Involuntary celibacy

Involuntary celibacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously deleted and has been edited in userspace. A discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 6 concluded that this version of the article is to be made subject to a normal deletion discussion in order to determine whether it now meets our notability and other inclusion requirements. Please refer also to the previous discussions linked to in the deletion review. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral.  Sandstein  08:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. When this was merged with the article on celibacy, important information was lost, repeatedly. Technomad (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Still delete as it is a medically misleading neologism masquerading as a psychiatric diagnosis. I have also removed a segment that uses MEDMOS noncompliant source to confirm a quasi-psychiatric diagnosis for a near-BLP. More problems to come. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And we are not using "letters to the editor" to support the definition. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this ref removed is a film review ?! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Barth source uses the term as "adjective + noun" and is not discussing this condition specifically. This is original research. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a medical article or anywhere close to it. It's a social topic. And like I stated of this deletion by you, "I don't see how WP:MEDMOS or WP:MEDRS apply to the Elliot Rodger material. Also, he is dead, so I don't see how WP:BLP applies. It's talking about Elliot Rodger, not others." Flyer22 (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(a) He's very recently dead and has a direct impact on families of living people. Any "condition" we would discuss as a causation of something like mass-murder would be some sort of psychiatric diagnosis, which is squarely in the field of WP:MED. To kill people like that needs some other phenomenon, not this, to explain the lack of empathy and violence, so to ascribe something like celibacy alone to mass murder is just so wrong on so many levels. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the case that you were talking about his family or his victims, I stated, "It's talking about Elliot Rodger, not others." As for a medical reason for mass murder, people commit mass murder for various reasons (same goes for plain ole murder), and it's not always classified as medical. Back when this topic was under the Involuntary celibacy Wikipedia title (I mean during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination)), it was an issue that required medical sources. Now it barely requires those. It's not a medical topic; the vast majority of it is a social topic, with a few medical instances...such as mention of depression. Flyer22 (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, whether we classify Elliot Rodger as a muss murderer or as a spree killer (or both; sources can't make up their minds on that, after all), the Elliot Rodger Wikilink does note his mental health problems; it's likely that people will not think that he went on a killing spree simply because of getting no sex and being lonely. Flyer22 (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, if we are in agreement that assigning this as a cause for mass murder, then why stick the segment in in the first place with no criticism? Anyway, you have your views and I have mine, may as well see what others think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are once again misinformed. No serious article would deem it a medical diagnosis but a situation. You are repeating your own false claims back from January 2014. Andrey Rublyov (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Delete (Or Keep with disclaimer as I discussed below.) The opening sentence of our article Celibacy: "Celibacy (from Latin, cælibatus") is the state of voluntarily being unmarried, sexually abstinent, or both, usually for religious reasons." My understanding of celibacy has always involved it being a voluntary commitment. (Virginity means you didn't have sex in the past, chastity means you are not having sex now [except with spouse], celibacy means you don't intend to have sex in the future.) At least rename the article to something that makes sense. Borock (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that definition make "involuntary celibacy" an oxymoron? It translates to "involuntarily being in the state of voluntary sexual abstinence." LaMona (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks. That's what I was trying to say.Borock (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Involuntary abstinence" would be less bad, although to abstain is also usually a voluntary choice. At least that title would not cause confusion with the primary sense of the word "celibacy" which involves a lifelong commitment based on religious belief. I am aware that our culture, including "reliable sources", sometimes misses this point.Borock (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, still The topic itself is original research. The distinction between this and regular celibacy seems to be an artificial one. The previous result of merging with celibacy made the most sense. I don't see any significant changes that address the prior concerns. Chillum 16:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep @Valoem: has convinced me that reliable sources do indeed cover the topic and that the topic itself is not original research. While it seems like a silly concept to me much akin to just not getting much action it does seem that it is a real concept that has sources on which an article can be based. I appreciate the evidence based argument put forward. I still have concerns that the entirety of the article may not be represented by reliable sources, however that is a matter that editing can fix. Chillum 21:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Deletion is policy based, what I am seeing is a lack of understanding WP:N, WP:NEO, and WP:MEDRS which borders on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. For example this source The American Journal of Urology and Sexology published in 1916 clearly distinguishes between voluntary abstinence and involuntary. The subject has been covered for over a century. The concept that an individual desires sex but is unable either due to physical or mental limitations is not fringe nor a neologism. Wikipedia covers such topics as per this discussion Talk:Involuntary celibacy, if title is an issue the subject can always be move involuntary sexual abstinence. As per Jimbo Wales talk page:

"This case is very, very confusing to the unfamiliar eye and involves deletes, restores, moves, sockpuppetry, unusual AfD proceedings, etc" If I were voting, I would likely vote to keep, but that's not really relevant. There's a confusion I sense here when people discuss WP:MEDRS in this context - it's not a medical term, and not notable for being a medical term, it's a popular term. If the term is notable at all (I don't know for sure but there are some strong initial indicators that it likely is) then it doesn't matter if it is covered in medical journals or academic articles at all. It's something people will want to know about (including, likely, that it is not a term from professional medicine). I see a huge number of uses of the term in perfectly normal mainstream media. It is therefore a term that people are likely to Google. It's our job to answer whatever questions they may have about the term."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Posted from March 16th. WP:MEDRS does not need to apply in this case, nor does WP:NEO. The subject clearly passes WP:N with flying colors. Other editors such as DGG, S Marshall, CorporateM, BDD, and BusterD have shown prior support for this subject. I understand that there are political reasons for keeping this article and those associated with it deleted, however we are confusing the concept of Love-shyness, which is a neologism whose followers may be associated with misogyny and involuntary celibacy, a century old topic with significant coverage and neutrality. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note If anyone views the 30 sources listed we can see that WP:OR does not apply this topic is both academic and historical. The current version for AfD is significantly different from the prior version. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks like a pretty normal article about a notable subject. CorporateM (Talk) 19:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Important subject, with multiple aspects; the article needs expansion, not deletion. I have never been able to fathom the reasons for objecting to it. I do not see where MEDRS comes into this at all, nor OR. The sources are sufficient, and many more exist. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC) .[reply]
• Delete - this issue has been discussed to death, and time and time again the result has been "delete". Even the initial result of 'merge' was a de facto deletion because the editors of the article it was supposed to be merged with (Celibacy) did not want the material to be added. Therein lies the whole problem: even the name, "involuntary celibacy", is an oxymoron as celibacy is a voluntary condition by definition. The name originates from internet forums and is associated with the (now deleted) fictional condition of "Loveshyness". All this is very shady, and very much a fringe theory to my knowledge. The whole concept of there being some sort of condition preventing men from having sex, is ridiculous and close to a conspiracy theory. One of the arguments for the editor who wishes to re-instate the article is that Elliot Rodger, the perpetrator of the Isla Vista shootings of 2014, believed in the condition and that him believing in the condition of "incel" was mentioned in several news articles. To me, this is not sufficient grounds for an article and I think it's time to give it a rest and respect the outcome of the previous deletion(s) and request of undeletion. Furthermore, I find the previous history of canvassing in order to restore the article and bypass previous decisions (even going as far as to contact Jimbo Wales, per above) is rather disturbing. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed with a clear lack of consensus. Political agenda to keep an article delete is disturbing to say the least. Source provided within the article show very clearly that the concept is real and exists. Each source within this article is a strong as the sources provided in the celibacy article itself. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no concensus to keep the article anymore then there is to delete it. However, the previous result of merging it with celibacy failed because editors of the celibacy article reached a consensus, a strong one, that the material ha no place there. Which essentially makes the previous outcome(s) of the deletion and deletion review discussions a de-facto deletion. The sources are, to many, not strong enough to justify an article or even fail to mention "involuntary celibacy" as such. Under the name involuntary sexual abstinence the article would have far more support, possibly enough to justify a re-creation. The fact that you have been accused of canvassing to keep the topic in the past, even going as far as to contact Jimmy Wales to give your case more validity, is worrying for me because you attempted you hardest to involve previously-uninvolved editors in the voting process just for the sake of positively changing the outcome of the deletions. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mythic I agree that this topic has no place with the celibacy article. but to accuse me of canvassing violates AGF and unnecessary. There is a difference between asking editors for advice and canvassing. Each editor I asked has a history of disagreeing and most have inputted in this discussion in the past some were members of ARB. Asking the Wales only shows my intention to see if I misinterpreted guidelines and whether or not the friction against this topic is valid. In specific circumstances such as this when there is a great deal of IDL bias it seemed a reasonable judgement. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is a topic that has never had consensus to exist as a standalone topic, and the folks at celibacy don't wany it there either. A single, vested editor who refused to drop the stick continues to synthesize old, disparate sources about celibacy to support the modern fringe neologism that is "incel", also known as "love shyness". It just junk science that doesn't exist outside of obscure discussion boards; never has, and likely never will. Tarc (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An existing article should be kept unless there is a consensus to remove it, which there never was for this article. Also, your persistent, dishonest attempts to associate involuntary celibacy with the discredited love-shyness article are noted. The two concepts are distinct, and having an article on one does not require having an article on the other. 2602:306:839B:1150:3567:C0E:DE1C:F8DB (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

• Comment: One argument has been to merge this topic with the Sexual abstinence article; and, given that a WP:Alternative title for this topic is "involuntary sexual abstinence," and that sexual abstinence can be involuntary (as currently noted in the lead of the Sexual abstinence article), and that this content keeps getting rejected at the Celibacy article, this merge option has seemed like a good compromise to me for a while now. Flyer22 (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Flyer22 what is your input here? We have plenty of headcount. Tarc, Mythic, and Liber were the original group that voted against the retention of this article it is no surprise that their views have not changed. The claims that this is not science cannot be further from the truth. They want their views to prevail regardless of its validity and this is in essence problematic to the encyclopedia. I am against a merge, but am willing to compromise on the title. Involuntary sexual abstinence is fine by me. We can move forward with this. I implore anyone to study the sources provided and compare them with the sources provided in the article of celibacy or celibacy syndrome. They are equally strong if not stronger. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My input is generally the same as it was before. I don't see why this topic shouldn't be covered on Wikipedia, considering that it has WP:Reliable sources to support it and it's not WP:Fringe to the point that we shouldn't cover it. But whereas before I was more open to this topic being its own Wikipedia article (though I preferred it be merged even then), I'm now less open to that idea. I don't see why this topic needs its own Wikipedia article when it can simply be covered at the Sexual abstinence article. I don't like unnecessary WP:Content forking. Flyer22 (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt, the addition of a few more sources directly from the bottom of the barrel doesn't change my opinion from last time around. I mean, trying to use a film review as an actual serious reference on a subject like this? Absolutely preposterous, as is the article itself. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment No guideline on Wikipedia says if the concept has been covered in film review delete the subject. We simply cannot ignore the solid sources provided. Cunard has a method of posting cited sources which has been helpful in the past. However, some of these sources are so old that a copy paste isn't so simply. The first source:

• • Henry G. Spooner (1916). The American Journal of Urology and Sexology. Grafton Press. pp. 249–.

"We may divide sexual abstinence into two claas: voluntary abstinence and involuntary abstinence. Involuntary abstinence, to take the latter first, results in causes beyond the individual's control."

The book than proceeds to specify two pages regarding the subject.

• • Denis L Meadows (1973). The dynamics of growth in a finite world: A technical report on the global simulation model World 3. Thayer School of Engineering, Darmouth College.

Source covers the topic academically and published in 1973.

• • Abbott, Elizabeth (2001). A History of Celibacy. Da Capo Press. pp. 20, 294, 303, 309–312. ISBN 9780306810411. Retrieved 4 December 2014.

Published in 2001 covers the topic based on reasons for involuntary celibacy including skewed sex ratio.

These are three of the hundreds of "serious" sources which exist. Finding one questionable sources does not nullify the validity of these. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that such questionable sources are being used to demonstrate notability just underscores how flimsy the argument that this is a "real thing" is. The film review does not discuss the subject in detail, it's just a mere mention of the two words, shrouded in scare quotes because it's such an absurd concept. Using this logic, I could write an article on "silver car" because there are "hundreds of serious sources" that mention those two words next to each other. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge into celibacy perhaps. I'm confused. Involuntary celibacy seems to be an oxymoron of sorts. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do that. "Involuntary celibacy" is not a type of celibacy, by the definition given in that article. To that, I would prefer keeping this article as it is, perhaps with some kind of note explaining the difference between the neologism and the actual meaning of the two words. Borock (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The OED tells us that celibacy just means "The state of living unmarried" and so the assertions above that the title in question is an oxymoron are false. A History of Celibacy has an entire chapter about involuntary celibacy which details various ways that this might arise; for example, young women might be forbidden to marry before their older sisters or apprentices might be forbidden to marry until they mastered their trade. It's a shame that the topic has been disrupted by recentism but so it goes. Deletion is not acceptable because it is our policy that Wikipedia is not censored. Andrew D. (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson (Andrew D.), celibacy clearly does not only mean "The state of living unmarried." As noted in the Celibacy article, with WP:Reliable sources supporting it, celibacy also means "abstention from sexual activity" (more so voluntary abstention) and is commonly understood to mean only that. Flyer22 (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The OED is the "definitive record of the English language" and its definition is as stated, with no alternative. My impression is that people are confusing celibacy with chastity, perhaps because they both begin and end with the same letters. Andrew D. (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In the real world different groups use different meanings for the same word. While the meaning I grew up with implies that it is voluntary it has been demonstrated that this is not the only meaning. As silly as it seems to me there are significant sources backing up this topic. Chillum 16:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Andrew. I can picture that a vow of celibacy (in the context of the Catholic Church on which I am not an expert, or even a member) originally meant a vow not to marry. That would mean that for that person any sexual relations would be considered sinful. And to the modern imagination the sex part seems more important than the marriage part. Borock (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW when a married couple decides not to have sex for a certain period of time that is called "abstinence" not "celibacy." Borock (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Borock and Andrew Davidson (last time WP:Pinging you to this discussion, Andrew Davidson, because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies or that this page is on your WP:Watchlist), people are not confusing celibacy with chastity; they are going by the WP:Reliable sources on this topic, including other dictionaries, encyclopedias and other scholarly sources. And it's quite clear from looking at the literature on celibacy that it is not solely defined as "The state of living unmarried"; it is quite clear that it also means "abstention from sexual activity," and that the definition of celibacy evolved. So whether the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is the "definitive record of the English language" or not, we do not adhere solely to what it states for matters like this. Nor should we. But while we're on the subject of Oxford, OxfordDictionaries.com (like the OED) is also published by Oxford University Press, and it states, "Abstaining from marriage and sexual relations, typically for religious reasons: a celibate priest. Having or involving no sexual relations. A person who abstains from marriage and sexual relations." I also find it hard to believe that no version of the Oxford English Dictionary gives the alternate "abstention from sexual activity" definition. Flyer22 (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Be that as it may, the title in question is still not an oxymoron. The important source here is the one which demonstrates the notability of the topic. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Extremely important and relevant subject, not to be claimed as an actual disease but a situation like poverty or homelessness. The agenda to delete is coming from various "troll" groups online designed to harass people, like this one https://kiwifar.ms/threads/incels-trying-to-abuse-wikipedia.11737/ Also, claims like that it is not notable or hasn't seen enough use in science are bullshit. An article on something like the friendzone had been around for many years now. Andrey Rublyov (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template must be substituted.)

• Delete This topic has been discussed to death multiple times and should be put to an end once and for all. Involuntary celibacy is not considered a valid condition, and is only accepted by an ever decreasing fringe community on the internet. It is not accepted by any legitimate academic or scientific institute, and is unlikely to be at any point in the near future. Not being able to get yourself a sexual partner is not the worst thing that can happen to you. Stop acting like it is. The One True Incel (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template must be substituted.

Keep. Where in the article is the term "masquerading as a psychiatric diagnosis"? Do you also advocate deleting the article on homelessness? 2602:306:839B:1150:3567:C0E:DE1C:F8DB (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template must be substituted.

"homelessness" isn't a neologism, nor is anyone trying to make it something it isn't. Cas Liber (talk

It is doubtful if involuntary celibacy is still a neologism, given its vast use recently and in some scientific publications. That being said, terms like friendzone or red pill are also neologisms and have their articles. Here is a clear case of somebody running a malicious ideological agenda for years. Andrey Rublyov (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

· contribs) 20:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Editor above (2602:306:839B:1150:3567:C0E:DE1C:F8DB) is the same person as Andrey Rublyov, who is a sockpuppet of MalleusMaleficarum1486, an editor previous banned for disrupting older debates on the 'involuntary celibacy' article. Libercht (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A simple IP check will show it is not the same person at all. Here is another example of a malicious agenda that has nothing to do with actual rational arguments but ideology, same as the one presented by Mythical Overlord. Also, note that this person had already been warned for personal attacks and is trying to obfuscate the fact on their Talk page. In fact, an IP check to that might show that the actual sockpuppet is Librecht, who is in fact Mythical Writerlord.Andrey Rublyov (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin comment: to avoid sockpuppetry and canvassing problems and controversies, I'm now limiting editing of this page to autoconfirmed editors (WP:CONFIRM).  Sandstein  11:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Despite the protestations of those who wished to keep this off of the Celibacy page (which I agree is a poor place to merge such material, User:Coffee's extremely well-explained close in the 2nd AFD notwithstanding), this material is about an important topic, about a social condition (Donnelly is a professor of sociology, not medicine or psychiatry) affecting virtually every human being on the planet at some point or other, ranging from pre-sexual teens to eunuchs to prison populations to residents of the assisted living community. I'm baffled why such strong and pejorative statements have been made in the processes closed as opposing restoration to pagespace. The subject clearly meets GNG in presented sources, has been mentioned and defined specifically in medical texts for a hundred years and while some sources which appeared in the page at the beginning of this process have been properly removed, in its present state the page is adequately referenced and in no way resembles the version previously put up for deletion. BusterD (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no policy based reason to delete this. The sources seem to me to pass the WP:GNG. A rename might be an improvement, but that is not an issue for AfD. DES ^(talk) 23:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]