asexual people to be open to bestiality is due to the fact that "toward individuals" only covers people, since "individuals" are rarely considered to be non-human animals, and due to my experience on topics such as these. I specifically told you that people have asked if asexuals are sexually attracted to non-human animals. It is same question that comes up with pansexuality as well. In that article, I even have it clarified with a comment from a source that being pansexual does not mean being sexually attracted to non-human animals. People who are not educated on these topics wonder these things. For us to state "toward individuals" leaves an opening. It leaves people to wonder: "Then toward non-humans animals? Are asexuals sexually attracted to anything?" The only reason you want "toward individuals" is because you argue that (some or all) asexuals are sexually attracted to themselves. I repeat: The literature does not support that line of thinking. While asexuals may be a little sexually attracted to others, depending on the definition of asexuality, no reliable source that I'm aware of states that asexuals are sexually attracted to themselves. And we cover in the lead that asexuals may be a little sexually to others by noting that asexuality might also mean "or low" interest in or desire for sexual activity. Although non-human animals are usually not considered to be an anyone, using "to anyone" is clearer than "toward individuals." The person aspect is more emphasized with "toward individuals."

I do not understand where your interpretations of my view of asexuality are coming from. You implied that I view asexuals as some rare breed of "loveless misfits," for example. Really, even though we have a section in the article -- a section that I mostly worked on -- noting that asexuals may engage in romantic relationships? Even though that section is clear that asexuals can have loving/emotional relationships? As for asexuals being rare, you are the one who insisted on adding the 1% statistic to the lead. The last time I checked, 1% of the population is rare. And either way, being asexual is not considered to be prevalent. Being in the significant minority does not mean that one is not normal. And for you to imply that I would think like that is so beyond insulting that I feel less inclined to continue conversing with you. You might as well have called me a homophobe, since gay and lesbian people are believed to in the significant minority as well.

You stated, "The APA DSMV, and the majority of the other sources that I can find, seem to classify asexuality as merely another bonafide 'sexual orientation.'" You mean the American Psychological Association? If so, where? I do not see it. Do you mean the American Psychiatric Association? If so, where? I do not see it. Do you mean the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders? If so, where? And why is it in the DSM if the DSM considers asexuality a sexual orientation? More specifically, you mean the DSM-5; it states, "If a lifelong lack of sexual desire is better explained by one's self-identification as 'asexual', then a diagnosis of female sexual interest/arousal disorder would not be made." And it also states, "If the man's low desire is explained by self-identification as an asexual, then a diagnosis of male hypoactive sexual desire disorder is not made. " That still is not them calling asexuality a sexual orientation, and a number of asexual activists still have an issue with the hypoactive sexual desire disorder concept. I've seen the APA mention asexuality alongside the traditional sexual orientations, as seen on page 2 of this source, but I have not seen either APA officially recognize asexuality as a sexual orientation; the closest it has come to doing so is what is seen in this source. And even in the case of that source, it is speaking of it more in the sense of identity. When speaking of what a sexual orientation is, it is still defining it traditionally, while stating, "While these categories continue to be widely used, research has suggested that sexual orientation does not always appear in such definable categories and instead occurs on a continuum." It is noting that the traditional way of defining sexual orientation is still prevalent, but is not the sole way of defining sexual orientation or sexual identity. For the vast majority of APA sources, I've seen the APA (both APAs) exclude asexuality or note that people may identify as asexual, after first naming the traditional sexual orientations. Like I stated above, "Asexuality still is not commonly listed among the sexual orientations heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality. It sometimes is, but not always or even mostly. Certain researchers, especially those specializing in or focusing on asexuality, defining asexuality as a sexual orientation is not the same as the wider sexual orientation and/or scientific community doing so." Whether or not asexuality is a sexual orientation is still very much debated (some even argue it as a lack of sexual orientation); it is not a minority aspect of the asexuality topic.

My tone has to do with the fact I am the main one watching after this article -- which is currently WP:GA -- and I am doing what I can to stick to WP:Due weight, and to keeping the article clean and compliant with Wikipedia's rules. For you to come at with me what is an essentially a WP:OWN accusation when I rejected your edits for very valid reasons is what is concerning. Not being open to your proposals does not mean that I am not open to compromising. So far, it simply means that I am not open to compromising the quality of this article. "To anyone" is supported by references; I already listed one above. And I have no issue with listing others. So it's not "[my] terminology and opinion," as you call it.

Your interest in Callum is peculiar. He (or she, or "they") did not have a case; that is why he left. You do not have a case for using "toward individuals" either, as I explained above.

I will change "to anyone" to "to others," since I feel that it is less problematic than "toward other individuals" or "toward individuals," but I cannot promise that "to anyone" will not eventually be re-added (and I don't necessarily mean by me). Like I stated, the article has been changing, and usually for the better. We could also forgo any mention of "others" by simply stating, "Asexuality is a lack of sexual attraction, or low or absent interest in or desire for sexual activity." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I must apologize, but I have other things I must do for a while. Warrenfrank (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.correiobraziliense.com.br/app/noticia182/2010/05/16/brasil%2Ci%3D192631/HA%2B20%2BANOS%2BA%2BOMS%2BTIROU%2BA%2BHOMOSSEXUALIDADE%2BDA%2BRELACAO%2BDE%2BDOENCAS%2BMENTAIS.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140115041606/http://blogs.diariodepernambuco.com.br/lgbtudo/2013/07/psiquiatra-jairo-bouer-fala-dos-efeitos-colaterais-da-cura-gay/ to http://blogs.diariodepernambuco.com.br/lgbtudo/2013/07/psiquiatra-jairo-bouer-fala-dos-efeitos-colaterais-da-cura-gay/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asexuality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828095004/http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/ to http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

History missing

I am missing the history section. Nihil novi sub sole: chastity, celibacy including Josephite marriage (who some mislabel as marriage of convenience, but bona fide asexuals resort(ed) to it), Hindu Brahmacarya as preached by Manusmriti, etc. - they all should be mentioned here. Maybe even the underlying biological explanation for the lack of sex drive due to the possibility of Asexual reproduction :).

I know that it reeks of WP:OR, but I guess some Asexuality researchers factored these in their publications. Zezen (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. There is barely any (documented) history of asexuality because, as the Wikipedia article makes clear, this is a relatively new area of research, spurred on by asexual communities sprouting up in the early 21st century. And, yes, we obviously can't add WP:OR. Asexual reproduction is a different matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Nice expansions

Katolophyromai, nice expansions. As for the Religion section you created, though, keep in mind that sexual abstinence and celibacy are not the same thing as asexuality. This is made clear in all three articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I know. I am actually working on revising it right now. I removed a few sentences that I added earlier because I was concerned they did not make this entirely clear. (By the way, I have found several sources dealing with Christian views on asexuality, but I am having troubles finding sources dealing with Jewish and Islamic views on asexuality; if you know of any, those might be helpful.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Also make sure to provide the page numbers for all of the book sources you added. I saw some without page numbers provided. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I am using the Google Books editions of these books and none of the pages in the Google Books version for Julie Sondra Decker's The Invisible Orientation: An Introduction to Asexuality are paginated, so I cannot provide any page numbers for it. I have, however, provided a link to the Google Books edition, which should open up to the pages I was using. The page numbers for all of the other sources are provided. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this, the URL seems to indicate the page number (PT22). Sometimes the URL is wrong, but it's accurate more often than not. And you can trim the URL so that it stops at "PT22." I used to include the long string like you do, but I stopped after realizing that the long string isn't needed and only highlights the searched words. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

On side note: I wouldn't be surprised if some of the sources on religion are confusing sexual abstinence and celibacy with asexuality. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure about using sources such as this asexualawarenessweek.com source and this vocationnetwork.org source. I don't think they fair well on the WP:Reliable sources scale. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I would not use either those sources to support any controversial factual statements, but I think that the way they are being used right now is acceptable, since they are being used in a discussion of societal views on the subject. (I removed the speculative bit about the Apostle Paul having possibly been asexual, which I could find no academic sources definitively supporting; I did find one that mentioned Paul in the context of asexuality, but it did not explicitly call him asexual.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Religion is always controversial. If what is stated by those sources is factual, it should be easy to find better sources supporting those claims. Using one of those poor sources, the section currently states, "Religious teachings on asexuality are often mixed and ambiguous." But given the relative newness of asexuality discourse, I don't think that there are any religious teachings on asexuality. The source is likely speaking of celibacy (which there are religious teachings on) since so many confuse celibacy with asexuality. As for the aforementioned removal, it leaves the Apostle Paul content there without any tie to asexuality. All that is currently left there for him is a celibacy mention and a statement reportedly made by him. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding unnecessary sources

Soleil222, I ask that you do not add unnecessary sources, like you did here and here. I am likely to consider such additions WP:SPAM. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Needless to say, I am NOT the author of this article: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/first-blush/201801/asexuality-is-lifelong-lack-sexual-attraction On the other hand, I've said that Dr. Lori Brotto is a leading expert on the subject, but it does NOT mean that I am PROMOTING her. It's just an OBJECTIVE statement. Don't get me wrong, please.

Soleil222 (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Soleil222, the source you added to the lead, which is poor as far as academic topics go, is not needed regardless. See WP:Citation overkill. There are already three sources covering the first sentence, and they are enough. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Those articles were written by university professors, not by journalists or other amateurs. Are these pieces (http://www.vulture.com/2016/02/archie-jughead-asexual.html, https://hiddenremote.com/2017/03/07/shadowhunters-confirms-raphael-asexual-stays-canon-book-series/) more "academic" or "scientific" than the ones I posted the other day? I've noticed that you're a conflictive girl. You yourself stated, "I know that enough editors dislike me and/or are annoyed by me." That's pretty understandable. And you are not an administrator.

Soleil222 (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Soleil222, what are you even talking about? You are making no sense. I repeat: "The source you added to the lead, which is poor as far as academic topics go, is not needed regardless. See WP:Citation overkill." As for the media sources you pointed to, the difference is that those are reserved for the "In the media" section. As for taking a look at my past user page, perhaps you should take a look at other aspects of my user page as well, including my list of what counts as awards at this site. Nothing "conflictive" there. Also, if you are to use words to describe me, use them correctly. "Conflictive" makes not a bit of sense. Clearly, because you can't make a substantive argument on this matter, you decided to attack my character. Well, too bad for you...I also have my fair share of supporters. And, for the record, working in contentious areas on Wikipedia, as I often do, always results in conflict. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• I repeat that those articles, written by university professors, are more "academic" than many of the sources posted on here. "Conflictive": https://www.thefreedictionary.com/conflictive You even have been BLOCKED by the administrators. I don't want to continue arguing. I would not like to be blocked. (Until now, I've never been blocked despite the fact I've taken part in more than 100 Wikipedias.) Goodbye!

Soleil222 (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Soleil222, most of the sources in this article are scholarly book sources. No, that Psychology Today blog source (the type of source that WP:Med shuns at WP:MEDRS) is not better than the first three sources in the lead. So far, we only use one Psychology Today source in this article, and it's at least beside one or more scholarly book sources at each of its three appearances. Furthermore, as made clear at WP:MEDDATE, history and society and culture sections (which includes "In the media" type of sections) usually do not require strict medical sourcing. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the way Wikipedia works. Somehow you can read that I've been blocked, but you can't read that administrators who blocked me recognized their errors in doing so (which is also right there on my user page/talk page), except for that time I was blocked to protect my account. Administrators have been blocked in error as well. Look at NeilN's block log. He was blocked twice before becoming an administrator. Now do cease your WP:Personal attacks and go about your business unless you want to be blocked yourself. There was no need to link conflictive, by the way. The way you used the term was still off. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)