Wikipedia – reasonable policy or TAC backslash?

Well, speak of the devil.

It seems that Wikipedia’s article on love-shyness has been deleted and there is a discussion on whether the article on incel should be deleted as well !

I am sure that most of you expect me to scream bloody murder right now. I will once again surprise you by not doing that.

Unfortunately, deletion of the article on love-shyness was probably justified. Sure, it sucks, it’s a sort of a setback and it’s not like Wikipedia would be worse off with it but think about what I have to say on this.

Love-shyness is a scientifically unrecognized term outside of Gilmartin’s and Talmer Shockley’s writings. Worse, there was no real research by psychologists and psychiatrists on this outside of Gilmartin’s work and so term itself remained inadequate and reeked of pseudoscience.

The problem isn’t that love-shyness doesn’t exist, all of us with brains know it does. The problem is that it was failed to be properly researched by scientists – something that is not the fault or love-shy or incel people themselves nor any indicator that such a phobia doesn’t exist – of course it exists, and it is very simply and reasonably defined, in addition to a bunch of people talking about having it, and I mean that, EXACTLY THOSE SYMPTOMS AND NOT SOCIAL PHOBIA, everyday on incel communities.

If this were a sane world making progress I’d say – ball is in your court, experts. But it is not and I will make the prediction that worthless leftist academia will never take interest in this. Almost all of US psychiatrists are leftists and there is no way for them to talk about this openly. This has to do with what I’ll say next.

Let’s say there are (very) roughly four kinds of people in the world – smart ones, TAC, people stupid for other reasons than TAC and those somewhere in-between smart and dumb. Of course, this categorization is extremely crude and done completely ad hoc but read on. So, which of these four groups would be convinced that love-shyness is an actual problem based on nothing but a Wikipedia article, which says that one guy made up the term? I’d say a very small percentage of the fourth group, and I mean those much closer to stupidity. Intelligent people will understand that the definition of the problem itself means that it must exist and TAC or other dumb people… Well, they will remain dumb.

Deletion of the article on love-shyness subtracts nothing from the reality of the problem that millions of men and women are feeling nor does it subtract any of its theoretical and practical value. Those who don’t understand that are wasting our time.

As for the article on incel, well, that’s a different story. Frankly, I am disgusted by this happening. People discussing this on a talk page whose I link I provided above show either the usual ignorance. There are people describing incel as some sort of “wannabe mental disorder” (it is not) or comparing incel to lack of much less essential things in life and these types seem to be in favor of deletion. Other are just lacking the proper perspective of how much the term is used in both studies and groups of people so they propose merging it with another article.

Of course I had to throw in my two cents and say

Keep, please note that I am not familiar with all the rules of Wikipedia so these are just my thoughts as somebody interested in this issue. Involuntary celibacy was never described as nor was it supposed to be a medical or psychological condition. It describes a specific situation suffered by many people and frankly comparing something like a lack of romantic relationships and sex (the definition which includes just sex is also problematic but that’s another story) to not owning a home is both deeply demented and insulting. To relegate this to part of celibacy article would be highly problematic and would mean a loss of additional, much needed context and quality. Talking about involuntary celibacy in context or a bigger article on sexual abstinence would not dilute this but would place it in a context that it is not yet agreed upon – there are those who mention a lack of a romantic relationship in context of incel despite its semantic meaning. By merging it with sexual abstinence you would effectively decide its meaning when it is not yet clearly decided upon – what would in that case be the word for involuntarily single? Also, incel is a term not just used in scientific papers but in many online communities.

At the same time I’ve noticed that Wikipedia’s article on Brian Gilmartin was also considerably shrunk, supposedly mostly for uncited claims.

Now, all of this could just be a coincidence, revival of my blog and start of educational articles on it just happening simultaneously with Wikipedia cleaning its content to improve itself in the new year. I’d say I’m almost convinced that this is the case. I know that Wikipedia employs rigorous standards and that you can’t just close something you don’t like.

But what if there is more to this? What is this is actually an orchestrated attack, almost certainly not related to what’s been going on lately on my blog, but a kind of a backslash against topics of incel/love-shyness that’s been preparing for a while and is influenced by, among many things, my blog?
There are hundreds of millions of TAC members. It is safe to assume that not all of them write insane articles for cesspools like RationalWiki or GeekFeminism. Incel is a hated, despised topic and I wouldn’t be surprised if somebody did want to inflict harm to our cause. After all, Wikipedia had not been immune from such accusations at least once and TAC is just like any other malignant cancer – it wants to spread everywhere.

I don’t think that the harm will be too horrific even if the article on incel goes away too but you have to understand TAC – they are violent and simple-minded enough to consider a deletion of just one of these articles a victory and some kind of proof that what me and other love-shy and incel people are talking about are just fairies and flying spaghetti-monsters, despite facts obvious to a rapidly declining number of sane people.

Maybe I’m wrong, maybe I’m completely deluded.

What do you think?

16 thoughts on “Wikipedia – reasonable policy or TAC backslash?

  1. As much as I like to put you down on reddit, you raise some good points. It’s sad that the Love-Shyness article got deleted on account of the fact that there was only one researcher. I read the book, and it seems like a special kind of shyness. I wish there was more research done on this. I know someone who is LS for sure, and he’s actually a really kind person.
    I think they will merge, not delete the incel article into the celibacy article. I think there’s no problem with that.

    • 1. What’s your nickname on Reddit, if I may know?

      2. I am not sure I understood what you’re saying right… you think incel and celibacy will merge? That would be very unfortunate and even the admin on Wikipedia said something that could be counted as being against this. The voluntary aspect in celibacy is really prevalent. Also, I’ve already tried to argument why this is a really specific problem.

  2. The problem with Wikipedia is that they insist on checkable references from reputable sources – which sounds laudable, but it can create bizarre situations such as one from my own experience where a friend with a Wikipedia biog asked me to correct some factual errors in it. (He wanted to respect Wikipedia’s rules about the subjects of entries not getting involved).

    But even though the claims were inaccurate, they were supported by references – and even though the references were to articles written by people who’d only met my friend for about five minutes, they were nonetheless considered more reliable than my own credentials.

    The really annoying thing is that I can completely sympathize with Wikipedia’s point of view – I totally understand why they prefer written and independent references, since they obviously don’t know me from Adam. But the upshot is that the article remains inaccurate, as all my changes were reverted on the grounds of lack of evidence.

      • A great many published interviews derive from very brief encounters indeed, especially in a fast-moving press junket with PR people cracking the whip.

        And the problem is that the skimpy interview is then padded out with information from other articles, which may be just as erroneous – so you create this echo chamber of inaccuracy, with mistakes getting validated through repetition.

  3. TAC….
    Atheists(note that they should first get the definition of atheism consistent..Meow!) claim that they think they are logical. But seriously they are not.
    1.Atheists are usually pagans in disguise. They usually speak favour of paganism.
    2.Atheists are usually die-hard liberals and can not deal with anything that contradicts liberalism, including rational stuff. Their liberalism is like..axioms that can not be disputed.

  4. For example i once spoke in favour of early marriage for biological reasons. But of course since i..a Christian this becomes “brainwashed” stuff.

  5. I am a 36 year old ‘incel’. Looking around the web I found your blog and thought “Good, a place to discuss involuntary celibacy etc.”. I was very disappointed to read your fanaticism in regards to your hatred of ‘leftist scum’ and athiests. Your criticism of them is very hypocritical, showing you are less tolerant of others and their views than you claim they are.

    • Josiah, all I can say is that, if I were to judge you by this post alone, it seems that it’s a good thing you’re incel (which you write in brackets for some reason, why?).

      1. I don’t hate atheists at all. It’s explained in the page that speaks about TAC. In fact, I am an atheist myself !

      2. It’s debatable what is meant by leftists. I am not completely against being left in economy.

      3. TAC cannot be tolerated for they are a cancer. Saying they only different opinions and should be tolerated is like saying “oh, it’s just different cells, you shouldn’t kill life” for cancer.
      Also, if you’re incel you have even more reason to hate TAC because they absolutely hate you.

  6. Atheism is a rational choice BASED UPON LACK OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ANY CLAIM OF ANY MAJOR RELIGION. What thatincelblogger hates, as do I, is the completely unfounded belief in the value of therapy. For an Incel man, there is only ONE therapy that is of any use, and that is GETTING LAID. Getting regular sex, without having to pay for it, in a LOVING and FULFILLING relationship, WILL CURE INCEL AND LOVESHYNESS.

    This is what therapy spectacularly fails to provide. And it will NEVER provide this UNTIL INCEL/LOVESHYNES IS RECOGNISED FOR WHAT IT IS – A CONDITION THAT FUCKING KILLS. This has NOTHING to do with religion or the lack thereof. It has EVERYTHING to do with a lack of SIMPLE FUCKING EMPATHY.


    The fact that they don’t speaks volumes about the mental health profession. I speak with some authority here, because I have been treated for mental illness. I was on antidepressants for almost three years.

    I’m not taking them now, because I have WISENED UP as to what women are really about. I treat them with disdain bordering upon contempt now. And no, it has NOT gotten me laid. It also allows me to sleep at night without sobbing into my fucking pillow. Therapy did not achieve this for me. I ACHIEVED THIS FOR ME.

    What thatincelblogger calls TAC I call 24 carat bullshite. It amounts to the same thing. Smug, amoral, EVIL people who have no atom of empathy in their vile bodies. And if they cannot be reasoned with – as the obviously cannot – then blowing their fucking heads off will AT LEAST shut them the fuck UP, so guys like myself and thatincelblogger do not have to listen to their poisonous shite any longer.

    • Mikey, it seems you have a good understanding of what TAC is about. Also, please note that by TAC I don’t mean atheists – you and me are both atheists. I mean the vile scum that has turned feminism, therapy and political correctness into a new religion. They have no compassion, no empathy, no soul whatsoever. They are hate machines designed to destroy all decent people in the world.

  7. It’s amazing to go to see this web page and reading the views of all colleagues about this piece of writing, while
    I am also eager of getting know-how.

  8. An administrator of Wikipedia with a very long posting history and a solid reputation is currently campaigning to have the Deletion of the Incel article undone, and his campaign to do so is gaining momentum and support rapidly. There is a very real chance the article about Involuntary Celibacy will be restored within the next few days.

    I thought you might be interested in this good news. It took them almost a year, but it appears logic and common sense have prevailed in the end.

    • I doubt it. Insane liberals will just take it down again. In any case, I won’t be participating nor do I really care anymore. If anybody thinks incel, the way we define it, isn’t real, that lunatic will not think so with the article either.

      It’s all a nonsensical game of fools.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s