Talk:Involuntary celibacy

Comment

@B: @William Lupinacci: While I understand the motive to rewrite articles in order to fix all the ideological distortions, I don't think it's right in this case to leave out large corpus of useful information without ever considering what to do with it, such as putting it into a new split article.

I have to admit that I don't have much expertise in this topic area at the moment, unlike say the Anonymous hacking movement and some areas in international politics, but I'll say that unbridled deletionism is a dangerous mistake that Wikipedia committed again and again, and something which Justapedia should avoid at all.— Ron Merkle (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2023 (AST) @Ron Merkle:

I'll add the deleted parts you are referencing to new articles at 4chan culture, blackpill (ideology), incels.me (forum), and Lamarcus Small (forum owner) — William Lupinacci (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2023 (AST)

A note that Ron has created one of the articles now with incels.me, using a copy of a deleted Wikipedia, which I expanded on here. Today, I also tripled the content on this page, although there is more to add from good faith, relatively reliable sources. — William Lupinacci (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2024 (AST)

History of this page

This page is currently not allowed at English Wikipedia but was at English Wikipedia (under various page titles) for almost a decade. It was deleted and undeleted at least 4 times at English Wikipedia. It is unlikely to be restored anytime soon at English Wikipedia — William Lupinacci (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2023 (AST)

Christine Chubbuck

Chubbuck is used as an example of involuntary celibacy in the deleted 2012 Wikipedia article which is partially revived here. A quick skim doesn't show a history of Chubbuck explicitly complaining about being unable to find a partner or making frequent and failed attempts at sexual success, and is more her family hypothesizing about sexual frustration? I could be wrong though. It seems this could be a tenuous example subject to removal from this page in the future. Not because it is not plausible, it is, but because this would need to be shown in a source. If this is for some reason an important example, it may be possible to extract a better source which focuses exclusively or mostly on this aspect of her life. Previous commentators on this page from Wikipedia are partially right that sexual frustration alone is not involuntary celibacy, so some aspect of 'involuntary' would have to be shown. — William Lupinacci (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2024 (AST)

The inclusion of nonsensical sources

The part I added with the least citations is the controversy section. It's hard to figure out if it makes sense to keep parts of that controversy section or to add the nonsensical sources as proof incel denialist positions exist. The main issue is that the sources are nonsensical in that they insinuate or outright state that it is not possible to not be able to have sex, which is easily disprovable, and also at odds with the subject phrased differently, or prior RS with the same phrasing.

The incel denialist position simply ignores common sense that many institutionalized, castrated, or those in solitary confinement in situations like prison solitary confinement cannot, by any means, have sex. Those are all sourced as examples of involuntary celibacy, and are extreme examples, but they are not insignificant, and it makes the denialist position not only wrong but hard to even articulate that someone might genuinely believe the denialist position. Sex is not considered a human right even for those with legal suitors who want to have sex with them. Prisoners in the USA with legal suitors, for example, are increasingly being denied conjugal visits, with as few as 6 US states with conjugal visit programs. (A note however that the constitutionality of this consideration is under dispute in law schools) There is also a lot to add about other forms of involuntary celibacy within institutionalization, such as incel within psychiatric institutionalization.

Therefore, it's my impression, given the above is common sense, that the involuntary celibacy denialist position is simply abuse, a form of gaslighting, and therefore sources primarily based on it should automatically be disqualified as a reliable source, similar to how the bevy of academia claiming homosexuality is not real is not used as sources in the Wikipedia homosexuality article. To do so would be bigoted at best. Those who argued against involuntary celibacy as being real, and who still ocassionally do so, do not just use sourcing arguments, but try to articulate a denialist position. Also, a note that the current "incel" article on Wikipedia, with the denialist position, was originally intended by its authors and gatekeepers to be under the article name of 'involuntary celibacy'. This decision was denied to them (eg User:WritKeeper) by other Wikipedia veterans (eg User:Red_Slash) criticizing them by stating it makes no sense to have use forum ideology to shoe in nonsensical positions about involuntary celibacy. — William Lupinacci (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2024 (AST)