![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
@ 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". [1]
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)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
@ 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". [1]
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)