Talk:Sexlessness

Creation of this article

As seen here and stated here, I reverted IP 92.19.183.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on the creation of this article. I did so because the article was a combination of material on sexual abstinence, celibacy, chastity and sexless marriage, with a small mention of asexuality. It was also mostly about having a sexless marriage, and some of the material was based on mating sources or other types of sources. I feel that it was an unnecessary WP:Content fork, with a hint of WP:Synthesis, and was only created to get around the fact that editors have repeatedly objected to the involuntary celibacy material that Valoem has repeatedly tried to add to Wikipedia. Well, except for adding it to the Sexual abstinence article or to a similarly existing article. As seen with the second link, the IP made a post on Valoem's talk page about creating this article; that post focused on involuntary celibacy, which was debated so many times that the term was WP:SALTED. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination), Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 7, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 December 21 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 9#Involuntary celibacy for the history. The IP redirected the Sexless marriage article to the Sexlessness page, when "sexless marriage" is a WP:Notable topic. I reverted that redirect too. Since there is again discussion of adding involuntary celibacy and it seems that the Sexlessness page was created to cover involuntary celibacy, even though editors have repeatedly reached the WP:Consensus that it should simply be covered in the Sexual abstinence article or a similarly existing article, I am following Sandstein's lead and am pinging editors who were involved in one or more of those debates to weigh in on this latest issue; these pings are taken from the ping list that Sandstein created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination). I did not ping Tarc because I know that he is indefinitely blocked. User:SSTflyer is now User:Feminist. I know that TheRedPenOfDoom hasn't edited since 2015, but I pinged him anyway. And I obviously did not ping myself. If anyone else should be pinged, feel free.

Notifications of the participants in previous discussions

@Valoem, DGG, Hobit, Thparkth, Thincat, Jimbo Wales, and Raquel Baranow: Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC) @Feminist, HiDrNick, RoySmith, Cunard, Thincat, Lankiveil, and Spartaz: Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC) @Stifle, Dave Dial, Alanscottwalker, Guerillero, Rhododendrites, Juliancolton, and Onel5969: Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC) @Holdek, CoffeeWithMarkets, Andrey Rublyov, Fyddlestix, TheRedPenOfDoom, and Mythic Writerlord: Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC) @Aquillion, BusterD, Hafspajen, Drmies, Kraxler, Libercht, and DESiegel: Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC) @TTTommy111, HighInBC, Andrew Davidson, Gene93k, Borock, and Rsrikanth05: Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC) @Technomad, LaMona, CorporateM, and Casliber: Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

My view is that a Sexlessness article is not needed, and that the term sexlessness could perhaps be redirected elsewhere since being sexless does not automatically equate to asexuality. It could also be a disambiguation page, and being a disambiguation is what I feel is best in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• This is the original article from December 2016. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
• Bleh again? Thanks Flyer Drmies (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
• I have nothing to do with the creation of this material, I intended to wait a bit longer before looking at the subject of involuntary celibacy again, my understanding of WP:GNG policy is that the subject is clearly notable. I've only recently been informed by an IP that someone else created a topic on sexlessness, @Negingxiilch78: back in December 2016. I can't help but notice the bias, to ping everyone involved in a separate discussion to get the same outcome and then making it appear as if I am behind this. I've never looked into the subject of sexlessness, but a search on google scholar show the subject is certainly not asexuality. I understand that incel and sexlessness are similar topics, but are they the same? Are we pinging everyone from a different topic to get an outcome on this topic? Is the information suppression transparent by now?

@Flyer22 Reborn: can you show me which parts of this article is copy edited from the other articles you listed? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The reason for the pings is made clear above; there is nothing I can do about the fact that the vast majority of people have objected to creating an Involuntary celibacy article. If you remember, I supported having an article on the topic. I do not support trying to circumvent consensus, though. Nor do I support unnecessary articles. As for "copied," I stated that "the article was a combination of material on sexual abstinence, celibacy, chastity and sexless marriage, with a small mention of asexuality." I did not state that material was copied from those articles. But most of the content was taken from the Sexless marriage article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I right now I believe the only proper redirected for this article is involuntary celibacy which simply does not exist. I find it impossible at time when the majority mobbed against an incorrect outcome. I've always been fighting this. Our notability guidelines are also beautiful and elegant allowing an array of interpretation. The discussion has never been on the number of the votes, but the merit of arguments presented. The side favoring delete said, that the sources where not independent and reliable (the classic argument). And after being overwhelmingly disprove, there was refusal to accept the result, this is not conduce by build an encyclopedia. Look at the sources provide by Cunard which nullify all arguments suggest non-independent subject. How is it possible the discussion was closed as close delete, vote count favored inclusion at one point but was still deleted, am I making a strong enough point of information suppression? Isn't our motto to fight that? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

This seems a rather biased assessment of the events that happened. What really occurred is that an article was created in good faith, editors looked at the sources and decided that they were either not good enough, or being twisted beyond their intended meaning to relate to a specific context, and the article was quite rightly deleted and salted, despite an enormous amount of wikilawyering and timewasting to postpone the inevitable. I think that the creation of this particular permutation of the article was probably also done in good faith, but it doesn't bring anything to the table that the previously deleted articles didn't. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC).

Can I get a reminder of where my previous involvement in this discussion is? I would like to refresh myself on the issues. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 18:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Here. For a fuller back-history, consult the list here. I thanked User:Flyer22 Reborn for this discussion and for that editor's good faith effort to date. A look at past discussions reveals, IMHO, a mixed consensus. The subject deserves treatment, being a social condition which affects every human being at some point and surely hundreds of millions as of this datestamp. Naming is clearly an issue. Unfortunately, I have yet to see sourcing presented which would clearly pass muster at an (unsalting and then) AfD procedure. I wish it were otherwise. BusterD (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I am really having trouble figuring out how this topic is distinct from other existing topics without the need for original research. If this was really a notable and distinct concept then naming would not be an issue. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 21:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I am on the other side of this question: How is it that the most common descriptor of this documented phenomenon is salted by the Wikipedia community? For over eight years, Involuntary celibacy was a poorly sourced article, but at least existed as framework on the pedia for potential expansion. A sort of good-faith crusade began in 2014 to remove the pagespace with a scattershot of critiques: a medical condition requiring MEDRS level sourcing, inadequate sourcing, original synthesis, jabs and jokes about those affected. A look at those procedures will show that NONE of the AfDs or DRVs associated with the topic offered a clear consensus. At one point an AfD outcome directed merging with another article, but defenders of that pagespace didn't agree it appropriate content for the merge target. An admin sandboxed a fairly neutral compilation of the material found in one of the AfDs, but when Valoem tried to post it in mainspace, it too was AfD'd.

Sexual abstinence, celibacy and chastity are pagespaces where the subject COULD be covered, but each of these subjects refer to an affirmative choice. Sexual frustration is IMHO a possible outcome of the condition, but not the condition itself. Chastity is clearly an unfit target, the page defenders of Celibacy will not allow inclusion, based on page and talk histories. Sexual abstinence is an article which covers the subject of involuntary affect in the introduction but not otherwise on the page. If one was to do a G-search for "involuntary sexual abstinence" one finds "involuntary celibacy". An article by a priest, a WebMD page, an academic page referring to the Donnelly material, an Elle magazine article, a medical text from 1916, all referring to the subject in some way. The subject clearly exists as a subject matter. In her popular work "A History of Celibacy" Elizabeth Abbott spends an entire chapter discussing this condition by the IC name. Dozens of reliable sources have been put forward during the AfDs. No shortage of articles referring to the "Incel" community. Some pretty noteworthy Wikipedians have asserted keep on these procedures. However the pagespace remains a salted redlink. BusterD (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I should add two points: 1) Sexlessness seems a fairly neutral and appropriately descriptive term to use for this condition, however, this is not generally the term sources use. 2) IMHO the salting of the IC page was done not to protect the pedia from inappropriate material (the consistently mixed consensus on procedures reveals that at least a fair subset of Wikipedians find it appropriate), but to punish User:Valoem for stridency and apparent advocacy in this matter. I myself am not a fan of Valoem's tactics to date, but don't think the entire encyclopedia should be blind to a clearly sourced subject matter because of the marginally annoying actions of any one individual. BusterD (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I supported the existence of an Involuntary celibacy article or it being a subsection in the Celibacy article; high-level WP:MEDRS sources are not needed for it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding sexlessness, it is either a straightforward dictionary definition (in which case it doesn't need an entry anyway), or an actual condition (in which case it needs peer-reviewed secondary sources establishing notability). Based on that (and discussion above), I'd leave as a redirect. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Err, BusterD, no, I didn't advocate for the deletion of IC based on any stridency. It was based on the fact that it was based on the research of a single researcher that was recirculated, and a lot of non-RS. The term has not been taken up not validated in medical literature. My concern is that many people with treatable conditions such as social phobia, anxiety, depression or personality issues read this unproven material and miss seeking help due to some non-medically non-psychologically trained advocates. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Absolute Beginner

Pinging the following:

Notifications of the participants in previous discussions

@Valoem, DGG, Hobit, Thparkth, Thincat, Jimbo Wales, and Raquel Baranow: Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC) @Feminist, HiDrNick, RoySmith, Cunard, Thincat, Lankiveil, and Spartaz: Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC) @Stifle, Dave Dial, Alanscottwalker, Guerillero, Rhododendrites, Juliancolton, and Onel5969: Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC) @Holdek, CoffeeWithMarkets, Andrey Rublyov, Fyddlestix, TheRedPenOfDoom, and Mythic Writerlord: Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC) @Aquillion, BusterD, Hafspajen, Drmies, Kraxler, Libercht, and DESiegel: Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC) @TTTommy111, HighInBC, Andrew Davidson, Gene93k, Borock, and Rsrikanth05: Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC) @Technomad, LaMona, CorporateM, and Casliber: Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Just noting here that Oeggvia l created the Absolute Beginner article; it's mostly about Germany. Reading the sources is a WP:SOURCEACCESS issue unless you can read the German language and/or access the sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have commented on Talk:Absolute Beginner I think it needs a page move to a German term, or additional sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

r/incels article

Pinging the following:

Notifications of the participants in previous discussions

@Valoem, DGG, Hobit, Thparkth, Thincat, Jimbo Wales, and Raquel Baranow: Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC) @Feminist, HiDrNick, RoySmith, Cunard, Thincat, Lankiveil, and Spartaz: Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC) @Stifle, Dave Dial, Alanscottwalker, Guerillero, Rhododendrites, Juliancolton, and Onel5969: Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC) @Holdek, CoffeeWithMarkets, Andrey Rublyov, Fyddlestix, TheRedPenOfDoom, and Mythic Writerlord: Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC) @Aquillion, BusterD, Hafspajen, Drmies, Kraxler, Libercht, and DESiegel: Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC) @TTTommy111, HighInBC, Andrew Davidson, Gene93k, Borock, and Rsrikanth05: Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC) @Technomad, LaMona, CorporateM, and Casliber: Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Noting here that relatively new account Hazarasp created the r/incels article. It is mostly about a former Reddit forum, but it can also be seen as an excuse to discuss the topic of "incel" since r/incels did not need its own Wikipedia article and is already covered at Controversial Reddit communities#Incels. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Now a disambiguation page

This page is now a disambiguation page, and I agree with that setup for the page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)