Talk:Asexuality

GA Reassessment

Asexuality

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2023

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

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

some examples from the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definition of asexuality needs to be edited.

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

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

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

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

This does not accurately define asexuality.

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

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

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

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