Talk:Romantic orientation/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Romantic orientation. 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.

Archive 1

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)

‎Aromanticism expansions

The ‎aromanticism expansions by MysteryRat included very low-quality citations, such as thesis sources. MysteryRat also took liberty with some sources in the way they presented components. The big expansions are also WP:UNDUE for this article, as there is no reason for aromanticism to take up almost half the page. I undid the big edits, returning the article to this version by MysteryRat.

MysteryRat, we can add information about aromanticism without adding so much. There's also better sources for some of the information. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Enlightenedstranger0,

I apologize for my delay in getting back to you. The feedback you have given me is rational and seems well thought-out, so I wanted to ensure that I took the time to consider it thoroughly. I have given my response to each of your main criticisms below.

Liberties Taken With Presentation of Information:

While I had not intended to take liberties with the way I presented information, there were several instances where I had trouble finding ways to relay information so that it was concise, consistent with Wikipedia’s tone guidelines, and faithful to the source material. Although I am not sure where I made these errors, I can definitely see how they might have happened, and I appreciate that you pointed them out. If you have the opportunity, I would greatly appreciate if you could give me more information about which sources I had misinterpreted/misrepresented so that I can better understand where I made mistakes and avoid making similar errors in the future.

Low Quality Citations:

It is a bit difficult for me to tell which sources were removed due to problems with the sources themselves vs. which were removed due to being outside the scope of the article, so any additional clarification regarding this would be helpful. However, I do agree that several of the sources I used needed to be removed. In fact, there were several that I added which I had planned to remove myself, after realizing that I had been a bit overzealous in editing and included sources which were…maybe not the best in hindsight.

That being said, I have reviewed the thesis sources that I included to determine which ones, if any, are worth including here as sources. Upon viewing the Wikipedia guidelines on the usage of dissertations/theses as sources, there seems to be a few main guidelines, for whether they can be included. Specifically, in order to be included, a thesis source should:

a. be complete

b. have significant scholarly influence (within their field, presumably) if the thesis is a Master’s thesis, and

c. preferably, be cited in literature, supervised by recognized specialists in the field, or reviewed by independent parties.

Guidelines for honors bachelor’s theses are not specified, but since these are not explicitly prohibited under Wikipedia guidelines, I have assumed that a bachelor’s thesis should meet similar qualifications to a Master’s thesis (but should still generally be considered less reliable). The theses I included are all completed, so the main qualifying (or disqualifying) factor is whether they are influential and whether they’ve been cited, supervised by recognized specialists, and/or reviewed by independent parties.

While the theses included have been cited quite a bit by non-scholarly sources, I recognize that this is insufficient for proving that they have significant scholarly influence. Since one could argue that virtually any published source on aromanticism is “influential” in the study of aromanticism and romantic orientation due to how underdeveloped the body of research on these subjects currently is, I tried to narrow down some more specific guidelines for determining whether a given source meets the condition of “significant influence” within the context of this field.

As such, my main benchmark for deciding whether a thesis was notable enough to include were

a. the quality of the research that referenced it,

b. whether the source had been referenced/cited by prominent researchers in a relevant field, and

c. the qualifications of the thesis advisor(s) involved in the source’s creation.

Information in the Master’s thesis by C. Bougie seems to be relatively consistent with the work of other researchers, but it does not seem to have been cited yet, possibly due to how recently it was published. Based off this, I agree with the rationale behind removing this source (except, perhaps, for instances where it is used to provide additional support to a more reliable source), unless it is seen to have more influence within its field following the publication of future research.

The same could be said of the thesis written by Rilee Granger since, although the thesis has received many downloads, I am not aware of any instances where it has been cited by other scholars. Some of the sources which Granger cites/references may still be useable, but I would need to do further reading to determine whether this is the case.

However, I do think that the thesis by Christina Lang has merit, since it has been cited in a study by Ela Przybylo and in a paper co-authored by Ela Przybylo and Kristina Gumpta (where it is explicitly mentioned as one of few scholarly works published directly on aromanticism). This would seemingly imply that Lang’s paper has the approval of these two researchers, which is notable since Ela Przybylo and Kristina Gumpta are both prominent asexuality researchers, and Ela Przybylo is among the few scholars who have published notable research articles on aromanticism. Lang's advisor also seems to have done quite a bit of research on LGBT+ topics, which is another point in Lang's favor. As such, I think that Lang’s thesis is worth including, despite the fact that it is a thesis rather than a paper by a more experienced researcher in the field.

Undue Weight:

I can definitely see your rationale here, since in hindsight, I definitely included some information that was outside the scope of the romantic orientation article. However, I do feel that the information included was well within the scope of the topic of aromanticism, which leads me to the following question: If there is too much information on aromanticism to reasonably include in the page on romantic orientation, then should we consider splitting aromanticism into its own article, with a shorter summary given in the romantic orientation article?

It has been two years since this possibility was last discussed, and the reason it was decided that aromanticism should be merged with romantic orientation in the first place was, according to my understanding, that there was not enough reliable information on aromanticism for it to be a standalone article. Although I will admit there are definitely problems with some of the information/sources that I added, I don’t think all of the information is completely unsalvageable. If enough of the information is indeed found to be salvageable, it may merit inclusion in an article on aromanticism even if it does not merit inclusion in an article on the broader topic of romantic orientation. This would ensure that the topic of aromanticism can be expanded upon with relevant information without said information dominating the romantic orientation page.

Furthermore, even if the removed information is not enough by itself for a standalone article, there is now a relatively short list article of aromantic characters in the media, which did not exist at the time of the previous discussions on splitting the article. It might be beneficial to create an article on aromanticism and discuss merging the List of Fictional Aromantic Characters article with the new aromanticism article, especially since the aromantic characters list is much shorter than comparable lists. MysteryRat (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

There wasn't much of a delay. No issue with your response time.

For Wikipedia's views on taking liberties, see WP:STICKTOSOURCE and MOS:EDITORIAL.

For Wikipedia's views on low-quality citations, it looks like you have reviewed WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I think you should avoid all thesis papers. While WP:SCHOLARSHIP doesn't prohibit them, it does emphasize caution for using them and gives good reasons for not using them. It provides no good reasons for using them. WP:SCHOLARSHIP says "prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." There is more information at WP:PSTS.

To have an aromanticism article, proving WP:Notability should be what you're aiming for. You've read previous discussions at Talk:Aromanticism. I've reviewed them now also. "There was not enough reliable information on aromanticism for it to be a standalone article" wasn't the only reason given for not having a standalone article on it. You have to show editors that it needs to have its own page rather than remain a section here per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Were you trying to give aromanticism its own page by expanding its section so much? If so, that isn't the path to seek. There needs to be evidence of notability. And if evidence of notability is demonstrated, there needs to be a good reason to move past WP:PAGEDECIDE.

Drawing up a blueprint to show where you want to go with the topic and getting editors to chip in to improve it is a good path to seek. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Just adding on that I think the best place for content on aromanticism is here, for the reasons noted at WP:No page, and based on what sourcing seems to exist on the topic. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with Enlightenedstranger0 and Crossroads here, that it shouldn't be its own page unless there is enough sources to make it its own page. And the List of fictional aromantic characters page was originally created as someone on the List of fictional asexual characters talk page requested it, and the reason it is "relatively short" is that there are many lists of aromantic characters out there, its just that reliable sources on such characters are very hard to come by. Historyday01 (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay in responding. (I know I said that last time I responded to this thread, but I think the apology is more justified this time since I took much longer than before to reply).

I did not mean to imply that the list of fictional aromantic characters page is not useful or needed, so I apologize if my previous response came across that way. What I had intended to express was that, if information of the topic of aromanticism in fiction is considered notable enough to warrant its own list article (as the existence of said article would seem to imply), the broader topic of aromanticism should, by extension, also be considered sufficiently notable and to warrant its own article. Furthermore, since the list article now exists, it may be useful to have an aromanticism article to provide more in depth context on the aromanticism and different experiences of those on the aromantic spectrum, especially since the list article includes several examples which deviate from the "stereotypical" understanding of aromantics as exclusively asexual, nonpartnering, and unable to experience any romantic attraction whatsoever.

Additionally, while I can see why it might make sense, in theory, to have aromanticism as a subsection under romantic orientation, in practice, this carries the implication that aromanticism is much more analogous to other romantic orientations than it actually is. While other romantic orientations do not seem to have prevalent communities outside of those for the "corresponding" sexual orientations (e.g., there does not seem to be a cohesive biromantic community outside the bisexual and asexual communities, even though there are people who may identify as biromantic heterosexual biromantic homosexual, etc.), there is a relatively large aromantic community outside the asexual community. This is not to say other romantic orientations are any less important. However, it does seem a bit misleading to categorize aromanticism as a subset of romantic orientation in the same way that homoromanticism, heteroromanticism, biromanticism, and panromanticism are subsets of romantic orientation, because this makes it so that the amount of weight given to aromanticism is not reflective of the actual prevalence of the aromantic community.

This is why I think having an article on aromanticism would be beneficial, provided that the available sources on aromanticism are sufficient for creating such an article. I am entirely willing to do the research to find sources that could be used for such an article, though I am not entirely sure how many sources would be necessary, since I don't really have much experience in regards to this sort of thing. If I were to begin doing more research to gather sources, approximately how many reliable sources would suffice to show that there are enough to create a separate page for aromanticism? MysteryRat (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Notability here isn't about how many sources you can add to an article. It's about significant coverage. Have a look at WP:SIGCOV and WP:CITEKILL. As one of your goals is to show deviation from the "'stereotypical' understanding of aromantics as exclusively asexual" and that "there is a relatively large aromantic community outside the asexual community," you might want to start with locating sources that report this.

Maybe the list article shouldn't have been created. But it exists now, and there aren't calls to delete or merge it. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

You mean the List of fictional aromantic characters article, right? I only created that because one person had requested it be made and it seemed logical to create it at the time. I will admit it has been a challenge to find reliable sources for aromantic characters at times. There are all sorts of lists online, but when you dig into it, very few of them actually provide reliable sources... its a bit frustrating. Historyday01 (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I will look into researching in order to find articles with significant coverage, and if I am able to find sources that seem promising, I will share them here (or elsewhere, if you would prefer) for feedback. (Although it may be a bit before I do so, since I have been very busy lately with personal responsibilities). MysteryRat (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. Same here with being busy with personal responsibilities this year as well. I did a lot of editing on here last year, but this year I'm trying to scale it back a bit. Historyday01 (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Historyday01, yes, that's the list I meant.

MysteryRat, you're welcome. I look forward to seeing what you come up with. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Sources reporting that aromantic people are not exclusively asexual, that there is an active aromantic community outside of the asexual community, etc.

(This is by no means an exhaustive list, and many of these sources provide more information on aromanticism than I have relayed here. However, to start with, I am focusing primarily on showing the existence of a publicly recognized aromantic community consisting of people who are not necessarily asexual).

I. Source 1: “Examining Concordant and Discordant Sexual and Romantic Attraction in American Adults: Implications for Counselors” https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15538605.2016.1233840?needAccess=true

Key Results:

a. Overall Prevalence of Aromanticism in the General Population: In a survey of 414 American adults, about 1% of participants indicated that they were romantically attracted to neither sex (i.e., 1% of participants were aromantic). Similarly, about 1% (or 0.7%, to be more exact) of the participants indicated that they were sexually attracted to neither sex (i.e., about 1% of participants were asexual). This figure is corroborated by the fact that several other studies have also around 1% of the general population to be asexual. [It is worth noting that, if these survey results hold true for the general American population, this would mean that the approximate percentage of aromantic people in the American population is the same as the approximate percentage of asexual people in the American population. While this does not necessarily mean that the community of self-identified aromantics is equal in size to that of self-identified asexuals, it does show that there may be similar numbers of aromantic people and asexual people in the American population.]

b. Prevalence of Allosexual Aromanticism: The study found no significant difference between the proportion of the sample that was alloromantic asexual vs allosexual aromantic. In other words, of those surveyed, the percent of people who were asexual but not aromantic vs. those who were aromantic but not asexual were close to the same. More specifically, of the 10.6% of participants whose romantic orientation did not “match” their sexual orientation, 6.8% were allosexual aromantic (Although this is not said in the article, I will point out for reference that this is equal to 0.7% of the total sample for the study). For the comparison, of those surveyed, 3 of the 414 were found to be aromantic but not asexual, while an additional 3 of the 414 were found to be asexual (including both alloromantic and aromantic asexuals).

Summary of Key Results: This study found the overall percentage of aromantic people to be roughly equal to the percentage of asexual people in a survey of 414 American adults. The study also found that participants were about equally likely to be aromantic but not asexual as they were to be asexual but not aromantic.

II. Source 2: The Erotic Worldmaking of Asexual and Aromantic Zines

Key Ideas: This source discusses zines made by people who are aromantic and/or asexual. The source discusses how the aromantic community uses zines as a platform for exploring aromantic identity and experiences. The authors of this source describe aromanticism as being “too often explored as a tag-on to asexuality,” and note that aromanticism “coexists with both asexual and sexual identities.” The source also discusses social issues relevant to the aromantic community by exploring how aromantics are affected by amatonormativity. https://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/msup/qed/article/8/1/25/286334/The-Erotic-Worldmaking-of-Asexual-and-Aromantic

III. Source 3: 日本におけるアロマンティック／アセクシュアル・スペクトラムの人口学的多様性

https://ipss.repo.nii.ac.jp/index.php?action=pages_view_main&active_action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=276&item_no=1&attribute_id=22&file_no=1&page_id=13&block_id=21

Note: Since I know very little Japanese, my translations are going to be kind of rough, so I apologize in advance for this. (If I were to cite this in an actual article, I would definitely want to seek help from someone who is actually fluent in Japanese to ensure accurate translations.)

Key Ideas: In Japan, alloromantic asexuality and aromantic asexuality are treated as much more distinct categories than in English-speaking countries. Japanese communities often use asexual (アセクシュアル, pron. “asekushuaru”) to refer to someone who does not experience romantic OR sexual attraction, whereas alloromantic asexuals are referred to as nonsexual (ノンセクシュアル, pron. “nonsekushuaru”). This distinction is made because of how Japanese society tends to emphasize romantic feelings. I mention this because the existence of an aromantic asexual community (i.e., the Japanese-asexual community) that is considered its own distinct community rather than a subset of a larger asexual community does contradict the notion that aromantic communities don’t exist outside of asexual communities (even though the Japanese-asexual community is not completely divorced from what English speakers conceptualize as asexuality).

Note: A Japanese person wants to describe themselves as aromantic would simply say aromantic (アロマンティック, pron. “aromantikku”). (see: https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20220322/k10013544761000.html) If I understand correctly, there are also some Japanese speakers who use aromantic specifically to refer to allosexual aromantics (see: https://myethicalchoice.com/journal/sustainable/aromantic/). I don’t know quite enough about the Japanese language to tell you that for certain though.

IV. Source 4: https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a9644122/aromantic-definition-meaning/

Key Ideas: Aromanticism is often confused for asexuality; however, the two are distinct, and one can be aromantic without being asexual, or vice versa. The aromantic community also has its own pride flag, which includes gray and black stripes that symbolize the diverse sexual identities within the aromantic community. The article also notes that “there is a vast community of people who identify as aromantic on TikTok.”

V. Source 5 : https://psychcentral.com/health/what-is-aromantic

Key Ideas : This source explains that there is a “significant difference” between aromanticism and asexuality, and that not all aromantic people are asexual. It also explains that aromantic people can have “any sexual orientation or no sexual orientation” and that many aromantic people enjoy sexual relationships, but not aromantic relationships.

VI. Source 6: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/oct/11/meet-the-aromantics-not-cold-dont-have-romantic-feelings-sex

Key Ideas : Although many online aromantic communities are “overwhelmingly asexual,” there are many online aromantic communities that are specifically for aromantic people who are not asexual. These communities include “a wide variety of Facebook pages” and many tumblr blogs dedicated to aromanticism. Some of these online aromantic community groups have hundreds of members.

VII. Source 7: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/whats-on/arts-culture-news/aromantic-spectrum-awareness-week-what-23181019

Key Ideas : Since 2014, the aromantic community has celebrated Aromantic Spectrum Awareness Week, which is now celebrated every year in late February. The purpose of Aromantic Spectrum Awareness Week is to “spread awareness and the acceptance of aromantic identities across the world.”

* Additional note: Aromantic Spectrum Awareness Week is described by its organizers as an international event (see: http://www.arospecweek.org/), and, interestingly enough, was officially declared in the state of Minnesota in 2021 (see: https://mn.gov/governor/assets/02.21.21%20Aromantic%20Spectrum%20Awareness%20Week_tcm1055-470035.pdf). (I’m not sure if ASAW has ever received official government recognition in other states or countries, but the fact that it did in at least one state does show some level of government recognition of the aromantic community, at least in the US). MysteryRat (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The article says, "Of the academic studies which discuss aromanticism, these tend to discuss aromanticism as it relates to asexuality, and there are very few studies which focus primarily on aromanticism." Historyday01 and I have looked, and this is still how the scholarship is. While there are sources acknowledging aromanticism as different than asexuality, it doesn't appear to be frequent or substantial. And while aromanticism can be said to be different than asexuality, this isn't enough to give it its own article. The topic has a section here at the romantic orientation article, not the asexuality article, and terminology and meanings for it are covered here.

Historyday01 and Crossroads, what do you think of the sources MysteryRat has gathered? Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think a separate article is warranted yet. We should really stick to the peer-reviewed academic sources. These are by far more qualified on this topic than others - WP:SOURCETYPES. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Good question. I think Source 1 and 2 are good. Not sure about source 3, as it is in Japanese, and I don't know enough Japanese apart from a few choice words from watching a heck ton of anime, to accurately look at that one other than throwing it in some translation program. Not sure about about Source 5, but sources 4, 6, and 7 can all be considered what I'd call the popular press. And the other two are good too. But, I do think we need some more experts on this topic to cite, so in that sense, I can agree with Crossroads on peer-reviewed academic sources. Basically, the sources in the popular press should be used in a supportive way to support the peer-reviewed academic sources. Historyday01 (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense. In that case, I can see the perspective on why it might be a good idea to hold off on creating an aromanticism article, at least until there are more non-thesis scholarly sources on the topic. The feedback you've all given me has been extremely helpful, especially since I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia (as an editor, at least). I'm really grateful that y'all have been so willing to hear me out.

As a side note, since I already have quite a few sources gathered, I was wondering if it would be okay for me to create a section on this talk page to keep an updated list of sources on aromanticism so that in the future, it will be easier to determine if/when there are enough scholarly sources published to warrant an article, and said sources will be readily available to any editors who have use for them. MysteryRat (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure, it would be fine to create a section on the talk page to keep an updated list of sources. If an article is created in the future, then it could also be good because the List of fictional aromantic characters could be rolled into an Aromanticism article (currently just a redirect) like the Bisexuality page which has a "Media" section, or a "Media depictions" section like the Pansexuality page, to give two examples. And aromantic characters are becoming more common too, with ScreenRant even doing a whole article "10 Asexual Icons in Movies" a couple days ago, with two confirmed as aromantic (Lilith Clawthorne in The Owl House and Yelena in Marvel Comics) and others headcanoning characters as aromantic. Historyday01 (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You could create a subpage for it. Talk:Trans woman/Definitions is an example of a talk page with a subpage for sources. After that, maybe a link to it could exist at the top of this talk page or in a permanent section here at this talk page. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

A subpage is a good idea too and I'd argue it would fall under the allowed uses outlined on WP:SUB. Historyday01 (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I think I'll try doing that then. It might be a few days from now though since I'll need to set aside a bit of time to make sure that I correctly understand how to create the subpage. MysteryRat (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I have spent the last several weeks writing a new comprehensive article on Aromanticism that encompassed all the feedback that was discussed here, including some of the sources that User:MysteryRat has collected and also new articles and research that have come up since the discussion last year. I hope my expansion on the new main page article now on Aromanticism are sufficiently notable and sourced now that the recreation and splitting of the content out from here is accepted. Raladic (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

That looks pretty good to me as a split from this page and thanks so much for creating it! I'll see what else I can add when I have some time Historyday01 (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. The page looks great! I hope some of the sources were helpful. Thank you so much for writing the article! MysteryRat (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Please remember to tag redirects that you create per WP:REDCAT.

voorts (talk/contributions) 22:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Please avoid double redirects.

voorts (talk/contributions) 23:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Terms

Outside asexual community

Removed the line about sexual orientations being 'reductionistic'.

the case for reduction

Foundations 2 2019, Group 4A Goals

Necromanticism

Aromanticism and bisexuals info in article needs clarification

Queerplatonic relationships

The SRGM Federation

Attitudes towards romance

‎Aromanticism expansions

See also section

Feedback from New Page Review process

Feedback from New Page Review process