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, whose suitability as an article topic is contested for various reasons, is again relisted following discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 December 21. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral.

To help the closing admin find a hopefully lasting consensus, please do not only "vote" for deletion or keeping, but express a clear preference (together with an explanation based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines) about whether, how and at which depth you would like the content associated with this topic, including the supposed "incel" subculture, to be covered on Wikipedia: whether as one or more standalone articles (with which titles?), or as part of other (which?) articles. Please also take note of the previous discussions listed here.  Sandstein  11:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The topic is clearly notable as 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. The topic should therefore be kept in accordance with our editing policies such as WP:PRESERVE and WP:IMPERFECT which state our general principle that "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." The nomination does not provide any particular reason to delete this notable topic and so the discussion should be speedily closed per WP:SK "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion" and WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Pinging all the contributors to previous discussions pretty much guarantees a rerun of everything which has been said before. Andrew D. (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - :::As for the book, A History of Celibacy, written by Abbott, Elizabeth, she ADMITS that her view is very differes from the mainstream deffinition, as she stated that herself: (page 16-17) :

  I also drafted a definition that discarded the rigidly pedantic and unhelpful distinctions between celibacy, chastity and virginity, all of witch I used as key words in my research. Despite dry dictionary definitions they are, in the context of this book, synonyms. Risking tedium... I cite Webster's dictionary: ... celibacy is the state of being unmarried, especially that under a wow .

She admits from the beginning that she uses this word in her book differently. And this is only one view; her view. If this author and some few others wishes to use those terms contrary what is the usual, generally accepted definition, well, it is her book, her choice. But what she calls in her book non religious celibacy is actually not celibacy but chastity. She has a doctorate in 19th-century history from McGill University, not sexology or religion history. All this, if it should be added it should be done differently. Hafspajen (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, quoting what I said at DRV, looking at the sources presented, I think it's clear that we've got sufficient reliable sources to show this is not a neologism by our standards and meets WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV Fork from sexual abstinence (First sentence of the article says 'is a form sexual abstinence'). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or merge to sexual frustration) as the topic is being reified (as I have discussed elsewhere). The term itself is a neologism that has been used in primary sources by Donnelly, some news media and books, but has not appeared in Review Articles, indicating it has not been taken up in medical/psychological literature. It is a POV Fork as mentioned above - inherent aspects would be covered in Sexual frustration, Sexual abstinence and/or Human sexual activity. Psychological aspects would be covered in topics such as personality disorder, social phobia, intimacy or anxiety/mood disorders or other disorders that inhibit relationships/intimacy. This is the ethical issue I have with this article in that it will divert a reader's (and possibly sufferer's) attention from psychological issues to some reified neologism and possibly delay them getting appropriate help. Which I think sucks. And is also why we should be using medical sourcing rules on these topics that border (or lie within broadly construed) health/medicine. Ok, a question for @Valoem: (and @Sandstein: to watch) - how is involuntary celibacy different from sexual frustration? and if no different, which is the notable term? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you actually looked at sexual frustration!? It's just two sentences – a feeble stub – and so clearly not the last word on the subject. There is obviously lots of work to do here and so we shouldn't be deleting anything until such pages are in better shape. Andrew D. (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a pass of WP:SIGCOV. If this is not a medical topic it does not need to meet medical SNGs. Saying that this should be deleted for failing WP:MEDRS is like saying that Moses should be deleted for failing WP:PORNBIO. sst✈ 13:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep deleted there is no medical condition as involuntary celibacy, it is an internet/basement dwelling subculture thing and should be covered in that context. Sexual Abstinence or Sexual frustrationwould be a good redirect target. Not to closing admin that in the event of a no consensus close the default position is no article as that is the existing consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - Considering what enormous impact Wikipedia has, no wonder that this neologism is fought for. I don't have Casliber's medical and science background, but I do have all the other background to be able to dicern a little here - philosophy and theology - and the term celibacy and a lot of confusion in defining the subject. Wikipedia is nowadays the number one for acknowledging any term, so - one must be careful. This is a WP:NEO that has some severe definition problems. If we do publish this article - it will blow - because these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. It needs to be written - if it should be written with great care, and not the way it is suggested now. that would not be proper and cautious... and - basically - involuntary celibacy is NOT different from sexual frustration. Hafspajen (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not the number 1 site in this case. When I tried googling this just now, Wikipedia was down around #5. Other sites were higher such as WebMD, which has a feature on the subject which seems to have been reviewed by qualified professionals. Our job is to summarise what's out there, not to insert our own views on the matter. Andrew D. (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, nr 5 then... :) still high enough. Hafspajen (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Other 1) What is the difference between *traditional celibacy* - versus - *voluntary or involuntary celibacy* ? This part: ^{Reasons for involuntary celibacy can often overlap with reasons for traditional celibacy, which can sometimes make it difficult to discern between voluntary or involuntary celibacy, as some feel pressured to state that the celibacy is voluntary out of fear of severe social repercussions or violence}

Secondly 2) past - Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth, was using the term in its classical form, e.g. to define unmarried persons in Christianity. Than means he was using it as its original meaning stands: as - celibacy as the unmarried state as the result of a sacred vow, act of renunciation, or religious conviction. To bad, because THAT'S not involuntary. That definition, right in the lead is not correct.

Third. 3) Why isn't the word celibacy linked?

Finally 4) - What's with the errors with the citations?

Hafspajen (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is something that has come about primarily from a few special snowflakes on the internet. Coverage is transient and not significant. Per User:Spartaz, the default position should be no article in the event of o consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, keep deleted, what is this doing back? I am pretty sure we already settled this before. HighInBC 15:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For the record: WP:I don't like it because it's a stupid expression because the proper meaning of celibacy is a voluntary condition. But don't delete because of that reason. There is no policy "WP is not stupid." However delete because the article is really about any way the two words together have been used in some sources. Of course there are many people, and have always been, who would like to have sex but are not. Their situations are better covered in other articles, not lumped together in this artificial construction. Borock (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the whole article could be included in whatever main article we have on "Human sexual intercourse" with one sentence: "Some people are not having intercourse for various reasons, although they would like to." Borock (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a significant topic, especially in China where there are not enough women to go around. It's also significant to a lot of people I know who are paranoid about global warming (arctic methane causing sudden climate change, "near term human extinction" or NTHE) and peak oil leaving no future for their children. It's also significant that sexual frustration (call it whatever you want), can cause some people to lash out and kill others. I can't believe that we have to debate which topics to cover. It's bad enough that other controversial topics are carefully guarded and all manner of WP:XXX applied to keep those articles kosher -- wouldn't want to cause our readers to have cognitive dissonance. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are important issues, but I am still saying delete this article and keep the articles on the issues themselves: The China situation, sexual frustration, etc. Borock (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, salt, and a two year halt on these discussions this article is a classic COATRACK that exists because of endless POV pushing. The subject of this discussion does not exist and is kept alive by an internet meme on reddit, PUA communities and 4chan. Also see Cas's comments above. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]