Talk:Asexual Visibility and Education Network

One of the most egregious cases of advertising I've seen here

The Sections § is especially outrageous, I think the entire article should be nominated for speedy deletion. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

An article so important should not be deleted

Once again, some want to delete our existence. The usual idea: "We do not exist", With so much human diversity that there is in the world - "we are not and cannot be part of human diversity-We are not human and it is impossible." These are some of the usual remarks levelled against us. Why do breeders get so offended? We also live, we breathe like they do, most of us are happy, and most of all we exist just like other humans exist. And there is also some degree of variation in our community as in all communities. "When you are gay you know it, and when you are heterosexual you know it, and when you are asexual you also know it." There is no doubt about it. I'm sorry about whatever miscommunications or misunderstandings arise because of kind of diversity-but that's just how it is. Get used to it. Think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.171.205.65 (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you so self absorbed or whatever that you can't distinguish this entity you're trying to push from the general phenomenon of asexuality? This is an encyclopædia, not a directory of community services. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I lol'd. Equivamp, Person Who Is Correct^(talk) 02:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• As you will see on the main article namespace, I have suggested this article be merged in with the main Asexuality article. I can't think of any criteria that would involve speedy deleting it, but currently nothing in the article is substantiated with any third party sources, so it's been at the risk of just about anyone coming along, nominating it for deletion via AfD, and getting wiped. By redirecting it into the main article, it has a better chance of nothing being lost, as the community appears to have been mentioned occasionally in news articles. --Ritchie333 (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The History of Sexuality

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MilkyWay164 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by MilkyWay164 (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

This article definitely does not address the influence I've been aware of AVEN having. My main goal is to help this article reflect that AVEN is more than a small website that acts as a community service. AVEN is notable enough of an organization to warrant its own Wikipedia page. MilkyWay164 (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

reverting content

@Raladic hey homie I noticed you reverted the following:

A 2018 study for the journal Sociological Research Online examined the reception of AVEN among asexuals. While some expressed positive views, some found themselves "more confused about [their] identities" than before having visited, some describing AVEN as "elitist" or "stuffy" and "cliquey". Some users described ableism against autistic asexuals, perceiving AVEN as desiring to impose it's "true definition of genuine asexuality" in order to determine who gets to ‘count’ as asexual, describing AVEN as an attempt to create "a little secret society".

The section you blanked wasn't a criticism section, it was a reception section, and you'll note the passage in question actively mentions that some respondents to the study expressed positive views, not exactly in line with what you'd normally expect from a criticism section.

The citation in question is a a study in a journal compiling thought and reflection based on primary sources, i.e. the definition of a secondary source. You'll also note that "confused about their identities" is in the writer's voice, as is the passage about the "true definition of asexuality", and all of the primary quotes are dovetailed with the writer's reflections.

I would be fine with integrating it into the article without the "reception" header, but as it stands, I don't think the rationale behind the removal here is particularly substantive. Tdmurlock (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from assuming my gender and using the term homie when referring to me - WP:EDPRONOUNS.

Whether the section was titled criticism or reception, in the way it was written it read as a criticism section, which as I referenced in the undo is discouraged per WP:CRITS and made the criticism appear as more broad fact rather than individual attributed WP:OPINION. That is why for sourcing it is generally preferred to have secondary sources that discuss the results of studies, whereas studies themselves are usually considered primary. If we do have opinions, they should generally be attributed to the person per WP:RSOPINION.

As you mentioned, some conclusions are written in the studies writers voice, and would thus be primary and we wouldn’t generally include them, unless either attributed, or by having reliable secondary sources that discussed them. Raladic (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Homie is generally recognized as gender neutral, but if you'd prefer I not refer to you as such that's fine. The section in question, by the standard of WP:CRITS, was not a criticism section. "While some expressed positive views" demonstrates specifically that the reception in question is, as a matter of fact, not broadly critical, but rather quite mixed.

WP:Primary exhorts us to observe the following when employing primary sources:

1. Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Y
2. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Y
3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Y
4. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Y
5. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Y
6. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy. Y

Feel like this is a misuse of WP:RSOPINION as well. The page itself says "When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion.", which is precisely why the section in question starts with "A 2018 study for the journal Sociological Research Online examined the reception of AVEN among asexuals..."- the content is not presented as fact, but as mixed conclusions reached by a specific journal. Tdmurlock (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Homie is generally not gender neutral - The etymology of homie brings it as a likely derivative of homeboy or the Italian uomo, both of which are specifically male and most certainly are not gender neutral. Refer to wikt:en:homie and [1] for more details.

Regarding your analysis, it is a misreading of the policy:

3 - Opinions are not statements of facts, they are statements of opinions. If they were included, in order for them to be included, they would need to be attributed to the people having made them (Liam et al that made the statements).

As for 5 - the entire section is based on this one paper and most of the statements of it being primary opinions, so it runs afoul of it. We would need another source that discussed the paper.

Attribution for RSOPINION means to a person making an opinion statement, so in this case, we would need to cite “Liam, full name unknown”, or “Nate, full name unknown” who state the opinions as individuals. It is also important to remember that one core what Wikipedia is not policy is WP:NOTOPINION - we don’t generally republish the opinions of individuals unless there is a clear and greater context discussed in multiple reliable sources.

The primary purpose of the paper also was not that of examining the reception of AVEN, but rather about the politics of asexuality, with some of the statements about AVEN just being secondary to the paper in the larger context, which would have to be clearer. Raladic (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)