Talk:Asexuality

Symbols

I am going to remove the last sentence of paragraph two in the symbols section. It has been missing a citation since July of 2010. Also it is not that relevant to the explanation of the AVEN symbol. Xadmanx (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

In addition, what was said in that sentence is also stated in the one below it, so it was redundant.Lauradronen (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I took out a link to the Earth page as it seemed unnecessary to the sentence it was in.Lauradronen (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Fictional Characters - Notable Asexuals

I removed one of the entries under this section because the link that was connected to it was broken. And since it was a minor point in the article, it won't be missed anyway... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchingdude (talk • contribs) 04:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed Sheldon Cooper of Big Bang Theory and [Sherlock Holmes]] as there seemed to be a lot of disagreement over their sexuality. I also added citations for the other fictional characters. Lauradronen (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this section. TVtropes.org doesn't count as a WP:Reliable source, though, so we'll have to find another source for that one. Flyer22 (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you work, Lauradronen. Flyer22 is correct that TVtropes.org is not a reliable source. And for the mention of the asexual character in "Huge", the AVEN post is not appropriate here. You will need to find the exact TV episode where the character says she is asexual in order to verify the source. --Tea with toast (話) 04:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Romantic Relationships

I took out "Link 16" the one that connected to LGBT, because there are already two other links for the same sentence, so it was redundant, and the link was broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchingdude (talk • contribs) 05:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

External Links

There was a link to the AVEN Youtube page which does not appear to exist, so I took it out. Lauradronen (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Asexuality/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 07:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd removed the GA tag from this talk page[1] because not only did I not think that this article was ready for GA status (and of course I still don't), we (myself and college students who just signed up here for a project; I'm not one of them) are just now in the process of significantly fixing up this article and I don't have the time to meet the GA demands. I thought that removing the GA tag from the article talk page would be enough to keep this article from going through with the GA review, which is what I was told at another article that was nominated without consulting the main contributors. This article was nominated for GA status by an IP. How is that valid, and can this GA review be removed without counting as a fail? Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see that it was nominated by Xadmanx (one of the college students I was talking about) after I'd removed the first tag.[2] Well, hopefully Xadmanx and/or the rest of the group will address your concerns in the limited amount of time given for GA review. Like I stated, I don't have the time to tackle all of the demands, at least not quickly, though I may help out with some aspects. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

Hello. I will be reviewing this article over the next few days. I have not gotten too far into the text, but from my general overview I find several things that will need to be addressed before I pass this article. You can get started on these:

• References. http addresses are not enough for a ref as they fall prey to WP:link rot. All refs should have the following: Author, date of publication, title, work/publication, access date (if website). I know not all of these may be available fore some websites, but get as many as you can. See WP:CITE for more guidelines.
• Lead. While I cannot yet judge if the lead adequately summarizes the content of the article, it does not look to be a very strong lead. See WP:Lead for more info on how to write a good lead.
• External links. This section looks like it might be too long. Please remove any unnecessary/inappropriate ones and duplicates (if the websites are cited in the references section, they may not be needed in the external links section).

That's all for now. I'll probably find more later. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 08:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Issues needing to be addressed

Alright, I've finished with my review, and I like what I've seen in the article thus far. There is a lot of good content. However, here are the problems needing to be addressed:

• Lead. The lead needs to be expanded to include the following items:
  • There should be a dedicated paragraph on the fact that asexuality has only recently come to be accepted. You can mention how previous, people "flew under the radar", and it wasn't until recently that research has been done. Also include how asexual communities are only now beginning to develop since the advent of the internet and social media.
  • Also include that asexuality does not mean that a person is not romantically inclined as some asexual individuals form relationships or marry into an asexual arrangement.
  • Also include in the lead that asexuality is not a sexual disorder.
• New section needed. There needs to be a dedicated section about what makes asexuality distinct from celibacy, abstinence, and sexual disorders. I would include the paragraph about its similarity to hypoactive sexual desire disorder (second to last paragraph in "Research" section) into this new section and also stress that asexuality is not any type of other disorder such as female sexual arousal disorder, anorgasmia, anhedonia or sexual phobia. I was thinking about starting this section myself, but I think it needs someone with more expertise and access to the research papers (I won't until I get to work on Monday). I would appreciate if someone with more expertise could start this.
• Notable asexuals. Citations needed for all the fictional characters, I will accept episode numbers and page numbers of books, but it would be best if there was a third party reference stating why they are notable. It would also be helpful to have a sentence by each one stating why their inclusion in the list is relevant to the topic.
• References Here the big part that I don't have enough time to do myself. Please see my comments in the above section about how to go about fixing the citations. Here's what needs to be done.
  • Citations that are mostly bare urls needing full citation: #1, 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, 46-50, 52-59, 63, 67
  • Citations needing pages numbers: #16, 17, 18
  • Citations needing more information (PMID and/or DOI, ISBN, title source, etc.): #7, 18, 22, 26, 28, 37

I think that should take care of if. I will put this article on hold until then. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 20:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

For the "New section needed" part of your review, do you think that we need a Definitions section and that the material you suggested would fit there? I went over this on the article talk page in different spots, but asexuality is not consistently defined the same way. See this source and this source (especially, Theme 2: Definitions of asexuality, page 345). While some (researchers included) define asexuality to mean absolutely no sexual attraction, others define it to include "little to no sexual attraction." Some people define themselves as asexual because, while they can feel sexual attraction to a person, they would rather not have sex with anyone and/or they significantly lack that desire. Not to mention, asexuals who say that they have a sex drive -- the desire to masturbate -- but not the desire to engage in sex with a person. All of that is why the lead currently says "is the lack of sexual attraction" and "the lack of interest in sex" instead of using the word "no."

On a side note, I cleaned up the bare references in the lead...and will try to get some time to tackle your other concerns. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

A "Definition" type section is definitely what I had in mind for the "new section" I mentioned. Thank you for your above comment. I agree that the term "lack of" would be preferred over "no" sexual interest. I have contacted a few other frequent contributors of this article to notify them of this review process and the issues needing to be addressed. Hopefully a group effort can be made to get this article up to status. While the GA review guidelines suggest that the hold period only last for about a week, I would be willing to let it go longer than that in order to get the work done. It might take some time, but I think this is an important article and I think it is possible to get this article up to status. I will appreciate all efforts to improve this page. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 00:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Tea with toast. Something else I didn't mention about your GA outline is that you say "[t]here should be a dedicated paragraph on the fact that asexuality has only recently come to be accepted" and that the section you proposed should "also stress that asexuality is not any type of other disorder," but if you look at the Sexual orientation and etiology section, you can see that asexuality is not yet widely accepted as a sexual orientation (which makes it sort of odd that we have included it in Template:Sexual orientation, though that's also been debated) and that some researchers categorize it as either another form of sexuality or as a disorder. So by "accepted," what is it exactly that you mean? Started to become accepted? And how do we tackle the "not any type of other disorder" issue when there are still a lot of researchers who would classify it as a disorder; I don't believe that any of those researchers would call it a mental disorder, which is more so WP:FRINGE these days, but they do seem to believe that it is a sexual disorder. I can't fathom any other type of disorder they would be talking about.

Basically, since there is this debate among researchers, about whether asexuality should be considered a sexual orientation, just a variant of sexuality (since asexuals can be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual...just not sexually active ones), or a sexual disorder, when we create the Definitions section, this information would need to go there. And there's going to need to be a merge of some kind since the Sexual orientation and etiology section is already addressing this and we don't want much redundancy. I'm thinking that the "Romantic relationships" and "Sexual orientation and etiology" sections should be subsections of the Definitions section, and that some of what is in the Community section, which also goes over romances, should be moved to the Romantic relationships section.

I take it that you're okay with the reference formatting now that Nick Levinson has fixed up the rest of the bare references? Or is there some type of consistent reference formatting you want for specific type of references? Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, Flyer, that the concept of asexuality is not entirely accepted nor is their an agreement of the definition of it. The fact that all of these things are still being debated should be included in the text. I agree with all your other suggestions of mergers, those sound good. I'm not entirely satisfied with the citation style that Nick has chosen, but what is more worrisome to me is that now I find that most of the references are from blog posts and social networking threads, which are generally not acceptable sources for Wikipedia. They can be appropriate in some cases -- such as when social media is the topic being described -- but I will now look into which ones are still acceptable and which ones should be replaced. --Tea with toast (話) 02:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Tea with toast. I'll implement my suggestions and try to incorporate yours about distinguishing (and to comparing in one case) asexuality from some sexual disorders as soon as I have something written up about how different researchers/asexuals define the term. I of course agree about blogs not being acceptable sources, except for in the case of newspaper and magazine blogs or the case you describe. Are most of the references in the article really like that? If I'd known, I would have removed them; I haven't worked that extensively on this article (just mainly reverting vandalism or faulty additions, and addressing comments on the talk page), which is why I didn't catch them. I'll try to address, in a timely fashion, any reference concerns you list here. Flyer22 (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll implement what I stated above tomorrow. I intended to do that today, but I got sidetracked in another Wikipedia discussion that has been going on since this morning. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, here are the changes. Before that, as you may already know, I'd removed all of the unsourced/poorly sourced religious information...as well as the poorly sourced fictional characters.[3] I was iffy on including mention of AVEN in the lead, since they are now mentioned in two places of the lower body of the article, but the last paragraph of the lead (with my revision) seemed lacking without mentioning them there. Flyer22 (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Other tweaks to my revision.[4] I also forgot to state that I added this Psychology Today blog because it has valuable information and counts as a reliable source...per WP:Verifiability#Newspaper and magazine blogs.

Oh, and looking at the article again, I see that AVEN is actually mentioned in three spots in the lower body. Either that's two many mentions, with this not yet being a big article, or too many links per WP:OVERLINKING (or both). Flyer22 (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

More tweaks.[5] Something else of note is that while it may seem (possibly at only first glance) that the information in the Romantic relationships and identity section about masturbation and having sex with romantic partners to please them belongs in the Sexual activity and sexuality section, I point out that it fits better where it is because that section is going over the different types of asexuals and their romantic relationships, which sex may or may not be a part of. As seen, I did give a brief mention of this material at the beginning of the Sexual activity and sexuality section...pointing readers to the Romantic relationships and identity section for further information in case they skipped this aforementioned section...and leaving the Sexual activity and sexuality section to deal with the in-depth research about sexual activity and sexuality among asexuals (which is placed under the Research heading, after all). Besides, there is no rule that we can't mention the same thing in more than one section of an article; it's done in plenty of Wikipedia articles, and sensible when relating to more than one section...as it does in this case. It's just a matter of not being too redundant. Flyer22 (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm much impressed with the changes that have been made! I have not yet had the time to look through everything in detail, but from my overview, things look very promising! I'll get back to you in the next few days with my final comments. Thanks for all your work. --Tea with toast (話) 04:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I changed the text added by Marchingdude,[6][7] as seen in these edits.[8][9] The reasons are: AVEN's definition of asexuality is a WP:Primary source, even though it was backed to a secondary source in Marchingdude's edit, and is not the definition used by most researchers. Sure, most researchers include "no sexual attraction," but that is not the only definition most of them use. As the section I created points out, they also use "little to no sexual attraction" (basically "lack of sexual attraction," which can mean "no" or "little," combined with other factors). The way researchers define the term should definitely come first. Marchingdude's source is also an abstract, meaning that I do not yet have access to the complete text. I'll either have to sign up to that site, purchase the article, or both. I'll sign up to see if I can simply access the text that way. If I cannot, then my not replying with a followup here about that will be the answer. I generally have no problem trusting editors on sources that I cannot access myself, but Marchingdude's edit stated "This is the "official" definition that the majority of the asexual community identify themselves under, and have in common with each other." I have my doubts that the source says this. And even if it does, other sources in the article show that this is not the way that most people who identify themselves as asexual define the term. Half may say that they have absolutely no sexual attraction and/or "need" to masturbate, but the other half may have little sexual attraction and/or some "need" to masturbate. Further, if this is AVEN saying that the majority of the asexual community define asexuality to mean "no sexual attraction," maybe they mean their own community at the website. If they do not, I do not believe that we should take AVEN's word that the majority of asexuals define asexuality that way. What worldwide statistics have they done to come to that conclusion? And, again, they are a primary source.

Marchingdude also included this text: "Unfortunately, this definition is somewhat broad, and is one big reason why there is some controversy that surrounds Asexuality as a sexual orientation." It's simply POV to say "unfortunately," per the obvious and per Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Editorializing. And if the broad definition is a big reason why there is such a controversy among researchers about defining asexuality as a sexual orientation, this information belongs in the Sexual orientation and etiology section, which already tackles that debate. And that's where I put some of Marchingdude's text (the stuff that was not redundant, and tweaked any "weasel-wordy" stuff). I put Marchingdude's text about some asexual men being completely unable to get an erection in the paragraph about the broad definition of asexuality, though.

Finally, something else I did not like is that Marchingdude divided half of what AVEN says about asexuality. Marchingdude left the "no sexual attraction" and "[a]nother small minority will think of themselves as asexual" part at the top, but cut away the "[t]here is no litmus test to determine if someone is asexual." line and left the following at the bottom: "Asexuality is like any other identity - at its core, it’s just a word that people use to help figure themselves out. If at any point someone finds the word asexual useful to describe themselves, we encourage them to use it for as long as it makes sense to do so". That left the text to where it is directly speaking to the reader and it could be anyone saying it.

Those are all of the reasons I changed Marchingdude's text. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

All that said, I am open to striking a compromise with Marchingdude about having what AVEN has to say about asexuality come first in the Romantic relationships and identity section. I believe that the terms should come before the paragraph definitions, though. Flyer22 (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As stated in my edit summary, I went ahead and moved AVEN's definition and explanation to the first spot, since it is attributed to them by text and can be taken as authoritative or not. It's not in the lead for the reasons I've already gone over above about how most researchers and people who identify as asexual may define the term, but it's fine coming first in the Romantic relationships and identity section. I must admit that it flowed better to me coming last, explaining that anyone who feels that the term best fits them is more than welcome to adopt it. But I understand the need among many asexuals to have it strictly defined as "no sexual attraction." I await what you have to state about which paragraph should come first. Flyer22 (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Some latest tweaks.[10][11][12] And I'll of course make more tweaks, etc. as days go on. Flyer22 (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Final review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I am satisfied with the many changes that have been made to the article in order to get it to good status. Thank you for all your hard work! --Tea with toast (話) 17:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

   Thank you and thank you for your tweaks (small and big). Flyer22 (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

referents now have information

For the Good Article review, I edited the referents so they're no longer bare. Of the things listed for the purpose, it was the only thing I knew enough about to do. I did not add access dates; either an access date was already there or I didn't consider looking up bibliographic information enough reason to add an access date. Nick Levinson (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick. Very much appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Political Identity

I included a new section on asexuality being used as a political identity. It seems rather interesting, and I thought it was worth noting. However, I could see how some people many not think it should be on this page as it states that some people choose to be asexual. What does everyone else think? Lauradronen (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As I stated my edit summary, "This section would/will likely offend true asexuals, because these people are 'choosing to be asexual,' but it is relevant." I don't mind if it stays or goes, but I did make it clear that these people are choosing to adopt the asexual label, as seen in that link. When I create the Definitions section, it'll be clear that some people define asexuality in different ways and may adopt the label even if they may not technically meet the definition to some people. Then again, as stated, there are different definitions of asexuality.

More than anything, you and your group need to be focusing on the GA demands made above. There is only a limited amount of time that GA stays open to review, although the GA reviewer in this case has agreed to let it stay open for a little over a week. In that GA section, you can also see why I felt that it shouldn't be nominated. I'm very busy outside of Wikipedia and you guys show up to edit sporadically, and that type of editing is not compatible with GA review. Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

We have been trying to clean up the article as well, but we are also quite busy. We would love to see this article attain GA status, and we hoped that in nominating it we could see exactly what needs to be done. Am I incorrect in thinking that it can be submitted for this multiple times? Also, thank you for tidying up my most recent edit!Lauradronen (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the "Political identity" section you made is more appropriate for an article such as sexual abstinence or celibacy as it is about rejecting sexuality rather than not having it to begin with. Flyer22 is correct that your time would be better spent addressing the concerns I listed in the GA review page.

Also, about GA reviews, you should not nominate an article for GA review unless: 1) You believe the article is as good as you can get it to be and you have taken care of all the details beforehand, 2) You have the time and are prepared to address all the problems that the reviewer finds. It is true that you can submit an article for GA review multiple times, but to submit an article if you know it will probably fail or still needs a lot of work is a disservice to the GA process as it creates more work for volunteers like me. If you are not sure if an article is good enough for GA status, you should first ask for a WP:peer review or make a request on a relevant WikiProject (such as WP:WikiProject Sexuality). I hope you use this as a learning process for future articles. --Tea with toast (話) 03:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Beg my pardon for intruding, but what POV-pushing are you talking about? Your own? Because Flyer and Nick can't possibly be called POV-pushers here, as there are varying definitions of asexuality. Reporting these definitions and the research using them is not POV-pushing. It's just a reality. A reality Wikipedia is right to include. I've watched this article and talk page for months now, and I witnessed your debate with Flyer. I never understood your opposition to her points, besides your belief that the article should prescribe to your POV that asexuality means no sexual attraction. That is just one definition of asexuality. Flyer provided reliable sources showing just that, and still you attribute this to Flyer and Nick's POVs? Why is that? They are doing the right thing by letting us know what the sources (these experts) say about asexuality. It's these experts who are using "asexuality" to mean "no sexual attraction" in addition to "a lack of sexual attraction," and sometimes in reference to how low a person's libido is. If you want to blame someone for the topic of asexuality being confusing, then blame the experts. Or how about the people who define themselves as asexual, since the definition varies even among asexual-identified people? Or how about blaming it on sexual people who will never understand asexuality? All of the above three choices even.

For the record, I'm asexual and I don't believe that it's inaccurate when someone who possesses very minor sexual attraction calls themselves asexual. In my experience, these people couldn't care less to engage in sexual activity and are usually quite turned off by the idea of having sex, which makes them asexual in my opinion. Being a part of the asexual community, you learn that people define asexuality differently. I don't find this article confusing at all. On the contrary, I find it accurate and quite representative. Asexuality being confusing to people has to do with the examples I listed earlier, not this article. This is a good article, and others have agreed that Flyer and company did great work on it. I find your showing up here to criticize it after the hard work to get it to the level of a good article, basically because it doesn't prescribe to your POV, to be disheartening. The only thing you could have done with this article to make it reflect your POV would have been to remove the majority of its references along with its text, which would have severely threatened the article's chances of reaching the good article level. It's not like there is a lot of research on this topic. And what research there is - most of it is in this article. You need to face that and stop acting like you got ganged up on by editors trying to put inaccurate information into the article. I almost can't even begin to rationalize how you think it's a bad idea to report the different definitions and exactly how the experts have researched the topic, but that it's a good idea to include asexuality as a political identity in the article like asexuality is some kind of choice. (Personal attack removed) That's sad. I don't feel strongly about the inclusion of the political information, since the article explains that asexuality is not a choice. I'm just singling out your faulty argument for wanting it included. (Personal attack removed). 23.20.6.96 (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You said "Goodbye, bully-boys" in one of your latest edit summaries. I hope it's really goodbye, because Wikipedia is no place for editors who cannot defer to reliable sources and work with others, and (Personal attack removed) when they don't get their way. Including information in this encyclopedia is generally about Wikipedia:Verifiability, not what you think you know. (Personal attack removed) You continue to affirm that your POV is correct, in the light of overwhelming evidence that it is not. If we are to defer to the reliable sources, your POV is not correct. You haven't provided any reliable sources supporting your POV, other than AVEN. And not only can AVEN not be used as the be-all and end-all definition of asexuality because they are a Wikipedia:Primary source and not a scholarly one (scholarly sources are needed to define any sexual orientation topic), even they recognize that the definition of asexuality varies and they welcome it. According to research, there is no single definition of asexuality, besides "a lack of sexual attraction/interest in sex." And looking at the sources, the experts mean "a significant lack." For most of the sources, at no point do they say "no sexual attraction to speak of" when referring to the definition of asexuality.

It is categorically false that you were bullied by editors who were trying to put inaccurate information into the article. You were directed to defer to reliable sources and/or to provide reliable sources supporting your POV. Instead, you bitched and protested, insisting that you were right without anything other than AVEN supporting that you are right (even with AVEN being more welcoming of how asexuality may be defined than you). AVEN can only be used for a few things in the article, and AVEN is about all you would have saying that asexuality is defined as "no sexual attraction to speak of," when looking to most of all the other reliable sources on asexuality that are a bit broader in their definition. But we are bullies because we are deferring to reliable sources by experts while letting you know that you are supposed to do the same when editing Wikipedia articles? I suppose we're bullies then. Silly us for deferring to what the experts say and how they use the term instead of only you and a website forum. If you're a feminist, my argument about you wanting the political identity info included isn't that weak, as it has to do with feminists and their beliefs. But then again, looking through his contributions, the editor Nick works on a lot of feminism topics and hasn't supported the inclusion of this material, so maybe the argument isn't that strong. But I basically decided to speak up and criticize you for not making sense. In your discussion with Flyer and Nick, it was pointed out that you are a new user. Looking through your contributions, it doesn't look like you have learned much since then. This is made all the more apparent by your calling me suspicious because I had no previous contributions. Do you think only registered editors watch this talk page? Do you think all unregistered watchers have used their IPs to edit Wikipedia articles? Are you not aware of changing IPs, by whatever the means? How about you check the edit history of this talk page and see the recent IPs who commented here before me, who also had no edit history until now, as recently as the Flag discussion below. If you must know, I either change my IP (by whatever means) or it changes for me. And I have edited/commented at Wikipedia before recently, but I don't edit/comment often. My general aversion to having debates with people who cannot bother to see reason is the only thing that kept me from speaking up in your discussion with Flyer and Nick. Interesting that you focus on Flyer, when I also mentioned Nick. Interesting that I appear to know Wikipedia better than you when I have never registered as one of its users. I guess one learns a lot just watching articles and talk pages.

Logic does happen to be on my side. Others have shown that. You have not shown anything but AVEN. The following is not what I said: "Asexuality is not about being attracted to others but just having a low libido." I did not say that. I spoke of my belief that people can feel very minor sexual attraction and still be asexual, if they, like asexual people, usually don't want to have sex and are usually turned off by the idea of having sex. My belief is supported by numerous reliable sources in the article. What is yours supported by, besides AVEN? And shall I note that there are people on AVEN who would agree with me? I would think that the definitions area of the article is all one would need to look to in order to see that what I say is true. My inference about asexuals being turned off by the idea of having sex is supported as well. It doesn't necessarily have to mean "phobia." I am turned off by the idea of having sex, and I think all true asexuals are, or else we'd be having it (and I don't mean masturbation). I don't hate sex. Nor am I scared of it. I'd just rather not have it. The thought of it does nothing for me. And the issue of libido? It actually does have to do with asexuality, in the sense that some asexuals say they do not have a sex drive. It's only natural that experts try and determine whether this has to do with a person being asexual, even though there are asexuals who do have a sex drive. Experts are going to compare the sex drives of asexuals to the sex drives of non-asexuals. They are going to study libido in relation to asexuality. And that's what I see in this article. At no point in the article do I see "asexuality means low libido" (unless talking about asexuals with low libido). Even the area about sexual orientation and etiology clarifies that asexuality is not a sexual disorder, etc., to some experts at least. The definitions area talks about some experts including minor sexual attraction in their definition of asexuality, but sexual attraction is not the same thing as libido or necessarily the same thing as sexual desire. For example, the area notes that some people who identify as asexual feel minor sexual attraction, but have no desire to act on that sexual attraction.

The difference between your example that "there are people who identify as heterosexual, but who are sexually attracted to both men and women" and this topic is that experts define heterosexuality to mean "the sexual attraction to the opposite sex/gender." If a person admits to sexual attraction to both, they are generally labeled "bisexual. But with asexuality, there is no general or single agreement about the definition of asexuality among experts, other than saying that it is "a lack of sexual attraction/interest in sex." Some of them say "the absence of," but then also go on to include people with minor sexual attraction in their definition of asexuality. I've read half of the sources in this article, and I am telling you that's the deal. You maintain that someone who possesses very minor sexual attraction and calls themselves asexual because they are not interested in sex and are turned off by the idea of having sex cannot be asexual, but that is not what the research says. That's the reason I have criticized you. Because that is what the other editors were trying to tell you, but you weren't listening then and you aren't listening now. You would be correct in your POV if "no sexual attraction" were the only definition of asexuality, but it's not. And therefore you are partly incorrect. I will repeat that if anything about the article is confusing, it's because research is not consistent in how it defines asexuality. Hence, the nature of the article. But Flyer and a Tea with toast had a definitions area created to explain all that before readers delve into the rest of the article. They were also careful to include AVEN's definition. It even comes first. But what scholars say must also be included. Would you rather not have any of the research sections in the article exist, because the experts are not defining asexuality the way you would like them to? The encyclopedia cannot do that. If there are expert-research articles defining asexuality the way you do, they should be included too. Include them. But excluding the others is not an option, especially with so little research on this topic. You call it bullying. I call it a reality of the way this encyclopedia works.

As for myself, I am strictly and technically asexual. I am not interested in sexual activity/turned on by any sexual idea. So I'm not sure where you got the impression that I'm not "a true asexual." You must have assumed that because I support the ones who are just like me, with the exception that they feel minor sexual attraction. Well, it is rich of you to say that you support those people in their identity, even though you also proclaim that they are not true asexuals. There is no way you could have divided this article up into the way you suggest, as it would be Wikipedia:Original research when compared to the fact that all the research supports those people as asexual as much as it does us. What you proclaim about political correctness not being a reason to exclude "content that is factual and encyclopaedic" is what I proclaim. It would be political correctness, among many other things, to have this article proclaim that asexuals never feel any sexual attraction, just to satisfy you and those like you who believe that the only true definition is someone who possesses absolutely no sexual attraction. If we defer to your POV, then why not also defer to asexuals who believe that masturbation cannot possibly be a part of "a true asexual's" life? After all, there are asexuals who are even stricter in their definition of asexuality and exclude such people as being representative of asexuality because they (like the general research community) believe that in order to become sexually aroused, there has to be a point of sexual attraction. Personal opinion should not be included unless supported by reliable sources and included properly. No Wikipedia:Undue weight. Bias and personal opinion should not have allowance to exclude content that is factual and encyclopedic. Your commentary about an identity section, for example? There is already an "asexuality as an identity" section in the article - the definitions area. The definitions area is being kept accurate, and why? Because, for the last time, it's what the damn sources say. You can't understand that for some reason. Live and let live indeed.

I congratulate Flyer, Nick, and Tea with toast on elevating this article to WP:GA. 50.78.12.41 (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Researchers differ on how many sexual orientations exist, ranging from two to four. Some don't count bisexuality. Scholar Judith Butler in Bodies That Matter contends that asexuals don't exist. Modern feminist literature generally accepts more rather than fewer sexual orientations.

Sexual orientation differs from other sexualities in that the others presumptively need treatment or isolation of their individuals (punishment usually being isolative). While some people believe there's a need for more children and therefore oppose anything but heterosexuality, many disagree. I think one study found that asexuals' relationships were no less healthy than heterosexuals' relationships. So the scholarly view that asexuality does not need treatment or punishment and so is a sexual orientation has a basis.

Many Wikipedia articles report conflicting nonfringe views from scholars. Mainstream and alternative nonfringe views are reported with due weight for each (see WP:WEIGHT). We don't choose to report only the mainstream when the other views are nonfringe. Other websites may choose differently. Wikipedia makes research information available to readers who may then choose what to follow up on.

In the posts above, a little of the language is over the top and should not be used (I don't know what's on other pages that is referring to), but asking to keep the article's content within Wikipedia's standards is not.

If presenting conflicting views is confusing to some readers, if the issue is that there are conflicting views, there's nothing to be done about that. But if the issue is how the two are presented and if there's a better way to separate the conflicting views and to be clear that they are conflicting (within a reasonable length and without criticizing one of the views except to report sourcing doing so), then please provide such an edit.

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, IP and Nick. Excellent points. Best to not even respond to any longer about this, with her abhorrent responses and, as the IP stated, failure to follow reliable sources. She says she "might detail how the articles don't even say what [us] three say they 'define' asexuality as"? I say, "Oh no, they say exactly what we say they do." One example is this Prause/Graham source that she continues to ignore, which says "The term 'asexual' has been defined in many different ways" and "researchers have used the term 'asexual' to refer to individuals with low or absent sexual desire or attractions, low or absent sexual behaviors, exclusively romantic non-sexual partnerships, or a combination of both absent sexual desires and behaviors," for starters. I don't care if she considers us bullies for reporting different definitions of asexuality and the research on it that includes aspects she happens to disagree with, or that she considers the article "sloppy and inaccurate and confusing to the uninitiated." As said, we're only following sources, and I did my best with what I had to work with. Because of that work, this article is now considered GA, and I won't let her take that honor from me. Even if I leave Wikipedia for good, and the article descends into crap by her hand, that honor will still be mine. Don't know what she's talking about with regard to us "posting insulting comments about [her] on other Wikipedia pages." I haven't done that here (other than criticize her arguments) or elsewhere. But I don't care. I will say that if we should read WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks, then so should she. I will also say that she can refer to me as a boy/male all she wants. Doesn't make me one. Flyer22 (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice work

This article is really good. It is split up and divided nicely. Good Job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmolenaa (talk • contribs) 21:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, we still have some more to do, but I thank you for the assessment. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"Sexual orientation" in hatnote

I've started this section to discuss MathewTownsend's removal of the sexual orientation wording from the hatnote.[13][14] MathewTownsend stated "not a 'sexual orientation'," but as the lead and article notes, asexuality is considered a sexual orientation among some researchers. For some asexuals, it is not just "a lack of sexual attraction," but "no sexual attraction." All of this is why asexuality is listed as a sexual orientation in the Sexual orientation article and Template:Sexual orientation, which was only listed after thorough discussion. Although I don't feel strongly about MathewTownsend's removal, since this topic is so debated among researchers, I don't understand the issue with listing it as a sexual orientation in its Wikipedia hatnote when it is already officially listed as one by Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not too concerned about in this but I do think the article should be accurate. If least two reliable sources can be found that state that it is a sexual orientation, then the hatnote would be on more solid ground. But none of the dictionary sources in the lede say that it is a "sexual orientation". And the lede says only that it is "sometimes considered a sexual orientation." But the source you link to that statement says: "Asexuality, in contrast, can be defined as the absence of a traditional sexual orientation".[15]

So I question whether "sexual orientation" is the reason most readers would be coming to the article, so there is no reason to put it in a hatnote. And it is misleading, if Asexuality is not generally considered a sexual orientation. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Asexuality being considered a sexual orientation is backed in this article in the third paragraph, where it says "While some researchers assert that asexuality is a sexual orientation, others do not." It's backed to the "Asexuality gets more attention, but is it a sexual orientation?" source. You cannot access it, but that source does go over the debate among researchers about whether or not asexuality should be categorized as a sexual orientation. The Sexual orientation and etiology section also includes this source and other sources on the subject. We aren't going by dictionary sources when it comes to defining asexuality as a sexual orientation; those are not good sources to use for such a topic. Scholarly sources are. The dictionary sources are only used to define asexuality in general.

As for the source you linked to above, that is in the Sexual orientation article, I assume it's used because classifying asexuality as a sexual orientation is also mentioned in that source (which consists of 12 pages; the last two are more so blank pages). Even the line you cited mentions it: Absence of a traditional sexual orientation. That line is saying that it is not a traditional sexual orientation, not that it isn't a sexual orientation at all.

Like I stated, I don't see the issue with calling asexuality a sexual orientation in the hatnote when it is already listed as one in the Sexual orientation article and its template. If you don't think it should be listed in those instances, you can bring that up on their talk pages. I mean, in the GA discussion above, I did say "...asexuality is not yet widely accepted as a sexual orientation (which makes it sort of odd that we have included it in Template:Sexual orientation." But I don't think there will be much support to remove it, since it is used to describe people who lack or do not have sexual attraction for either sex. Flyer22 (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That article is not a good source to make a claim that asexuality is a sexual orientation. First, it is a primary source and is not a reliable secondary source. And it is an old source, published in 2004. If there has been no follow up, no subsequent articles supporting that research, that is not a good sign that the research article made any kind of impact. Second, it is only one source, so it is only the one researcher's opinion. The article needs independent reliable sources to make the claim that asexuality is a sexual orientation. None of the other sources for the asexuality article support that claim. If authoritative secondary sources could be found, such as the American Psychological Association, and more that one, then the claim could be included. Third, the article quoted, besides being a primary source, does not directly say "Asexuality is a sexual orientation." Instead, it makes a vague, unsubstantial claim not backed by evidence that can be interpreted various ways. The sexual orientation article says, "our conception of sexual orientation as an attraction to another person". This is the general consensus, and Wikipedia does not publish fringe theories. The article should follow Identifying reliable sources (medicine), since the article is bordering on making diagnoses.

Also, there is has one slight mention in the sexual orientation article (footnoted to the same article as in this article), and 99% of the sexual orientation article directly contradicts it. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how the Contemporary Sexuality source ("Asexuality gets more attention, but is it a sexual orientation?") is a primary source. Primary sources are sources such as AVEN. The Contemporary Sexuality source features various researchers debating whether or not asexuality should be considered a sexual orientation. It is not a primary source, and neither is the Prause source. There is also the "Toward a conceptual understanding of asexuality" source by Bogaert. All of these sources now back the line in the Sexual orientation article that says: though asexuality is increasingly recognized as a fourth category. They show that asexuality is recognized as a sexual orientation category by some researchers. That is all these sources are supporting in the Asexuality article: That asexuality is recognized as a sexual orientation by some researchers. The lead says "While some researchers assert that asexuality is a sexual orientation, others do not.", not "Asexuality is a sexual orientation." I only started this section because I find it odd not to mention "sexual orientation" in the hatnote when asexuality is already listed as a sexual orientation in the Sexual orientation article and template. Like I stated, "If you don't think it should be listed in those instances, you can bring that up on their talk pages." That is where the debate about whether or not we should list asexuality as a sexual orientation should be had, because this article is not saying that it is definitively a sexual orientation...except for the template that is listed here (and the category at the bottom of the article, if you count that). Yes, sexual orientation is "an attraction to another person." Asexuality is also about attraction; it is about little or no sexual attraction. This is why it is debated as a sexual orientation by researchers. I don't see the Sexual orientation article contradicting asexuality. I see it as mainly discussing heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. And this is because of what I just stated above -- the debate. Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please see WP:MEDRS. When it comes to research articles, a primary source is an individual study or research endevor conducted by an individual researcher or group of researchers. It presents raw data, and analyzes it, then presents original conclusions. A secondary source is a review article that summarizes the current research in the field. It examines many studies are comes to conclusions based on an analysis of many studies, based on what the majority of studies support. One study can be way off base. If used at all in an article, it must be supported by secondary sources. It is just one researcher's findings. That is why they are not reliable sources. Something like AVEN is just a self-published source and really can't be used at all, except to cite uncontroversial facts about AVEN itself and not considered a reliable source for any other information. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

MathewTownsend, I am already aware of WP:MEDRS. I would have to be, working on articles such as these. In any case, the sources I added are supporting the line in the Sexual orientation article that asexuality is starting to be recognized as a fourth sexual orientation category, and the line in the Asexuality article that some researchers consider asexuality to be a sexual orientation. I also realize that you must have been originally talking about this Bogaert source when you started talking about primary sources. My main point is that you are focusing on one finding. I am not speaking of findings. I am speaking of what is debated among researchers, backed by reliable sources. Does the Asexuality article say that asexuality is definitively a sexual orientation? No. It says that it is considered a sexual orientation by some researchers. Are you saying that this cannot be mentioned and thoroughly investigated in the Asexuality article? If so, I do not see why...since this debate is supported by reliable sources. And, yes, AVEN counts as WP:PRIMARY; it's only used in this article for things that primary sources are okay for. AVEN itself is also cited in reliable sources, so its article can most definitely be expanded beyond its own sources. I am bringing editors in from WP:MED to weigh in on this matter, since they know better than anyone when it comes to topics about sourcing such as this.

I'd also rather keep this discussion in one place. So since you started the Template talk:Sexual orientation#Is there evidence that Asexuality is a sexual orientation? discussion, let's keep it there. Flyer22 (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a little silly to call that article in an organizational newsletter a "research article" as if it were published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. The Contemporary Sexuality source basic, simple journalism of exactly the sort you'd find in any newspaper or magazine that happened to care about this subject. If you really need to figure out whether it's primary or secondary, then you might find WP:PRIMARYNEWS to be helpful.

But frankly, I think the classification is irrelevant: Neither PRIMARY nor MEDRS prohibit the use of journalism-type sources, especially when the claims being made are "Some experts say this, and others say that". (not watching this page) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't call it a research article, WhatamIdoing, although it could be called one in the sense that, as I stated, it "features various researchers debating whether or not asexuality should be considered a sexual orientation." To me, calling it a research paper is different than calling it a research article and is what would have been a little silly. But, again, I didn't call it a research article.

Anyway, thanks for weighing in. Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Link to Sexual attraction in the lede

In the lede, Sexual attraction is piped to "Sexual interest". I believe this is incorrect. If you read the article Sexual attraction, it says:

Sexual attractiveness or sex appeal refers to an individual's ability to attract the sexual or erotic interest of another person, and is a factor in sexual selection or mate choice. The attraction can be to the physical or other qualities or traits of a person, or to such qualities in the context in which they appear. [etc.]

So the lede of this article says, essentially {if you look at the article the piped link actually goes to:

Asexuality (sometimes referred to as nonsexuality),[1][2][3] in its broadest sense, is the lack of sexual attractiveness or sex appeal [and] refers to an individual's ability to attract the sexual or erotic interest of another person, and is a factor in sexual selection or mate choice.

Do you mean to say the Asexuality refers to the lack of sex appeal? That the most important aspect of the asexual person is that he/she is not sexually attractive to others?

If so, that's not what those three dictionary definitions the you link to in the lede say. Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

As seen in these links,[16][17] I pipelinked "sexual attraction" to "sexual interest" only after you removed "sexual attraction." The "lack of sexual attraction" line was actually backed to two scholarly sources and one news source, not dictionary sources, and I will change it back to that per these sources and because it's best to just say "sexual attraction" instead of "sexual interest" in this case. An asexual person may show significant sexual interest in another person just to please a romantic partner, for example, but still feel no sexual attraction.

As for the Sexual attraction article, I did look at that article after I pipelinked to it and the only reason I can think that it is defined that way in the lead is because the article used to be titled Sexual attractiveness. I'll fix that now. Thank you, MathewTownsend, for pointing out just how badly it needs to be reworded. Flyer22 (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

ok. Since I doubt an asexual person would have much Sexual attraction or "sex appeal" for others, so it really makes no sense to link to it. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I already fixed the definition in the Sexual attraction article. I don't mind if it's not linked here, per WP:OVERLINKING, since it is a common term that most people comprehend. Flyer22 (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

As a side point to MathewTownsend, perhaps you meant a different preposition, but your doubt that an asexual would have much sexual attraction for others is about someone else's attraction to the asexual, and that's not necessarily near zero, even if an asexual is statistically less likely to dress or appear to be sexually appealing to others. Not all attraction is mutual or supported by an object (so to speak) of attraction. It may lead to frustration but so may many, perhaps most, attractions between nonasexuals. An object being asexual may increase attraction from another specifically because asexuality may be disbelieved or viewed as a challenge or ground for a project or conversion experiment. This may assist in the discussion of sexual attraction for the article. Nick Levinson (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking through the edit histories of Sexual attraction and Sexual attractiveness, it seems that the Sexual attraction article was never titled Sexual attractiveness; Sexual attractiveness was created as a redirect.[18] So it's odd that the lead didn't completely correspond with the title. Maybe it did at one time, but someone changed it? Hmm. Flyer22 (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Asexual Flag

Sometime last month, it looks like the asexual flag and information about it have been removed. The flag is an important and growing symbol in the asexual community. Many asexual people will identify themselves using the flag or its colors. Asexual groups in Pride Parades will fly the flag. It's a much more widespread symbol than the gradient triangle, which is the logo of a single website. The asexual flag is hardly "based entirely on web forums", which was the rationale for removing the section. The flag info should be restored. 50.46.248.95 (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

In compliance with Wikipedia's verifiability requirements, the information about the flag was removed since the only sources of information about the flag were web forums. If you can find information about the flags from reliable secondaries sources (books, print magazines, etc.), you are free to include information about the flag on the article. --Tea with toast (話) 04:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

(Not the original IP.) You assume that there are whole books about asexuality, when in reality even books on sexuality have at the most a couple of badly researched pages on asexuality. --87.157.44.28 (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but there actually is a verifiable non-Internet source for the flag, though it's not yet widely available. Angela Tucker's documentary (A)sexual, which is currently making festival rounds, features the flag prominently. If you need further proof of the flag being flown outside the Internet, see this YouTube video of the asexuality contingent in the San Francisco pride parade, in which someone is wearing the flag. Lunasspecto (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Tea with toast, I would think that it would have been less destructive and much more constructive to post here on the Talk page about the need for additional sources (or indeed to spend the time finding said sources), rather than simply deleting important content without warning, as editors may not immediately notice the information's deletion, and the asexual flag is an important symbol of asexuality, and as such should definitely be present in an article about asexuality (accept my apologies if this discussion did take place in previously archived pages, with nobody responding - though a repeat warning before deletion still should have happened, IMHO). ★★Violet Fae (contributions)★★ 14:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)