Talk:Celibacy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Incel

Should "incel" really redirect here? It is one thing to redirect the full term "involuntary celibacy" here, but "incel" does not appear to be a proper term. Could this redirect be removed by any chance? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Consider redirecting it back to the pharmaceutical, Biricodar. A disambiguation page for the two obscure uses would also be possible.Novangelis (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Incel is merely an abbreviation of involuntary celibacy. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• If it is not voluntary, better back to the pharmaceutical, I think. Hafspajen (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I will revert it back, but MalleusMaleficarum keeps reverting it and edit-warring on the subject. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I am not sure that this should be here at all. Celibacy (from Latin, cælibatus) is the state of being unmarried and/or sexually abstinent, usually for religious reasons. This should be a clue. A disambiguation page, yes maybe. Hafspajen (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Read the article entry and it looks to me that the votes were more for merging into than Celibacy. Celibacy is a clerical, religious stuff. Hafspajen (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as though there is such limited sourcing for the entire condition to begin with, we might as well remove it from wikipedia altogether for the time being. It certainly does not seem to be an issue that warrants such a large and long-winded section on any article. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't go so far, but I don't understand what this has to do here. I would remove it to Sexual abstinence, and hope fot the best. I mean it is not a religious thing. Celibacy is a religious behavioral issue, and motivated by factors as personal or religious beliefs... Hafspajen (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

We could delete the "involuntary celibacy" redirect then and redirect "involuntary abstinence" to the article on abstinence, making it a sub-section there? Said section could be a bit shorter, too (5000 letters seems a bit excessive). This way it would be included, but in a more fitting location. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, do that. Please. Sexual abstinence covers medical, psychological, legal, social, financial, philosophical, moral aspects. Hafspajen (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

We could. But I would prefer not to personally rename\remove redirects and place the section in another article without a wider consensus. I've been involved in this discussion for a while now so it would be better for the actions to be done by someone less involved. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Well this is silly. What to do. Hafspajen (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Such a proposal is completely baffling. The involuntary part of the article uses sources that talk about the term involuntary celibacy. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No, not quite. OK:Studied this thing here, and the arguments why this has been merged here are kind of circular, because it is called celibacy; it has to be merged into Celibacy: Furthermore, celibacy, not abstinence, is the clear choice here, as the term “involuntary celibacy” itself indicates celibacy can be both voluntary and involuntary. So far so good. But the choice is not quite so clear.

The problem is that the term is not defined quite clearly: The sourcing provided by Atethnekos (which was also pointed to by a few editors) is also inconclusive to backing the inclusion of this article, as most of those sources do not actually use the term "Involuntary celibacy", but instead describe the apparent phenomenon in conjunction with other terms like "sexlessness". The few sources that do use this term seem to be the primary source from which the term has been derived, those being Donnelly, Burgess and Abbott... and those particular papers do not seem to have gained widespread traction, use or review (at least no one has produced any evidence of such in this discussion). Therefore, the argument stating that this term is a possible neologism has a good deal of weight, but not enough to warrant deletion. With all of this taken into consideration, the best possible course of action here (per the discussion) is to merge this into the celibacy article, until the time comes (if it comes) when enough reliable secondary sources are present to warrant a full separate article. Furthermore, celibacy, not abstinence, is the clear choice here, as the term “involuntary celibacy” itself indicates celibacy can be both voluntary and involuntary. Denise A Donnelly Elisabeth O Burgess should have studied religion history and the definition of celibacy before naming their object celibacy, because it has nothing to do with religion. As Scott stated at the discussion:There is no recognized, formal definition for this term. This is the Donnelly, Burgess and Abbott definition of what they were analizing, but, not the common definition of celibacy.

This is the definition of Celibacy:

The deliberate abstinence from sexual activity, usually in connection with a religious role or practice. It has existed in some form in most world religions. It may indicate a person's ritual purity (sexual relations being viewed as polluting) or may be adopted to facilitate spiritual advancement (as sexual activity would take place only within the bonds of matrimony, marriage and family were seen as an entangling distraction). In shamanistic religions, shamans are often celibate. In Hinduism, “holy men” (or women) who have left ordinary secular life to seek final liberation are celibate. Buddhism began as a celibate order, though many sects have since given up celibacy. Chinese taoism has monastics and independent celibate adepts. Islam has no institutional celibacy, but individuals may embrace it for personal spiritual advancement. Judaism has prescribed periods of abstinence, but long-term celibacy has not played a large role. The early Christian church tended to regard celibacy as superior to marriage. Since the 12th century it has been the rule for Roman Catholic clergy, though clerical celibacy was never adopted by Protestantism.

I think Flyer22 made this Quite clear at the discussion, but wonder why nobody listened. Hafspajen (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I wondered why this whole passage embracing „Involuntary celibacy" has been included here. Celibacy is a decision someone makes voluntarily (and often promises or even vows coram publico, while involuntary celibacy is not.--Turris Davidica (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Bless you, Turris Davidica. Yes, I wonder too. But there are some researcher who made some research on people who can't get themselves a partner, and call it, quite sloppily celibacy - and there was a nomination for deletion [1]and now we got this into THIS article, and I don't agree with it. Hafspajen (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The content was merged here per AFD, in which all of you could have participated. If you want to change broader consensus, please seek to do so in the proper venue. That discussion concluded that sexual abstinence was not the proper target for the content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, SandyGeorgia, quite true, we could have participated, and if only we would new, we would. We the editors in this article didn't realised that. Bad luck. I still think that celibacy - in the way - they use the word is not what this article is about. The issue here is an unfree social behaviour. Hafspajen (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The AFD was included in sexuality discussions-- you gotta follow AFD! I'm not unsympathetic to the concern, but we can't just delete content that survived AFD. And I'm not sure how or where one goes next to revisit that consensus ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, I know, we can't just delete content that survived AFD. Hafspajen (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference, of course, between removing content entirely, and moving content to another (possibly more fitting) article in a shortened version which is what I suggested. The section is, as it now seems, a bit too large and not in the right place. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, SandyGeorgia and Mythic Writerlord - is it possible to keep this section at least to three-four sentences? Not only that it is missplaced but it takes over the article. As it says. There is extremely little sexological study regarding involuntary celibacy. Now celibacy as it stands in this article is NOT a topic for sexological study, and this is mainly the problem in a nutshell. Hafspajen (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Mythic Writerlord seems to be suggesting moving content to another article in direct contradiction to the AFD outcome. And this sort of thing (not the first time), needs to stop; there was an AFD, and until/unless someone figures out where/how to revisit the outcome, it is what it is. I have no objection to the content being pruned; articles should reflect due weight. My role was to merge the content faithful to the AFD, but I agree there is now undue weight given to the section. I suggest that you, Hafspajen, undertake that work rather than Mythic Writerlord, as s/he seems to have some strong views on the matter that may cloud edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, we do so. Until then, we (I) try to just make the content less proeminent. SandyGeorgia and Mythic Writerlord - shall we settle for let's say half of the text - or less? Hafspajen (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Third (that is, two-thirds cut) to half works for me ... why do you indent weird? I think a lot of the cutting could come from the overly detailed descriptions of Donnelly's work; there's no need to give so much weight and space to describing, basically, one person's work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• ... what do you mean.. . indent weird?Hafspajen (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• You're supposed to indent one more than the person you are responding to, so it's clear to whom you are responding. You keep altering the indents backwards. (WP:INDENT) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well. Hafspajen (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Allrighty then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting, I never thought about it, but I really do that backwards. It is probably a way of keeping the talkpage in balance, probably an occupational disease - being an artist (also) - display, balace and layout are main issues one is working with. I AM disturbed by the discussions getting smaller and smaller - it makes me feel weird. Hafspajen (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Mythic Writerlord, I believe you are well aware of the consensus at the AFD, yet you have continued to remove the merged content without revisiting the AFD/merge discussion. [2] [3] I will contact the admin who closed the AFD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Not just me, but several others are removing it. The one placing it back is a user who is a sockpuppet of the permanently banned Malleus-something account who was rallying for the article to be kept in the first place. I have reported him to Coffee earlier today. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Not several others, from what I see. There's you and then there's Turris Davidica. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please, SandyGeorgia, is it possible to move this stuff to an other article? I understand that there was a consensus at the AFD, really do, but is this really a very definite last word? Please. Hafspajen (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I understand your concern, hafspajen, but there was already a community process, and both Turris and Mythic are editwarring against broader community consensus, as judged by Coffee who closed the AFD with a merge (sorry that my role here was to complete the merge, as there seem to be some serious off-Wiki issues occurring on the topic). I am not certain exactly how one goes about revisiting the consensus of an AFD-- perhaps Coffee can advise. Short of a broader consensus that overturns the consensus on that AFD, both Turris and Mythic needs to stop edit warring and respect the consensus. In other words, I hope Coffee or some other admin will advise how one goes about revisiting an AFD. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I reverted one edit on this page today, SandyGeorgia. One. That's hardly "edit warring". And I already said I would refrain from editing the page from now on, so really there isn't much of an issue here. I respect the outcome of the AfD. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I am sorry about this. I understand that people want to preserve this addition, but I am not sure this really is the right place. Very unfortunate that emotions run high. I still feel merging this to a better place could resolve this. Can't we put this stuff here -> Sexual frustration? This article really has only three lines, it mentions incel, and this article may benefit by it. I feel problems may just go on, and will continue because this is not the proper place for this. Hafspajen (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

[I have applied eight levels of outdenting (outdent, abbreviated as "od") because the lines were getting to be only two or three words long, or less, when read on a mobile phone. I have not changed the content at all. --Thnidu (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)]

First of all: this not an edit-war. On several discussions as well as here there has been expressed concern about the fact that the contents of "involuntary celibacy" have nothing to do with celibacy: „Involuntary celibacy“ is completely different from celibacy due to its 'lack of voluntariness. Another problem is that iMHO the shifting of this content from its on lemma never was discussed here on the article celibacy but in some remote discussions we've never been aware of. I suggest to look for an article which is more suitable for the content about lack of sexual intercourse than an article on voluntarily promised or even vowed celibacy.--Turris Davidica (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Turris Davidica, it's been referred to as an edit war because of how WP:Edit war defines an edit war. Flyer22 (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Mind you, as far as I'm concerned: I didn't revert several times and I tried to explain the reason for my edits both in edit comments and on the discussion page. The user who continously reverted my and other users edits never left the slightest word here on the talk page (and is apparently suspected of a sockpuppetry, btw.)--Turris Davidica (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Neither me, nor Turris Davidica reverted more then two times. The only user to do so thrice is Andrey. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

[ WP: Edit conflict ]: Turris Davidica, you don't have to revert several times for it to be WP:Edit warring. And no matter how anyone defines "several," the keyword is "repeatedly" when it comes to WP:Edit warring...as in "more than once." You, Andrey Rublyov and Mythic Writerlord repeatedly reverting one another all made up what is accurately termed "a WP:Edit war." I understand that you have been working out the aforementioned disputed content here on the talk page. I'm just explaining what Wikipedia considers edit warring. If such reverting continues, a WP:Administrator is likely to WP:Protect (fully protect) the Celibacy article to not only stop the edit warring, but to inspire talk page communication in order to reach WP:Consensus on the matter, and might also temporarily block one or more of the people repeatedly reverting.

Mythic Writerlord, similar to what I told Turris Davidica above, WP:Edit warring is not about whether or not one has "reverted more th[a]n two times." For example, a Wikipedia editor does not have to breach WP:3RR (the three-revert rule) for repeated reverting to be a WP:Edit warring violation. Flyer22 (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22 is correct. In the absence of feedback from Coffee, who closed the AFD, Nikkimaria indicated on my talk page that WP:DRV might be the next stop in re-evaluating the consensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination). But I looked over the conditions required for initiating a DRV, and they are not met in this case. Perhaps the next step is to open an RFC. What can't be done is for two editors to just delete content that specifically survived a recent AFD, without new consensus supporting that removal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Neither me nor Turris are removing anything at this stage. There have been no more edits since yesterday and I welcome renewed discussion to reach a broad consensus before any new steps are taken. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe someone should tell this Andrey Rublyov, too. – As I've already expressed on other talk pages such as SandyGeorgias: I withdraw from any action regarding the content in question until further notice. I am sorry for the inconvenience, I didn't mean to do any harm to the article, in the contrary.--Turris Davidica (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Since Andrey Rublyov knows enough to see when the content is removed and then revert, it might be that he has this article, and therefore this talk page, on his WP:Watchlist. If he does not see the above information about edit warring and what SandyGeorgia stated about seeing if a new WP:Consensus forms, and he does not understand it completely, then, yes, he should be informed of those matters as well. Flyer22 (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• The real problem is that this content doesn't really fit here. I do respect that the outcome is merge, and it should be preserved somehow, yes. But really, you know, has to be this article? Some day it will be removed, anyway. If not by us, than by some other editor who knows about this topic. This content will probably has to be garded all the time. It would be much better to merge it somewhere there it would be a natural place for it, like Sexual frustration, or so. Celibacy is something connected to religious observance, not - eh, bad luck - not managing to find a girl. Hafspajen (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Last revert.

'Actually I am not sure that it was unconstructive edit of an IP.[4] It only had no references. Monks of Japanese Zen, Pure Land, Tendai, Shingon, Nichiren, etc., etc. (all denominations of Japanese Buddhism) can marry and be Monks at the same time (but not all do). Monks of some traditions of Tibetan Buddhism, like the Nyingmapa, can marry. While other Tibetan traditions, like the Kagyupa, cannot. The same is true for Korean Buddhists. Some can't, and some can. Typically Theravadin Monks (Sri Lanka, Thailand, Burma, Laos, Cambodia, etc.) may stay in monastic practice for a period of time, then some will decide to leave and get married and get a job. This is totally accepted and encouraged. Chinese, Taiwanese, and Vietnamese Monks are expected to uphold the vows of a Monk for the rest of their lives. These vows include celibacy, which means that Monks may never marry in these traditions. Some pages that support this: [5] [6][7][8] [9][10] Hafspajen (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

My reverts

Since I was called to say something here I will. Not much to say at all, really. A group of no more than 2-3 users who never engaged in any substantial discussion at all are claiming there is some kind of consensus on the talk page about material that was placed here after the AfD. Certainly grossly against the rules. Their proposals for it to be moved on articles like Sexual frustration are completely unsubstantiated, which they didn't even try to do so I will not go into arguments against this.Andrey Rublyov (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry to say, but is not unsubstantiated, Andrey. I am sorry that you got reverted and not discussed, bur not much I can do now about it. But, do you understand that this article is about the religious observance? Celibacy refers to a state of abstinence from sexual intercourse or the abstention by vow from marriage or other sexual activity. Abstinence is a self-enforced restraint from indulging in bodily activities. Something that is made because people want to do it. They really chosed this, and can actually change it if they want too, leave the convent or ceise to be monks. Hafspajen (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Hafspajen. Unfortunately, what you're saying here doesn't seem to be correct or at least in line with what the article says. Not even the first sentence says it's always for religious reasons and while religion is mentioned at times there are many parts which don't involve it at all. Andrey Rublyov (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen did not state "solely for religious reasons." But celibacy (at least if one doesn't define it as sexual abstinence for any reason) is "usually for religious reasons," and the well sourced first line of the Celibacy article makes that clear. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

He did not state it in these words exactly but something like "But, do you understand that this article is about the religious observance?" heavily implies that he believes it to be for religious reasons only when good portions of article, not just those on Involuntary celibacy, say otherwise.Andrey Rublyov (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

And, also Donnelly and Burgess used a limit of six months of involuntary celibacy when they carried out their study. It was enough. Well, I am not sure. Hafspajen (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you have a good point here. The issue is that this problem deserves its own article, as it isn't really about celibacy in terms of what it usually is nor is it always limited to sex. Yet here we are. A bad compromise was achieved.Andrey Rublyov (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I wouldn't mind having its own article, but there you go, this consensus at the AFD. The problem is the religious aspect here. Also, if you dislike the idea of Sexual frustration,(which I think that would be a good solution) there is Sexual abstinence; the practice of refraining from some or all aspects of sexual activity for medical, psychological, legal, social, financial, philosophical, and so on, it will be a better choice. Hafspajen (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• So, the circle is closed. This is the core of the whole issue. Celibacy say one thing, Involuntary celibacy, say otherwise. Hafspajen (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This book's author cited in the lead was admitting that she is talking about celibacy in a different way as the general academic definition of celibacy as per dictionary - that is the usual definition of celibacy.

She wrote (page 16-17) : I also drafted a definition that discarded the rigidly pedantic and unhelpfull distingtions between celibacy, chastity and virginity, all of wich I used as key words in my research. Despite dry dictionary definitions they are, in the context of this book, synonymos. Risking tedium... I cite Webster's dictionary: ... celibacy is the state of being unmarried, especially that under a wow . But what she calls in her book non religious celibacy is actually not celibacy but chastity. And this is only one view; her wiev. She wishes to use those terms contrary what is the usual, generally accepted definition, well, it is her book, her choice. She has a doctorate in 19th-century history from McGill University, not sexology or religion history. But we can't change the established definition because of one source that is different. OK, two sources, the other one is the fairly narrow research of those three people who conducted this incel research, most probably based on her definition. And about Donnely, she is basing this on the 82 persons who comprise her sample per e-mail. (60 men and 22 women). Also, sixty-three percent were age 34 or younger (the modal category was ages 25-34). Not that uncommon that people at this age are six month without a partner, or even more without it need to be considered as unusual - or as a new unresearched behaviour. I don't really think that this quite narrow research can change the definition of celibacy. Hafspajen (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Involuntary

Two researchers I have never heard of and who are not in any way notable did a research on "involuntary celibacy" and this is somehow enough ground to justify a section in an otherwisen unrelated article? Seems a bit fishy to me. The whole part on female-abortion and hindu culture seemed more then a little far fetched and only supported by one single (questionable) source so I took it out. Can this section not be moved to the sexual frustration article or otherwise removed altogether? As it now stands there appears to be very little grounds to include this and next to no proper sources. 195.240.150.14 (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. We know this, you know. Hafspajen (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

So can anything be done about this? 195.240.150.14 (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, soner or later it will be removed I guess, for obvious reasons. The problem is the disscussion above. This thing had an article. Somebody said it should be deleted. There was a decision, maybe not so wise to merge this stuff in here. You can maybe try to ask for a Requests for comment. Hafspajen (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment This is all I can do. Hafspajen (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Many various parts of this article have one or no source. The editor seems to be pushing his own agenda. Also, I don't see how the article is unrelated, as it discusses various perspectives on celibacy.Andrey Rublyov (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

As pointed out several times: alas, involuntary celibacy is not celibacy at all and therefore unrelated.--Turris Davidica (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The entire term is nonsense already in itself. It's contradictive and strange, largely unsourced and not mentioned by any credible research whatsoever. The section is also too long. Please, Andrey Rublyov, stop trying to include the second part of the section. It does not need to be this long. This behaviour is disruptive and not helping the article's quality at all, nor is it bringing us any closer to finding a solution. 195.240.150.14 (talk) 07:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"Contradictive" isn't a even a word and as for being contradictory it is explained this this term means involuntary as opposed to it usually being voluntary. Parts you removed were sources, better than some parts of the article you didn't remove and you make no explanation to why Donnelly's reaserch isn't credible nor why is the section too long. You just assert. I think behavior going against consensus achieved after the merging is disruptive, not my attempts to stop the disruption.Andrey Rublyov (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The only disruptive editor is you, insisting on keeping the section as long as it is when there's no need for it. There are other parts that are not sufficiently sourced? Fine. Then go and work on those parts. Remove information if you deem it not needed. But don't go around re-adding content that was agreed upon to be pruned and do not constantly undo edits made by others please. Because that right there is disruptive. 195.240.150.14 (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An editor has asked should the "involuntary celibacy" be included in this article? After what happened this is the only way to deal with this issue. User:Hafspajen|Hafspajen]] (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Has. And editor has asked. 195.240.150.14 (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

What is "involuntary celibacy" and what are the sources supporting the material. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Read the article.

• Yes it should be included.

• No it should not be included.

• Start voting discussion here:

• No it should not be included, for various reasons, see above. Hafspajen (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• No it should not be included, this passage should be moved elsewhere. Celibacy is a decision someone makes voluntarily (and often promises or even vows coram publico, while involuntary celibacy is not.--Turris Davidica (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

If that is so why are you for that part of the text being removed? You should just argue for it to be placed somewhere else. You make no arguments for why this part should be removed from here. Unless you can make a sufficient argument I will revert your edits that remove this and bring attention to it from higher-ups.Andrey Rublyov (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Ahem, this is a votation. In fact I have argued why this passage is wrong here several times. Please feel free to bring attention to this discussion to whomever you want, I am sure they are able to read the discussion above and elsewhere. IMHO, you've just set out in writing that you will continue editwarrying against the consensus here, Andrey. Several authors have told you that now, not just me.--Turris Davidica (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• No it should not be included, instead it should be moved to "sexual frustration" or removed from wikipedia altogether as the subject largely lacks proper sources and is somewhat untrustworthy being a bit of an online term barely if ever used outside internet fora. As it seems, biased editors have for some time now attempted to keep it in against general consensus among this articles editors. The section is also unnecesarily long but editor "Andrey Rubinov" continues to re-include the section portion. 195.240.150.14 (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

All of this talk contains no facts or even attempts of proof, just assertions. Assertions going against agreement achieved after this article was merged. As for whether or not it should be merged somewhere or removed that's not for you or me to decide. Administration member Sandy Georgia noted that some biased editors are pushing for deletion against consensus achieved by merging and I am afraid I will have to warn her if this continues. Two or three editors aren't "articles editors" and Wikipedia doesn't work on weasel tactics or words like "this is so because I say so". Andrey Rublyov (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Up to my knowledge, Andrey, you've been told by Sandy Georgia to seek consensus or you could be blocked and have a look at WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR; [11]. Please do so. You have repeatedly edited and reverted against the consensus of the other authors here.--Turris Davidica (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Do not include per WP:COMMONNAME (celibacy typically refers to voluntary celibacy) and WP:FRINGE (this appears to be a fringe use of the term). If there's enough material for a separate article and notability is established, create that article and add "For involuntary celibacy, see ..." EvergreenFir (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Include per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination). Merger should not be followed by removal of the relevant material. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment David, is there a way to do something about this? Before we all fill this article talk page with hundred pages of complains against this Involuntary celibacy. This topic is going like forever on the We don't want Involuntary celibacy in this article? DavidLeighEllis, as fas as I remember somebody said somewhere that this was a solution to ask for an RCf. There is not possible to have an Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy 3rd nomination - because there is no such article. But the talk page of this article nowadays is just all about how to find a way out of this situation... Hafspajen (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You could nominate Involuntary celibacy for deletion Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion to test whether there is a consensus for unmerger/removal. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I might, thanks. Is there any way of mentioning all this discussion as a motive for it? Hafspajen (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

There is barely enough credible sources to justify a section on wikipedia, let alone an article of itself. General consensus on this was quite clear. A section on a relarted article would be sense, but perhaps the page on celibacy is not the right place for it to be put. We could make a vote on what page best to include it in: sexual frustration, chastity, or as a sub-section on the article virginity perhaps? There's many ways to go about this that would leave the majority of editors satisfied. 195.240.150.14 (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, we can start, to begin with. Contrary what people use to say to me that I am a bureaucrat, I am not. Hafspajen (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• No standalone article - My vote, as it were, starts with an end result and seeks to find a way to get there. There's certainly not enough on this "incel" junk to warrant that again, but the sourcing may be adequate to warrant a few lines here. This is also a bit complicated by the fact that a merge was essentially mandated by the last AfD. How that mandate actually plays out and how it meshes with the notion that consensus can change is not clearly defined here. "Incel" is basically an orphan left on Celibacy's doorstep, that some in the house can't decide what to do with. Tarc (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Not include as a section, Maybe include as a sentence or part sentence. I personally wouldn't put too much weight on the AFD. Apart from a personal distaste for article content being decided in venues outside the article in question like was done here I didn't read that discussion as a strong consensus for including information. Merges can range from simple redirects to including all the information so I feel it should be up to consensus at this article to decide how much should be included. I don't like the dedicated section at all. It seems WP:Undue. However I could see a very brief mention in the "Abstinence and celibacy" section somewhere near, or part, of the abstinence mention. AIRcorn (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• If and when reliable sources are found this would be the place for it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
• Yes it should be included. The section is properly sourced and cited, and the first sentence in the lead should now read Celibacy (from Latin, cælibatus) is the state of being unmarried and/or sexually abstinent, especially by choice for usually religious reasons, because looking at most dictionary definitions, that is, what they say it is. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The result = Do not include. Hafspajen (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

CommentThings like "The result = Do not include." are typical of a campaign being led to have this completely removed. It's all completely against the rules and extremely. Until there is an official consensus I will undo vandalism that has nothing to do with Wikipedia standards but with people's personal agenda.Andrey Rublyov (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Include. The section is properly cited and seems notable. Handcuffed (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - What I see here is a 7-3 in favor of exclusion. While this was never formally submitted as an RfC, I'll post at WP:AN and see what they think, whether to determine consensus from this discussion or open up something new were more editors from the outside may be interested. Tarc (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Exclude, as celibacy has to do with purposeful abstention. So-called "involuntary celibacy" is a fancy-schmancy way of saying "can't get laid". Supposing that in itself is an encyclopedic topic, there must be some more appropriate article, such as human sexuality or some such, which "involuntary celibacy" could redirect to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Involuntary celibacy topic now moved to and covered at Denise Donnelly article

SandyGeorgia and others, take note that though the WP:AfD WP:Consensus with regard to the topic of involuntary celibacy is that the topic does not deserve its own Wikipedia article and is to merge the topic to the Celibacy article, Candleabracadabra has created the Denise Donnelly article to substantially cover the topic. Candleabracadabra moved Involuntary celibacy to Denise Donnelly. I'm not sure if Denise Donnelly passes as WP:Notable; currently, the article is almost exclusively about involuntary celibacy and can be considered a recreation of that article with different branding and structure. Its creation is likely the result of the Involuntary celibacy section having been removed from this article, per the WP:Consensus of the #Requests for comment section above. Flyer22 (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll be nominating it for deletion in a few hours time, most likely. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly containing same content as Incel. Also, it appears to be the reification of an adjective and noun into a use that has not been taken up by the psychological/medical community and thus to have an article on it is misrepresenting its acceptance. Hafspajen (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)‎

Article workup

I've started a new article for this in my userspace at User:Tokyogirl79/Sandbox 2. I posted a bit on the Donnelly AfD since it's pretty clear that the AfD is ultimately about the notability (or lack thereof) for incel, as the article is mostly used as a way to discuss incel without actually having a separate article for it. I think that what I've written is neutral enough to where we could probably use that "as is" for an article if people think it's well sourced enough, but we could also merge parts of it together for a more in-depth section in the article. The big thing I've found is that the term is used in a general sense and some of the studies have looked at a wider variety of people than just persons on the Internet who cannot find a sexual partner. The term is actually supposed to be used for people who cannot have sex for other reasons such as work (remote locations, being on their own), societal taboos, or institutional rules (no sex in nursing homes and so on). Part of my biggest issue with this as a standalone article is that a lot of this somewhat copies reasons for celibacy in general, so if it is merged into the article (my preference) I think that it should state something such as "Reasons for involuntary celibacy can often encompass the same reasons for traditional celibacy such as health reasons, institutional restrictions, or strict cultural taboos and moral standards. However in the case of involuntary celibacy, the individual does not follow these rules out of a personal choice." What do you guys think? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've cleaned it up some more and added more sources. The biggest issue I've run into is that while I've tried to keep from overlapping that much with celibacy, there will be some inevitable overlap. I've mostly tried to get around this by looking for things that use the specific term. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

First of, Tokyogirl, I admire your persistance in trying to settle this case in a way satisfactory to all parties involved. However I have a few problem with this, and these are the following:

1. The content was deemed unfit to have its own article in a previous AfD discussion. It was determined that the article's content, in slimmed down form, was to be added as a section to another article. It was furthermore determined this other article would be the article Celibacy.
2. The editors of the article Celibacy discussed the addition of the new content. A variety of people was unhappy over the new material being included, and several edit wars took place. Ultimately a consensus was reached and enforced by an administrator not to include the information on "incel" on the Celibacy article.
3. A second article was created, this time on "Denise Donnelly" as a way to bypass earlier reached consensus not to include the material. No one is saying the information cannot be anywhere in Wikipedia. However the material is, per consensus, deemed unfit for a stand-alone article and cannot be included or redirected to the Celibacy page.

One alternative I have seen mentioned was to include a mention of the "incel" phenomenon on the page for sexual frustration as it seems like a more appropriate topic for the material to be in. To create a new article with the only purpose of re-including material seems unwise, and as with a possible re-creation of the involuntary celibacy article, would go against previously agreed upon consensus. I feel to either include the article in a page like sexual frustration or to not include it at all would be, at this point, the best way to go. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• My only slight problem with that is that I have found where the term has been used historically in slightly different fashions, so there's a small chance of people looking for the more historical use of the term. The term hasn't always been used in relation to sexual frustration, which I do want to say does seem to also fit the current usage of the term but it's also been used to describe people who have genuinely been restricted from sexual intercourse due to things that they couldn't control. That's kind of been the impetus for some of the re-writing I've been doing on my userspace copy because the current term doesn't entirely seem to be the way it's been traditionally used. However I do think that this could perhaps be also summed up in perhaps a "criticisms" section here- although that would need a completely new and different version than what I have here. I'm also somewhat concerned about the overall notability of involuntary celibacy being judged by the fairly lackluster version that had been previously deleted (which had very, very few sources) and the actions of a group of rather extreme individuals that came on here to defend incel itself (as opposed to trying to show notability for it). I'm not overly invested in getting this added to the mainspace, mind you, and I'm mostly OK with it getting merged into sexual frustration. It's just that I'm worried about the term as it's been used in the last 20-some years in popular culture and the term as it's been used in the past (somewhat the same in some instances, but also as a derogatory term and something that is genuinely forced upon someone). Again, not overly-overly so as I figure that this could probably be fixed with a criticism section about celibacy in general (with some mention of IC as it applies to the "you have sex and we burn your face" and "IC is abnormal and everyone in the clergy would otherwise rather have sex" types of groups) and then have a hatnote at the section top or a brief mention in the section itself that directs people to the frustration section. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Then it should definitely be merged into sexual frustration. And a Lutheran priest who doesn't find a girlfriend, that is not celibacy but sexual frustration, bad looks or bad luck. Hafspajen (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hm... I would have to re-write it some. We do need to make sure that we differentiate between "true" involuntary celibacy (celibacy that is very much forced onto another person, such as an elderly person in a nursing home that strictly forbids sex or in the case of inmates who cannot access a sexual partner) and the incel movement, which could be paired more with sexual frustration. Any suggestions for phrasing? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

If you haven't yet, see what I stated here about defining involuntary celibacy (my "On second thought" post); defining it mostly comes down to how one defines celibacy. Flyer22 (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• That's kind of the big stickler here. As I'm trying to re-write the articles, I can see why it would be better to differentiate it because the true withholding of sex in a deliberate sense (ie, fear of severe social reprisal) is not the same thing as the incel movement. (For lack of a better, more diplomatic term to differentiate it, I'll call it a movement.) I've written an new section for the IC as it'd apply strictly to the sense of people who can't have sex due to rules or health reasons, but can't because having sex would mean their death or severe bodily harm in one way or another. You can see that one here, although I have included where it was used as a derogatory term. The other version is going to take a little while to finesse. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

From what I see, and because of the current WP:Consensus to keep involuntary celibacy out of this article, your involuntary celibacy draft should either be added to the Sexual abstinence article (since the sources for involuntary celibacy are usually using the term celibacy to mean "sexual abstinence," as in "involuntary sexual abstinence") or it should be its own Wikipedia article. It would overwhelm the very short Sexual frustration article if added there. Also, I am taking this time to remind everyone that WP:Consensus can change; the previous WP:AfD ruling that involuntary celibacy should not be a Wikipedia article does not mean that Wikipedia can never have an article on it. Tokyogirl79's version of an Involuntary celibacy article is completely different than the previous Involuntary celibacy article; for starters, it is supported by various WP:Reliable, independent sources. Flyer22 (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Are you talking about the first draft I made (about involuntary celibacy in general) or the second draft I made about the non-incel usage of the term? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I still feel to recreate the article would bypass the previously reached outcome of the AfD and bypass the deletion. The current draft looks fine to me, appears more then properly sourced and well-written. I still believe, however, that to give the term a standalone article is a bit too much and it would be better to have it as a sub-section of another article. With the sexual frustration article being too short, the one of abstinence may be best at this point. It fits there a lot more then it does in celibacy, but to prevent future trouble I suggest informing the editors of the abstinence article on its talk page first, just to be sure. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79, this one (Tokyogirl79/Sandbox 2) of course; I don't see that the other one, in its current state, should be a Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to say but all this discussion starts to look as much original research to me. It is NOT up to uss to define things, but to stick to references. And as said before, this has not been taken up by the psychological/medical community and thus to have an article on it is misrepresenting its acceptance. And the Donnely article looks like it is going to be deleted and what is happening here goes again against broader community consensus, can't we just drop the thing? I AM TIRED about all these re-creation attempts, move THIS conversation where it belongs, to the content discussion. Hafspajen (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Hafspajen here. Time and time again whenever there was a large scale voting of sorts whether it be in the original AfD, the Celibacy discussion here or the current Donnelly AfD, consensus has been against inclusion and against the creation of a new article. If no proper article can be found to include the material in, perhaps it's best not to have the material on wikipedia. There is a point where it's enough. If a suitable article can still be found, of course, by all means go ahead and include the information but for re-creation of the article this is not the correct procedure and there appears to not be sufficient support for such a move among editor. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not really all that gung ho about trying to re-create the article, really. I just figured that I'd give it a whirl and see if it helps anything. My rationale behind it is mostly this: the previous version was very, very poorly created- most likely by people who are part of the incel community- and I figured that I'd try to create a better sourced version. If a better sourced version by someone who is not part of the incel community was deemed to still not pass notability guidelines on its own merits, then I figured that'd end the discussion once and for all about whether or not incel would belong on Wikipedia. That way they can't say that we didn't try everything or that we didn't try looking for sources and so on. By looking at the names on the previous AfD and discussion here, I'm fairly certain that people looked for sources, but I figured that this was at least they can't say that we didn't try or use any of the other common deletion review arguments. If the consensus here is to not include it at all or use my versions, I'm pretty OK with this. I just figured I'd give it a whirl just to say that we exhausted all possible avenues for inclusion, is all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I stand by what I stated above. And I again point to WP:Consensus can change. Articles are recreated all the time after having failed in a WP:AfD; this is often because the WP:AfD found the topic to be non-WP:Notable, but the topic is later found to actually be WP:Notable or later gains WP:Notability. WP:Consensus of a WP:AfD does not bar recreation of an article if the topic is found to actually be WP:Notable or later gains WP:Notability. It's clear to me why the previous Involuntary celibacy article was deleted: It was poorly sourced/structured, with medical terminology that got my fellow WP:MED editors fired up, and it looked non-WP:Notable. Wikipedia goes by policies and guidelines, or at least it is supposed to, with regard to its articles, and the version you created is WP:Notable (clearly satisfies that guideline). The topic of involuntary celibacy does not have to be taken up with the psychological/medical community for us to have a Wikipedia article on it. It is a social topic about sexual activity and identity and has been somewhat taken up by the sociological community, and has ties to the psychological community. We should not be rejecting creation of this material on personal tastes.

WP:Consensus can change states "proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive." Therefore, I advise you to save your draft somewhere (I will also save it), and then perhaps revisit it in a year or two (though "a year or two" can also be considered too soon) and start a WP:RfC at this talk page on whether or not the Involuntary celibacy article should be created (while pointing to your draft); I would suggest that you start it at that sandbox's talk page. But, if that sandbox and its talk page are ever deleted, there goes the documentation of the WP:RfC along with it (the only ones who will be able to see that then are WP:Administrators). Either that, or you add the topic to the Sexual abstinence article. Either way, if Wikipedia does cover involuntary celibacy, I think that the involuntary celibacy topic should briefly address the distinctions made between celibacy and sexual abstinence (even in the case of the Denise Donnelly article), like the Celibacy article does (though the Celibacy article understandably does that in more extensive detail); it should touch on the traditional way that celibacy is defined, be clear that the way the involuntary celibacy concept is defining celibacy is not the standard way that celibacy is defined, since celibacy is usually defined as voluntary. Doing this is per WP:Due weight; the majority view should be made clear even in an article about the minority view. Flyer22 (talk) 06:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: In the close for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly, Coffee also suggested a WP:RfC on the matter. But given this recent close, perhaps that WP:RfC should not be addressed until two years from now (not just a year from now). That stated, that article, just like the previous Involuntary celibacy article, seems to have been plagued by unfortunate matters, unfortunate matters that severely damaged any chance the article had of surviving the WP:AfD. I'm not sure if Coffee looked at Tokyogirl79's Involuntary celibacy draft, a draft that would clearly make for an encyclopedic article, but WP:Fringe topics are allowed space, even articles, on Wikipedia (per WP:Fringe). And if we can have a Wikipedia article on celibacy syndrome, we can certainly have one on involuntary celibacy. Either way, I don't care much about this topic, so whatever happens with it...happens. Flyer22 (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Celibacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100111024309/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a6.htm to http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a6.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080218110036/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG1104/__P3R.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3R.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Celibacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3R.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205100019/http://www.catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp to http://www.catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Celibacy in Jainism is missing

Considering that almost every Jain story and moral ends with a king/layman/warrior/etc giving up social life and becoming a monk, Celibacy must talk about Jainism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkshah2 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Paul the apostle listed as married

The article states (uncited): Paul the Apostle, also known as Saul of Tarsus, was also married

Arguably the most direct source we have on Paul, his own first dictate to the Corinthians states:

Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? I Corinthians 9:5 NKJV

This heavily implies that Paul was unmarried. 85.150.110.169 (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)