Wikipedia article

[DaviM703]

I felt like we deserved our own article on Wikipedia, so I started developing one which is still a stub that needs sources and more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromanticism

Someone has nominated this article for deletion, and there is a discussion page linked to from the notice about that. I posted an argument that I think will help but if anyone else can help it would be nice to have someone expand and add sources to the article. (I don't really know how to cite sources in Wikipedia.) It would also be nice if more people could write arguments against deleting the article on the discussion page about the proposed deletion. If anyone here edits Wikipedia, it would be nice if someone could help with that.

[SoulWolf]

Wikipedia is pretty full of sh@&* regarding non-mainstream stuff. Looks like the safest place for it would be on this page until the powers-that-be deem it necessary to make seperate pages. I tried adding info to Wikipedia years ago, but some other jerk just removed my info. I haven't bothered trying again. I think one needs to be active within their little special circle of friends (or have a certain type of personality) to actually have additions be accepted on their site. It may be a useful site with some useful info, but it's just the tip of the iceberg, because they won't actually let people add the rest of the iceberg to the site.

 

Oookay, that was a rant. Whoops.

[DeltaAro]

I'm afraid there's not much hope in not getting this article deleted. I agree with @SoulWolf, improving the “Romantic orientation” article would be the best option for now. There's also a scarcity in scholarly work you can cite for aromanticism, so it's difficult to get to a good article of sufficient length that would warrant the split.

 

The only thing I do on Wikipedia is correcting math mistakes, which is always accepted. Once I tried fixing a glaring historical mistake (about an obscure subject, admittedly) which was an uphill battle, so I don't bother. If the subject belongs to the hard sciences, I like Wikipedia, though.

[Magni]

I was thinking it would be a good idea to add arospec awareness week to the page about lgbt holidays (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LGBT_awareness_days).  Considering the awareness week was mainly organized via a now-vacant tumblr blog, then citing it might be somewhat difficult? Though, I think maybe having something on the arocalypse page about this awareness week would help? I'm not really familiar with wikipedia tbh, but considering this is the only even somewhat established aro holiday we have, I think it would be great if we can more firmly establish it rather than it dissolving into nothingness.

[Apathetic Echidna]

Well as it is still up and has 22 references but I do think it has been tied too close to Asexual. I have no clue about any sort of wiki things so is it okay if I just make my comments here?

 

Quote

The A in the expanded LGBT acronym LGBTQIA, is interpreted by some to stand for aromantic.

shouldn't this really be 'LGBTQIA is interpreted by some to stand for aromantic, asexual and agender'?

 

Quote

Many aromantics are asexual,[5]

Most people talking about aromanticism are asexuals sure, but I really dislike this phrase in the article. Please change it to 'Most self-aware aromantics are asexual because they have investigated the split-attraction model' or something. Also how has the article been written and not directly mentioned the split attraction model? There could also be some comments about a squish because I think most people would find that relatable (plus I know of a reference that you can use for that: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8gdkyz/aromantics-amelia-tait-322 ). Something should also probably be said about the importance of friendships to aromantics...just in case the article is looked up by a friend of an aro and can then see how their friend values their connection. 

 

Also this reference could be put in somewhere, maybe for the split attraction model comment or something: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15538605.2016.1233840

 

I know Amatonormativity is mentioned but it could be expanded, or you could bring in these terms (https://blogs.psychcentral.com/single-at-heart/2017/10/coining-new-terms-how-singlism-and-matrimania-made-it-into-the-mainstream/  ) as a way to identify amatonormative discrimination, I know we don't tend to use these terms in the community but it is a well done article and it states things pretty clearly that outline amatonormative views (though without actually using the word amatonormative).