Talk:Romantic orientation/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ldolle, Aoka222, YooCo, Elizabeth Hays. Peer reviewers: Brandon James Ross.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 15 October 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jaycelyons. Peer reviewers: Jjw21, Kalebbscott.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anniejensen. Peer reviewers: Coca-a-costa.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smittal9. Peer reviewers: Axelman03, Nmk9929.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Terms

*cough* Just to be nitpicky and answer the question: How about homotransromantic (as in: "same transitioned gendered romantic". as opposed to transhomoromantic which would be "transitioned to the same gender romantic")? Or just queer? Why does she need a label at all, unless she wants one for herself? OddBoyOut (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

*cough* I think that was a rhetorical question —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.184.15 (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone say affectional orientation? Romantic orientation is something I've heard of and had discussions about, but I have never seen or heard the term affectional modifying orientation except in this article. Maybe change the name? If anyone has ever heard this phrase used elsewhere, tell me.Vellushair (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

By their definitions, biromantic and panromantic appear to be the same thing. 'Attraction to your own gender and any other gender' is simply an alternative wording of 'attraction to all genders'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.198.98 (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference #5 is broken. Additionally, there don't seem to be any sources for the list of romantic orientations/identities (I've tried the obvious Googling, but it mostly seems to come up with unreliable sources that can't be used as references). Does anyone know where appropriate sources for these can be found? 164.39.3.124 (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Outside asexual community

This article seems to suggest that Affectional orientation is something unique to the asexual community. Are there not however examples of this outside? What about Platonic love, for instance? And what about people who identify as bisexual but are simultaneously heterosexual and homoromoantic or vice versa? Unfortunately, I have no concrete evidence for this, other than my own and others' experience, so I'll have to get back to you when I've looked a bit further into this.86.177.186.206 (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

See the last paragraph. I quote: “Aromantics can still have a sexual orientation (e.g., ‘aromantic bisexual’ or ‘aromantic heterosexual’).” Everything Is Numbers (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed the line about sexual orientations being 'reductionistic'.

If anyone disagrees they can feel free to put the line back in or talk with me about it, but as it stands, I don't really see what either of the sources (and therefore the line) have to do with romantic orientation specifically.

The sources, for reference:

Neither of these pages talk at all about romantic orientation. They instead talk about labeling sexual orientation at all, one of them from a Christian perspective of anything other than heterosexuality being unnatural and therefore not being something that should be labeled, and the other being about how the current worldview of 100% heterosexuality being normal is untrue and how modern labels are problematic and inaccurate. Neither article is written with any division of sexual/romantic orientation in mind, and while these articles could arguably both be applied to romantic orientation specifically, I think these they'd be much better suited as sources for different entries altogether.

Xerobilon (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

the case for reduction

I'm not totally convinced that the undertaken topic makes a credible article, but I do find it an interesting concept. Time will tell if it's more than a passing PC fad.

However, I do not appreciate sneakiness, particularly the inept demonstrations. This article is heavily about aromanticism — including headings, aroman appears 32 times in a 12K article.

Here's a simple guideline:

if "aromanticism" is notable enough to deserve so much space here, then it ought to have its own W'pedia article and cease clogging up the page
if it's not notable enough to AFTER AT LEAST SIX YEARS not have its own article, then it deserves to be savagely pruned

Thoughts? Any?
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a WP:No page matter. I don't see that the topic needs its own Wikipedia article. Not every notable, or kind of notable, topic needs its own Wikipedia article, especially when there are few reliable sources on it and it can't be expanded much beyond a stub. WP:No page is clear about that. Editors should look to expand on one or more of the other listings seen under the "Romantic identities" section instead of to breaking out the aromanticism section. But if someone wants to create the article, based on the poor and mediocre sources currently seen in the section on it, I'm not going to go to the article and object to its creation. I might note that it's better served as a section in this article, where it used to be. You know, until or if academics seriously address the topic beyond briefly mentioning it in terms of asexuality. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, see Talk:Aromanticism. I already argued against its ~~creation~~ existence as a standalone article just last year. And other editors supported me on that for the reasons I gave. That is why the article was merged here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2019, Group 4A Goals

As a group we would like to expand upon recent publications involving asexual and non-heterosexual individuals and their romantic orientation/attractions. We would also like to update broken citation links and consolidate sources. Please let us know if you have any feedback or corrections. Drafts will be made in the sandbox. Thank you so much! Aoka222 (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Aoka222, with regard to this edit I just made, I re-added a piece to the lead (per WP:Lead, as the lead is meant to summarize the lower article), I re-added the material sourced to Bogaert 2012 at the beginning of the "Relationship with sexual orientation and asexuality" section (since Bogaert is the leading researcher on asexuality as we know it today, and since I don't see that the text needed removal), and I cut citations per WP:Citation overkill and one being a poor source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn Thank you so much for your feedback and edits! Aoka222 (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Yes,Lead section is easy to understand Yes, it appears balanced Yes, they edited the entire article so that it has a neutral tone Yes, reliable sources Part 2: The goals appeared to be reached and the article was improve greatly with the wording of sentences, as well as, additional information and updated sources. It was apparent how much of the wording was edited to a more neutral tone because some sentences were written with opinions. For example, they changed predisposed to experienced, "although a pansexual person may feel sexually attracted to people regardless of gender, they may be predisposed to experience romantic...". One addition that could be added in the future is to ensure the topics are balance for each romantic identity and orientation. As more information and research comes out I think they could be added to this one wikipage. The way it is laid out currently provides is organized well and it would be easy to add more information/make subsections for each romantic identity. (Foley1115 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)).

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…

Yes, the article with edits currently reflect a neutral perspective and have many references to support each statement that may be perceived as more opinionated.

Do.shelly (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Group 4C's edits made significant contributions to the article including clarity adding supporting evidence. The Group appears to have achieved its overall goals. I see no evidence of plagiarism. Brandon James Ross (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Necromanticism

Admins can rule as they please, but no, I was not joking when I listed “Necromantic” as a romantic orientation. And no, it is not the same as “necrophilia” which is based upon sexual attraction to the dead, rather than a romantic orientation. I would think with all the cultural sensitivity to minority groups that the claim made against my edit, that necrophiles are the same as necromantics, would be seen as hate speech. But again, admins can do ad they please and I am just adding this comment because I self-identify as a necromantic, having been raised as a Roman Catholic, and I certainly do not self-identify as a necrophiliac. Look on Facebook. There is a group for those into Necromanticism. And we are not “necromancers” either. When will people stop lumping Necromantics in with Necrophiles and Necromancers? We are not all the same! DErnestWachter (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I misspelled Necromanticism and can’t figure out how to fix it. I was so upset that I was accused of being a Necrophile! Wtf? DErnestWachter (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Necromanticism is not necrophilia and not necromancy, fyi. I am fine with Wiki admins ruling the site as they see fit. I just wanted to point out in this Talk section that romantic attraction to dead beings is different than sexual attraction to dead bodies and different from sorcery involving communication with the dead. I misspelled my first entry and could not figure out how to correct the title. Apologies for having to post twice. Peace, love and tolerance for diversity. DErnestWachter (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a lot I could say in response, but it would be a waste of time. Suffice it to say that without reliable sources, you can't add anything. This is probably trolling anyway; at least I hope it is. -Crossroads- (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Aromanticism and bisexuals info in article needs clarification

The section of Aromanticism fails to properly address the issue of bisexuals who identify as both having romantic and sexual attraction to the opposite sex but identify as aromatic by sexually attracted to members of the same sex (or the opposite). As currently written, the section seems to imply IMO that bisexuals can either are aromatic but sexually attracted to both sexes or neither but not ever split on one these criteria with regard to same or opposite sex relationships. For example, a bisexual man could be attracted to women both sexually and romantically bu only ever sexually attracted to other men (never romantically). --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Without reliable sources, we can't comment on this matter. It seems unlikely though that such a bisexual would identify as aromantic; they would be either a bisexual heteroromantic or a bisexual homoromantic. And please review your talk page comments for grammar and readability to others before posting. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Queerplatonic relationships

Though the last edit to this article by Red Rose 112 was reverted by ClueBot, it's brought to my attention that this article doesn't mention queerplatonic relationships - and it should.

Searching for 'queerplatonic' currently only brings up Platonic love, and that article doesn't mention it, either. Queerplatonic relationships straddle the line between 'just friends' and 'romance', and I'm surprised that as a concept it's mentioned in neither article.

If other editors would like to add a few sentences with a couple of sources on the topic, I'd be grateful - I'm still on my endless journey of adding language tags and alt descriptions to the pages on my watchlist, so it isn't something I have time for. Thank you! --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I have just added this onto the page, though it has only been mentioned briefly in one sentence. Do you feel that it would be worth expanding this into a paragraph? I may try to do so if I discover sufficient sources to help me write it. ThatOtakuGuy37 (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The concept of "queerplatonic" relationships is not widely recognized. If it were going to be added, we would expect high quality sources, academic ones, to recognize it as a concept - whether in psychology, sociology, or another relevant field. A pop-sci medical site or a campus guide isn't the kind of WP:SOURCETYPES we should be using for WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ineffablebookkeeper and @ThatOtakuGuy37: I have started a new article for QPR at queerplatonic relationship. You should be able to use the sources from there, including several peer-reviewed papers, two academic book chapters, and discussions in (reasonably) reliable popular websites like The Huffington Post and Psychology Today.

—Kilopylae (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it hadn't been added before only because either someone hadn't gotten around to creating a page for it, and/or there weren't enough reliable sources talking about it. Historyday01 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The SRGM Federation

See ja:ノート:恋愛的指向#日本SRGM連盟の声明について. --ぽぽか (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

User:ぽぽか, Google Translate is not as good with non-European languages. I am not sure why this is relevant or why it justifies tagging the section as POV. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure either, as it was a strange edition. --Historyday01 (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I added the English translation to the note. --ぽぽか (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but what one group, the Japan SRGM Federation, said about it doesn't automatically make the whole section invalid. Also, the SRGM Federation is already part of the section at present, along with other sources. Whether the sexual orientation section on the romantic orientation page on ja.wikipedia is unbalanced or not, in terms of its POV, should be decided by editors on that Wikipedia, and what that section says has no bearing on the section here, which is sourced and written differently. Historyday01 (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I would single out the SRGM Federation sentence of the section, but just deleting it would only be reverted (like on ja.wikipedia) and there's no POV template for a sentence. Being sourced does not make an opinion valid; I think the last sentence needs more elaboration to avoid the issues I've mentioned on the ja: note. --ぽぽか (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, then re-write that sentence if you feel it is unbalanced. I don't think its necessary to rewrite it, but that's just my view on it, as I feel that the sentence does add something, even if it could be said differently.Historyday01 (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks like you are saying that the sentence is what we would call WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE. One of the sources is SRGM itself, and the other is some news site that reports their view. Is that news site a reliable source? It's Japanese, so I am not familiar with it. If it is not reliable, then we should definitely remove it. How is this SRGM organization viewed in Japan? Are they mainstream in representing who they claim to represent? This is an unusual view it seems, and I do wonder why the English Wikipedia necessarily needs it. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Historyday01: I really don't get what it adds. Wikipedia is not a place to promote the argument no one else makes, and we can't even write "there is conflation between sexual and romantic orientations" (this might be justified with careful sourcing and balancing) while it's still under study whether the two are distinct or whether it's wrong to refer to them as one.

@Crossroads:The source 選報日本 is a news website originally established in August 2013 with 557 Twitter followers and 56 Google search results.
The SRGM Federation is an organization of and for Sexual, Romantic and Gender Minorities originally established in 2019 with a claimed membership of 100+, 1,145 Twitter followers and 36 Google search results, whose representative is also a regular contributor to the said news website.
">Are they mainstream in representing who they claim to represent?" Definitely no. --ぽぽか (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, then I'm fine with removing it. I wouldn't have any objection if its removed. Historyday01 (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Removed, thank you for your comments. --ぽぽか (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Attitudes towards romance

From my knowledge of online communities revolving around aromanticism, they describe themselves as romance-positive, indifferent or repulsed. I have added this onto the page to reflect the feelings of the community. However, I struggled to find a reliable source that I could use for the paragraph that I have added. The majority of what returns when I do a search are blog posts on tumblr, or the LGBTA Wiki’s pages. If anyone could add a source for the added paragraph, I will be grateful. Thank you. ThatOtakuGuy37 (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, this appears to be a highly useful source on topics relating to aromanticism: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/114509/1/Final_manuscript.pdf

It’s rather content-dense, so I would suggest that multiple editors may use this. While this is about asexual individuals, some content may be relevant here. ThatOtakuGuy37 (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)