User talk:Marchingdude

Asexuality article
Hello again, Marchingdude. I explained in Talk:Asexuality/GA1 (in the Issues needing to be addressed section) why I changed your text, with these edits made by myself, but I want to personally explain the reasons here on your talk page as well: AVEN's definition of asexuality is a WP:Primary source, even though it was backed to a secondary source in your 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. Your 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 your 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.

Your edit 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 Words to avoid. 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 your text (the stuff that was not redundant, and tweaked any "weasel-wordy" stuff). I put your 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 you divided half of what AVEN says about asexuality. You 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 your text. If you want to comment on any on this, I ask that you do so in the GA discussion (which also shows up on the article talk page). I am open to striking a compromise 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) 22:42, 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." We'll see what the GA reviewer has to state about which paragraph should come first. Flyer22 (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)