Talk:Asexuality

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

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

Incorrect redirection

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

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

Proposed new article

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

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

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

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

Move Asexual flag to top of page? Suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

International Asexuality Day

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

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

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

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