Active discussions
WikiProject Sexology and sexuality (Rated C-class, High-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religion (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.


The article homosexual celibacy redirects to this page, but this page lacks any mention of celibacy due to reasons involving sexual or gender identity, nor anything of that nature. While it probably can fall into reasons for celibacy, it could potentially be an additional section; I have therefore added an request for expansion. (And please don't suggest that it should go into the homosexuality article instead - that thing is huge already!) - Heartofgoldfish 15:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Not my area, but I'll consider it.--T. Anthony 15:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Catholic priestsEdit

Italic textI'd like to add something about Catholic priests, in terms of both celibacy and chastity. In particular, let's address the issue of homosexual priests. Since Catholicism does not deem homosexality itself sinful, a homosexual ought to be able to take the same vow of chastity (or celibacy?) as any other priest. Is this correct? Ed Poor

Yes -Ben

Not exactly. The recent Vatican document argues that celibacy in the sense of priestly celibacy is not a gift to someone who is homosexual and uninterested in marriage.

By the way, the old articles on celibacy and chastity were identical with the last paragraph of the Holy Orders article.

This looks like as good a place as any to put this:

The Catholic and Orthodox churches holds themselves to Canon 6 of the Council of Trullo in 692, which reads as follows:

"Since it is declared in the apostolic canons that of those who are advanced to the clergy unmarried, only lectors and cantors are able to marry; we also, maintaining this, determine that henceforth it is in nowise lawful for any subdeacon, deacon or presbyter after his ordination to contract matrimony but if he shall have dared to do so, let him be deposed. And if any of those who enter the clergy, wishes to be joined to a wife in lawful marriage before he is ordained subdeacon, deacon, or presbyter, let it be done." -Ben Brumfield

Two points: 1. it's the Council IN Trullo rather than OF. The Trullo was a part of the imperial palace at Constantinople, so it is like referring to the Capitol in our nation's Capital, or like the legislative affairs column in a state-capital newspaper being called "Under the Dome." Indeed, I think 'Trullo' may be a version of 'vault' or 'dome'. 2. The Latin Church did not accept the disciplinary canons of the Council in Trullo. Western rules on celibacy do not base themselves on that council (which also prohibited representations of Christ as a Lamb [Lamb of God] - one of the first signs of the coming Iconoclastic controversy). The rules for the non-Latin rites of the Catholic Church are actually separate (with their own ocde of canon law). MichaelTinkler

Original meaningEdit

"The old meaning of this term was "to have sexual intercourse only with one's wife".

Anybody got a source on the "the original meaning of celibacy" quote? The author seems to be describing what's sometimes referred to as "continence". -Ben Brumfield

Exactly. Leaving aside the fact that celibacy is a noun and "to have sexual intercourse only with one's wife" is a verb, I've checked OED and there's no evidence for any such meaning. The original sense was "unmarried" and the current one is "not having sex". Deleted that sentence. Flapdragon 6 July 2005 22:30 (UTC)

"To have sexual intercourse only with one's wife" is an infinitive phrase, which serves perfecly well as a noun phrase, as in "To have sexual intercourse only with one's wife is a worse fate than reading Wikipedia." The original sense was "unmarried", and the current sense is "unmarried"; the sense "not having sex" is used out of ignorance by people unfamiliar both with the word "celibacy" and the term "sexually abstinent". The manner in which this article vacillates between these senses without any apparent clue that two senses even exist, or that one of them is colloquial and very recent, is clear warning that this article, frankly, sucks. (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a response to Ed poor's post.

I believe that if you take a vow of chastisy you should keep it. It doesn't matter if you are homosexual or heterosexual. There have been a lot of things in the news about Priests sleeping with boys because "It is not against the doctrine" This kinda makes me mad. (Gothsrus (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

List of famous celibates?Edit

I wonder if this article could benefit from a "list of famous celibate people", like the "list of famous..." in other articles such as the one about homosexuality. A rather famous celibate is Paul Erdös, and Friedrich Nietzsche was also one by some accounts.

  • Friedrich Nietzsche died of Syphilis, now: where could he have contracted that as a celibatarian? Kraxler 16:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea.

I will add a list of notable celibates to the article. One I can think of is Anne Widdecombe. Walton monarchist89 17:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I could have sworn I saw something on TV that said Kyle Brady was celibate, but considering his article says he is married and has a son, that doesn't appear to be correct. Recury 16:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Thank you for resonding for my call to assistance, AdelaMae and Hideouslywrinkled. Unfortunately, there were some mistakes. The Reformers did not give alternative interpretations of verses cited in favor of celibacy. hey cited verses they thought were against it, and their reasoning belongs in the Humor section (read the verses they cited). If it was people outside the Church thinking married priesthood was a solution, it would not even be mentioned (Catholics do not tell Muslims what colors they should paint their mosques to attract converts). Unfortunately, this opinion is held by many high-rank officials in the Church (but note: the insincere ones). And, as I said previously, "The sectors of the Church where vocations are the highest are those where the Church's teachings are followed, and the sectors where these teachings are not followed have the lowest." The data DOES exist, but I need to find it.JBogdan 15:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Main reason for celibacy?Edit

Am I missing a vital piece of context for the "Reasons for celibacy" section of this article? It seems to me that the most obvious reason for celibacy, and one I would like to add to the list, is:

  • An inability to obtain a willing sexual partner, due to social awkwardness or anxiety, physical or mental handicap, or lack of physical attractiveness and/or financial resources.

Blackworm 01:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Consider it done. Chris Henniker 16:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like common sense. If you can't get something, you can't have it.--MartinUK (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge this with 'clerical celibacy'?Edit

I think this page should be merged with the entry about 'clerical celibacy'. While the content is partly the same, the entry for 'clerical celibacy' is more detailed, better structured and less biased. I stumbled upon the 'celibacy' entry when I wanted to find out something about the history of celibacy in the catholic church, but all I found was a biased argument why celibacy is a good thing and why all who say otherwise are 'insincere', 'uninformed' or 'humourous' (luckily, the latter two terms have been edited out). Even the external links don't provide information, but only propaganda for clerical celibacy. As you see, I think the 'clerical celibacy' entry is far superiour and this one should link to the other.

I agree. An article on "celibacy" that doesn't include clerics is fairly meaningless. Why would anyone care? Merge. A link to "clerical celibacy" is okay in the short run, but merge and delete this article long term. -student- 11/5/06

Other traditions following celibacyEdit

I have added some reference to celebacy being practiced in both Hindu and Buddhist traditions. Certainly it is not only practiced within the Christian world - maybe people could expand these areas in order to make the article more 'global' in it's focus. How is it seen in different countries and cultures around the world? 15:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed infobox for individual birth control method articlesEdit

Let's all work on reaching a consensus for a new infobox to be placed on each individual birth control method's article. I've created one to start with on the Wikipedia Proposed Infoboxes page, so go check it out and get involved in the process. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Why Musical Linguist is downgrading the Wikipedia by deleting contributions?Edit

I recently added a section about History of Celibacy. My additions showed when and who started the tradition of celibacy in Catholic Church.

Why Musical Linguist deleted them?

In my opinion he is downgrading Wikipedia by selectively editing chosen articles to enforce his agenda. The discussion about his other contribution clearly show that.

Please, let the moderator show his clear view and ban Musical Linguist from constant misediting wikipedia pages.

Thank you. User:

Why did she do it? - Because your edits were downgrading WP by adding false information.

  • Clerics (or laypeople) were never allowed by canon law to have concubines. Concubines are "unlawful" by definition.
  • Clerics were allowed to keep wives married before their ordination - in the Latin Rite up to the 11th century - in the Eastern Rites until today.
  • Clerics were never allowed to marry, only allowed to retain their wives, albeit under certain restrictions.
  • The ordinance of Pelagius I, if he issued such a thing, has nothing to do with marriages. It merely protects Church property and reiterates something that should be obvious to any moral person, Christian or not.
  • There is no doubt that many clerics had, in spite of canon law and morality, concubines and hence there are also reiterations of the ban, e.g. by Pope Benedict VIII.
  • The property question certainly has a part in the 11th century implementation of general celibacy, but you are overdoing it. Spiritual reasons were much more prevalent, as many believers demanded to have celibate priests.

Good day, Str1977 (smile back) 09:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Religious/clerical celibacyEdit

I would suggest the whole section on religious celibacy is too focused on the Catholic church. Of course it is a major topic of debate and interest within that Church, but surely the subject of the Catholic view of celibacy should be a subset (albeit a substantial one) of a general heading on celibacy due to religious belief, since practitioners of other variants of Christendom (and of other faiths) may also choose celibacy because of their beliefs. 23:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a seperate article on clerical celibacy that I think it would be better for this article to refer users to who are interested in that aspect of celibacy. The whole article needs a re0write and I've started to do a bit of a literature search (this not being my field, it takes days at the library which are few and far between :-). From what I've seen so far, we should have 4 sections on the "whys": religious belief and practice, physical/biological causes; social reasons (including involuntary celibacy); and cultural forces. There has been a request to cover homosexual celibacy (and the article homosexual celibacy points to this article), but from my search so far, homosexual celibacy doesn't seem to be rooted in anything different from hetrosexual celibacy. So I was thinking of incorporating homosexual perspectives throughout the article rather than having a seperate section. --SiobhanHansa 00:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is not that large. How much of it do you want to devote to homosexual celibacy? Is it really that important of a subset? (The figures I've seen indicate it might be overrepresented, but it'd still only be around 15%)--T. Anthony 04:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking it would be a huge bit, more that it would make it clear that (for the most part) reasons for celibacy, and approaches for handling it, were not related to sexual orientation. I'm still reading up on this, so I'm not clear how I'd do it. Feel free to edit yourself :-) --SiobhanHansa 13:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Lopsided viewsEdit

This article is very lopsided; more than half of it touches on the Christian aspect of celibacy. The practical and secular forms of celibacy (such as the involuntary celibacy experienced by professed nerds) are mentioned in the opening, but largely ignored by the rest of the article. Even the section which deals with reasons for celibacy makes a highly biased statement on celibacy by quoting the Apostle Paul verbatim at the end. I'm not sure how we could rebalance the article, because celibacy is usually associated with religion in the first place, but a good start might be to focus more on celibacy in non-Christian religions and the secular celibate. Johnleemk | Talk 17:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Nerdish celibacy" is not historically significant or studied enough to matter that much. Although there has been activists of a secular nature who decided to be celibate in order to devote more time to their respective movements. That was more true in the nineteenth century, and earlier, as sex then was more likely to lead to children. I believe several of the early feminists were celibate. And it might be too focused on Christians specifically Catholics. There have been Protestant celibates and among the Religious Society of Friends I think "spinster celibates" were not too unusual. I remember reading something on a Quaker site about them considering celibacy to be one among many sexual options a person may choose. There could maybe be a bit more on people on the autistic spectrum, as well as other conditions, as there are conditions/disabilities that are disproportionately celibate. I believe some autists find sex unpleasant or even disorienting because of neurological factors. Also I think a bit more on celibacy in Dharmic religions could be helpful.--T. Anthony 09:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the Shakers (distinct from the Quakers) should also be mentioned. They have practically died out as a sect because of celibacy and a failure to win converts. Ranthlee 23:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


This article needs a lot of cleanup. I made a start, but a lot more needs to be done. Here's what I see:

  • References: Still need 'em, especially in the light of creeping OR and POV. Perhaps some of the "External links" could be converted to references.
  • Roman Catholic clerical celibacy: A lot of this text should be removed, or moved to other articles. (Clerical celibacy, Clerical celibacy (Catholic Church), Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, etc.)
  • Secular celibacy: A lot more information about secular aspects of celibacy would help. Are there organizations or notable manifestos promoting secular celibacy? What about the historical view of the risks of celibacy (e.g green sickness)?

--Shunpiker 17:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

New Page from this one or references for this page?Edit

Just an idea, but can the medical opinions from this site be made into a new page for "Health Benefits of Celibacy"? There are many citations from doctors. Unfornuately some of the sources are only from the work of Dr. Bernard. But many of the sources are from the original author's directly. As108 02:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture suggestionEdit

This article lacks pictures. How about someone introducing a picture of a couple not engaging in sexual behavior before marriage. Perhaps a shot of people walking down a street, eating some ice-cream or having sexual intercourse. Oops - not that one :-) - Bennyboyz3000 07:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Islam sectionEdit

I have added the Islam section, with myself being a muslim and already knowing alot about celibacy in Islam.

I have researched alot about it before putting the info in, and have tried to make it as neutral as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Why were two celibate people removed?Edit

I added two very well known celibates, Jessica Simpson (took a vow of celibacy at 12 and remain a virgin until her marriage to Nick Lashey) and Britney Spears (famous for her celibacy as a teen) and they were removed without reason. Apparently these were not celibates as they were in their young 20s. I don't believe to be any sort of valid reason for a vow of celibacy to be valid, especially considering Jessica and Britney took a "vow of Celibacy" which is what the article is all about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 (talkcontribs) 15:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that these are cases covered by celibacy as it is discussed in this article. In the lede we define a vow of celibacy as a promise not to enter into marriage or engage in sexual intercourse (my emphasis). These two cases are more virginity pledges than vows of celibacy. -- SiobhanHansa 20:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Celibacy is defined as referring to be being either unmarried or to sexual abstinence., the cases mentioned cover both in this instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 (talkcontribs) 15:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You're reading that as an either one or the other case, but by that reasoning anyone who has sex but isn't married is celibate, which isn't what this article intends. I also think the two cases are much clearer examples of virginity pledges than celibacy. The list is, to be fair, a huge mess anyway, and it's not as though I think these are the only two poor inclusions. -- SiobhanHansa 14:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Siobhan - I can surely confirm that no, I'm not reading that as an either one or the other case, I'm using the exact definition given. Jessica Simpson in her case took a vow of celibacy, it doesn't get any clearer or more defined than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're using the idea that every person who is unmarried and is not currently engaging in sex is celibate and from that any star who has ever said that they are (or were once) unmarried and not engaging in sex is a notable celibate?
BTW the source you provided for Simpson does not mention a vow of celibacy - in fact it doesn't include the word celibacy or celibate, nor does it say she in anyway said she would refrain from marrying. It says she took a vow of chastity and that she envisioned wedlock as a fairy tale where she would remain a virgin for her husband which indicates that her vow of chastity did not include a conscious decision to refrain from marriage. I'm just pointing out that these are nuanced terms and you seem to be treating virginity, chastity and celibacy as interchangeable. -- SiobhanHansa 03:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am removing again the names of actress Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears a very-well know whore. Get married as a virgin do not implies celibacy. My grandmother and my mother and millions of peoples engaged in their weddings in virgin state, due this was be a cultural ethics. Don't be stupid your moron. Rodrigo Zauli —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

To the Wikipedia Team: Can we discard the above immature comments? I've re-applied the names Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with discarding the stupid/moron comment, though I think the rest of what he said was fine. How about having 2 separate sublists? One list could be for people who are permanently celibate, and the other list could be for people who are only waiting for marriage. Both categories are worth mentioning, but I think they should be separate. There's a big difference between someone who never has sex and someone who only has sex while married. --cowgod14 26 June 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 16:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who's over about 30 and is still a virgin is unusual in most societies today, but choosing to remain a virgin until marriage is not as unusual as the media might make you think. Some might slip from it if love takes a while to happen, or subsequently become keen on sex as seperate from love, but those who remain celibate because Mr/Mrs Right doesn't come along and they won't settle for Mr/Mrs Right Now are notable.--MartinUK (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

POV tagEdit

I'm doing POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have edited one of the reasons for celibacyEdit

The article read like this "An inability to find a sexual partner that one finds acceptable or tolerable" with a link to involuntary Celibacy. Involuntary Celibacy is if a person is unable to find a sexual partner. If one can find a sexual partner but refuse their Celibacy is not Involuntary it is due to their choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris smith jones (talkcontribs) 16:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A reason for celibacy?Edit

I was reading this article and I noticed that one possible reason for celibacy is missing. It is the reason I have chosen to become a celibate: I have a mental disorder that many people are trying to cure (I won't mention which one because it's not relevant in this context), and I have become a celibate so that I cannot have children and therefore cannot contribute to the continuation of this mental disorder's gene.

What I'm saying is, do enough people become celibates for the reason that they cannot reproduce and therefore not give their unborn children undesirable genetic qualities (like defects, mental disorders, ect.)? If so, would this be worth putting on this article? Pippin the Mercury (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a good thing to add, but you've got to find an article or something that mentions this so that you have a citation. Cowgod14 (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed the definitionEdit

The article insisted that celibacy means not being married and insisted that is wasn't about not having sex. It said that not having sex was "chastity." However, that's not what the page on chastity said. This definition of celibacy goes against how the word is used in the rest of the article and how it is used generally. I changed the definition to "not having sex," and included the less common meaning (that is still in dictionaries, though I've never heard the word used that way) at the end of the introduction. A good discussion of celibacy can be found on Another interesting discussion can be found an article that examines how the word celibacy is used: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Celibacy is not the same as chastity. To be celibate is to be unmarried. To be chaste is to not have sexual intercourse. (Oxford Universal Dictionary Third Edition: Celibacy - The state of living unmarried. Celibate - Unmarried, single, bound not to marry.) A person can be celibate and still have sex. Lettwoman70

Lettwoman70 is correct. Celibacy refers to ones state in regards to marriage. It does not mean "doesnt't have sex" To my limited knowlege there is no such word in English. The word is associted with that definition because in the Judeo/Christian tradition the married state is the only state in which sexual intercourse is acceptable. Even chastity refers to being true to ones married or unmarried state. Therefore, if one is married one may be said to be chaste if one only has sexual intercourse with one's spouse. I do however recognize that the "no sex" definition may be the more prevalent but this work is supposed to show the facts not what is commonly belived. I changed the definition to reflect this.--Kjrjr (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree and I challenge the person who changed the definition to... 'or not having sex' to find any reference to celibacy meaning 'not having sex' previous to Paris Hilton making the vow in the early 2000s. When Hollywood types like Paris Hilton wanted to make vows against having sex, they mistakenly (or on purpose) used the term for a vow of being unmarried 'celibacy' - because it sounds strange. Had she used the correct term like 'chastity', 'continence' or 'abstinence', she would've been saying 'I'm done being a slut for awhile.' PLEASE let's not have Hollywood morons inform our language! If Paris Hilton had said that she had taken a vow of 'Apocalypse' and other idiots followed her lead - would that be the new definition of Apocalypse? Here is a history of celibacy. You will see that the entire focus is 'marriage' not 'sex'.

Here's the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Celibacy, the state of being unmarried and, therefore, sexually abstinent, usually in association with the role of a religious official or devotee. In its narrow sense, the term is applied only to those for whom the unmarried state is the result of a sacred vow, act of renunciation, or religious conviction. Celibacy has existed in one form or another throughout history and in virtually all the major religions of the world."

Please change it back to the CORRECT definition: 'The state of being unmarried'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible copyvioEdit

Hi. Please see the article history. I removed text added by User_talk: which seemed to be a copyright violation from,8599,1906063,00.html - unless of course Time borrowed it from Wikipedia in the first place? DBaK (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Essay from User:Prithviraj chouhanEdit

Hi. Please see the article history. I removed what appeared to be a long and not entirely encyclopaedic essay from User:Prithviraj chouhan. Please feel free to discuss it here if you think it should be in. Thanks DBaK (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Celibacy on the Buddhist religion is missingEdit

I am not pro Buddhist but since the monastic tradition of Buddhism whether Mahayana or Theravada practiced celibacy for men & women for thousands of years is a good reason to add the Buddhist religion as one of the advocates of celibacy today.-- (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Catholic ChurchEdit

I have studied the Scriptures at length, and have failed to find the ancient tradition spoke of in this section. I also have found that the reference of "The Resurrection" spoken of by the Messiah may be taken out of context. If you read (it isn't hard to do) you will find that the resurrection is BEFORE judgment, when the Bride of The Elohim is chosen. After Judgment, they will be The Elohim's Bride, in Marriage.

I have also found, that there seems to be an inconsistency with the whole sentence that contains the phrase "celibacy is not a doctrine of the Church but a church rule or discipline." I would like some elaboration and explanation on this, as I thought (as written in Doctrine), a doctrine is a church rule, law, or discipline (systematic instruction given to a disciple. i.e. an instruction) which fits into "a body of teachings" or "instructions", as noted by Doctrine, as well as the fact that each of these "Church Rules" vary from system to system, they could even fit "as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system."

One more thing... I would love to see the passage in the Scriptures that allow the Church to go ahead and Override the Elohim's laws, change the festivals, change the day of rest/worship, and create these "new laws."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


I just skimmed through the article. I didn't read the resurrection bit so I'll leave that.

However the discipline vs doctrine question I can probably assist with. I believe what that is expressing is that Catholics don't believe that God requires priests to be celibate. So in that sense it isn't a doctrine. However there was a long history of problems with the call to live as eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven and the rule attempts to address that. Now I haven't looked at the definitions so you might be right but that is the distinction intended when the terms are used (misused).

You obviously like studying the scriptures at length so I invite you to focus on the New Testament to get the answer to your subsequent questions. Skip past the gospels and you will be getting warm. Since you don't use the term Jehovah can I assume you are a seventh day adventist or are you from a smaller group? Most Christians consider it licit to celebrate Christmas, have the Lord's day as our sabbath and organise housekeeping within the Church. If adventists are anything like their JW offshoots your Bible might be tweaked for your belief system. If so you might not find the stuff and I apologise for sending you on a wild goose chase. Yeenar (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

We read that "In the Roman Catholic Church the apostles were considered the first priests and bishops in the Church and the call to be eunuchs in Matthew 19 referred to above is considered to be a call to be sexually continent. This developed into mandatory celibacy for priests who are believed to be the successors of the apostles." I believe that mandatory celibacy is the order of the day in the RC Church so why is the RC Church state of affairs re this topic not removed from the 'Celebicy' section and instead posted in the Involuntary celibacy section?Eog1916 (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Because you won't be ordained to priesthood involuntarily.--Turris Davidica (talk) 09:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the Eog comment above. Who is to say that RC priest celibacy is voluntary or involuntary? By saying that the article on "Celibacy" refers to only voluntary celibates and inserting the RC priesthood under this, Wiki seems to be assuming that priests freely choose celibacy not just before ordination but throughout their priesthood. In fact, I know of many priests who left active clerical ministry because they struggled for years as involuntary celibate priests. Can we please improve on this asap; it is highly problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Needs coverage of health implicationsEdit

This article really should cover the health implications of celibacy. It kind of glosses over the health disadvantages. Zodon (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

They're really health implications of sexual abstinence rather than celibacy, so they're discussed at Sexual abstinence#Possible physical effects. Pais (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggest merging all celibacy entriesEdit

Currently there is an "involuntary celibacy" entry that exceeds the length of this main celibacy entry. By combining entries the main points will be sorted out and lead down the line to stronger interconnected pages on the topic. For now, there appears to be some pages with social focus, others with psychological, some with heavy opinion statements, etc. This main celibacy page is the correct venue to sort through content and potential wikipedia policy violations ( (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)).

Introduction that created disputeEdit

Please correct my point of view if I'm wrong, but I think that the key of celibacy is to avoid civil unions and sexual relationships (not intercourse!). And "abstention from sexual relationships" is correct, but not intercourse.

Maybe it never was. Maybe I'm just dumb. So... just note that. Thank you, (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No, celibacy means abstaining from sexual intercourse or other carnal pleasures. in most religions, this is tantamount to abstaining from marriage (since few if any religions condone sexuality outside of marriage), but the key element is maintaining physical purity. Note that religions often talk about the importance of celibacy prior to marriage (strict Catholic diocese, for instance, will insist that couples remain celibate during their engagement, and technically are supposed to refuse to marry couples that don't). Full celibacy (such as those that Catholic priests and nuns and Buddhist monks undertake) also prohibits marriage, but not because of the marriage itself: Priests and nuns are doctrinally married to Christ, and Buddhists surrender all worldly cravings. --Ludwigs2 05:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Definitions can be confusing, and celibacy is sometimes defined as abstaining from marriage. But as Ludwigs2 suggests, I think that definition stems from the days when "marriage" and "a relationship involving sexual intercourse" were effectively synonyms - and by remaining unmarried, that was effectively saying one was abstaining from sexual intercourse. Today, many people have active sex lives without marrying - but I really don't think anyone would consider that to be celibacy. And to add something to the Buddhist monk thing, in my wife's native Thailand, it's fairly common for married men to become monks for a temporary period - they are required to be celibate during that time, but that means abstaining from sexual intercourse, not getting a divorce. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Socio-sexual activity at a distanceEdit

Are people who engage in sexual activity with others at a distance, such as cybersex, sexting and phone sex regarded as celibate if they don't engage in any sexual activity in person with anyone? Does sex chat etc with someone who is miles away from the person mean that the person is not celibate, or does a person have to have actual sex to be not considered celibate? How about a person who chooses to take part in mutual masturbation whilst in the same room with someone, but chooses to never have intercourse - is he celibate? The article should state where the line is drawn to define the threshold of where celibacy begins and ends. (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Dada Bhagwan – The Science of CelibacyEdit

Practice of Celibacy There are two things in this world that one should not waste, One is money and the other is semen. Money should not be misused and one should practice Celibacy as much as possible. The ultimate extract of our nourishment is semen and it is dissipated and lost in sex. There are certain nerves in the body that help preserve semen and this in turn protects the body. Therefore, Celibacy should be preserved as much as possible.[38]

Celibacy (Brahmacharya) is the life force of the body (non-self). The ultimate essence of the food we eat and drink is Celibacy. If this essence, Celibacy disappears, then the foundation of the relative self to the Pure Self becomes unstable and loose. And then the exact experience and attainment of the Self becomes very difficult. Therefore, Celibacy is a critical spiritual practice. There is no end to bliss if there is Gnan (Knowledge of the Self) on one side and Celibacy on the other. Then it brings about an unbelievable change. It is because Celibacy is the life force and the essence of the body.[39]

Celibacy should be practiced with understanding. If the fruit of Celibacy is not moksha (Liberation) then,Celibacy is like castration. It will make the body good, strong, and good looking and would live longer. Even a bull becomes strong and healthy.[40]

[edit] The Keys to Practice Celibacy by Dada Bhagwan

• Unflinching determination to practice Celibacy with the support of Dada’s Science. Dada Bhagwan has shown a way to practice Celibacy; one should have the deep inner intent and second the person’s unflinching determination to do so.[41]

• 3 Vision - stops Sexual Vision: Dada Bhagwan’s three vision is exceptional and is a very powerful tool to help conquer Sexual Vision - the first vision is to see him/her without clothes, the second Vision awareness arises when the body is without the Skin and the third Vision is seeing the intestines, the kind the person sees when the stomach is cut open. Visualize the changes that occur within the intestines, see the blood vessels, fecal matter. This will stop sexual impulse arising.[42]

• True Repentance and Introspection to help overcome Sexual Thoughts in Akram Science, this is a practical day to day medicine that helps the person to overcome Sexual thoughts and desires. By doing repentance the person is washing away their thoughts or desires which occurred earlier and that helps further, next time the thoughts become weaker so it’s easier to deal with the situation in front of the person. If the has a thought of Sexuality, if the person throws away the thought within two seconds, then the thought completely disappear.[43]

• The Keys of Celibacy for Married People, This science of Celibacy will liberate anyone, and is applicable to even married people. It is ignorance of the Self that is the obstruction.[44]

• Exclusive Nature Of Celibacy In Akram Science, If the person takes the Knowledge of the Self through the Self Realization process, then to practice Celibacy would be very easy. [45] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorajinesh (talkcontribs) 10:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Vorajinesh (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Two problems. This is all based on primary sources. And the author's reliablility and usefulness is recognized by no own outside of his small, fringe religious community. Independent mainstream scholars have not discussed this seiously and in depth. It therefore violates both WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Celibacy and sexual abstinenceEdit

Refererring to this [2] changement: The same IP has repeatedly changed the reasoned and much more detailed statement that celibacy and sexual abstinence are not the same to the meaning that they are the same. Please note: the former statement has been mutally referenced, amongst others by specialist literature.--Turris Davidica (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, "repeatedly" means twice. This is also the number of times my changes have been undone by Turris.

First, what is claimed above is false. I did not write that abstinence and celibacy are the same. I wrote that they are similar, but subtly different, reference two online dictionary sources. Here they are for your consideration:

cel·i·ba·cy   [sel-uh-buh-see]

1.abstention from sexual relations.

2.abstention by vow from marriage: the celibacy of priests.

3.the state of being unmarried.


1: the state of not being married

2a: abstention from sexual intercourse b: abstention by vow from marriage

(Merriam Webster)

As can be easily understood from these two independent sources in agreement, "celibacy" refers either to the state of being unmarried or is defined as a subtype of abstinence.

Second, the use of Gabrielle Brown's book is highly inappropriate. It is an opinion and self-help type book, not a reference for defining words. The phrase referenced is "abstinence is a response on the outside to what's going on, and celibacy is a response from the inside". The definition provided, then is "celibacy is a response from the inside" (inside of what? what kind of response? a response to what?) This definition is inaccurate and false.

I don't know if Turris is attempting to change the definition of celibacy or to sell Gabrielle Brown's book, but this section needs to be fixed. You can't have a reasonable discussion of a word without first defining the word accurately. (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

External linksEdit

Previously I removed these two links from the article. They were put back in with the request to explain my objections against them:

See WP:ELYES: What can normally be linked. Number 1 and 2 clearly do not apply. Point 3 says: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article ..."
The links that were added are in no way neutral. They reflect a spiritual teacher's point of view. In spite of the name, there is nothing scientific in the second link "Celibacy with Scientific Understanding". These are "just" teachings. I mean, in which peer-reviewed journal has this "scientific understanding" been published?

See also WP:ELNO: Links normally to be avoided. Number 4: Links mainly intended to promote a website. The last week or so, these Dada Bhagwan links have showed up at different places in Wikipedia, and you've probably noticed that I have removed a lot of them. I understand that you probably feel deeply about Dada Bhagwan but Wikipedia is not the place to promote him.
Namaste, Lova Falk talk 13:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Psychological/Evolutionary Explanation?Edit

I think we should cover the psychological and/or evolutionary explanation for this behaviour. I'm sure someone must have covered it.. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Information rearrangementEdit

This page, Clerical celibacy, Clerical celibacy (Catholic Church) for example seem to cover somewhat overlapping topics - is there a better way we could divvy up all of this information, leaving only brief mentions of the related articles, with section hatnotes leading to the proper main articles? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


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 [3]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. [4] [5] 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 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.Edit

'Actually I am not sure that it was unconstructive edit of an IP.[6] 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: [7] [8][9][10] [11][12] Hafspajen (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

My revertsEdit

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)


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. (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? (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. (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. (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Requests for commentEdit

Exclude from this page. A consensus of editors felt the material should either be outright deleted or would be better placed in a different existing article, and thus, should be excluded here in any case, but without prejudice to the inclusion of some or all of the material at a different existing article.

For me, one of the most interesting questions raised by this RfC was the relationship of the AfD consensus to the consensus of editors here, a question which has a direct effect on how to weight views for inclusion here based on the AfD. Here I've given some additional weight to the RfC consensus as being more relevant than the AfD consensus. The AfD process, where I spend quite a bit of time, is particularly focused on the question of whether to retain an article as an article or not, and the results tend to be a bit rough around the edges. This discussion appears better focused on the question of the specific text, is not greatly narrower in the number of editors participating in the AfD, and presumably involves editors who are, on average, more familiar with the articles and subject matter, and, on average, are going to be presumed to have better editorial judgment than those of us (like myself) who arrive at these discussions as policy wonks. Taken as a whole, these specifics lead me to believe this discussion is more relevant than the AfD to the present question.

This is less a matter of WP:CCC than a weighing of context.

This discussion does not preclude, in my view, the inclusion of the material at another existing article, I do not find there to be a general consensus on that question, nor would this discussion really be the right place for it. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
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. (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. (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; [13]. 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)
  • 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. (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 articleEdit

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 workupEdit

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)

Merger proposalEdit

I propose that Sexual abstinence and Chastity be merged into this article, and perhaps add a section describing the etymology and varying uses of the three terms. It does not seem that they are sufficiently different to warrant three articles. As per WP:Merging#Reasons for merger, pages should be merged if "There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept." It's hard to argue that these three concepts don't have a large overlap.

Elizabeth Abbott, a historian of celibacy/abstinence/chastity, writes in her book A History of Celibacy (p. 3),

I also drafted a definition of celibacy that discarded the rigidly pedantic and unhelpful distinctions between celibacy, chastity, and virginity, all of which I used as key words in my research. The fact is that, despite dry, dictionary distinctions, they are, practically, synonymous. (emphasis added)

I agree with this sentiment, except that I think virginity can meaningfully be kept separate.

The reason I think the other two pages should be merged into this one is simply because this one gets more traffic according to this tool. Handcuffed (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose merging Sexual abstinence into Celibacy article, per reasons stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination) when editors were trying to decide whether or not to merge Involuntary celibacy into this article. As made clear in that WP:AfD debate, and in the Celibacy article, celibacy is far more associated with religious beliefs than sexual abstinence is. Though the terms celibacy and sexual abstinence are often used interchangeably, they are often distinguished as well. When medical sources and similar sources are speaking of sex education and safe sex, the term sexual abstinence, not celibacy, is usually used to indicate the choice to abstain from sexual activity. The Celibacy article is big enough as it is, and the term sexual abstinence is WP:Notable enough in its own right to warrant its own article. Because of how these two terms are often distinguished, celibacy is more so an aspect of sexual abstinence rather than vice versa. These two Wikipedia articles existing is appropriate WP:Content forking. As for the Chastity article: The term chastity is as wrapped up in religious beliefs as the term celibacy is, as indicated by the Chastity article, so it may be fine to merge it into the Celibacy article. But notice that the lead of the Chastity article currently states, "In the Western world, the term has become closely associated (and is often used interchangeably) with sexual abstinence, especially before marriage." So that is also an argument for merging it into the Sexual abstinence article; however, if the term chastity is not as associated with the term sexual abstinence outside of the Western world, it would be a form of WP:Systematic bias to give the Western usage of the term special weight and merge the Chastity article into the Sexual abstinence article. I'm not sure about merging the Chastity article; it's a historical term that came to refer to the chastity of girls and women more than the chastity of boys and men. Flyer22 (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We have enough problem as it is to keep concepts clean. Hafspajen (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Like the two other editors above, addionally: Chastity is not necessarily the same thing as sexual abstinence. At least the concept of the RCC of chastity includes sexual relationships between married couples. There will be a helluba of problems when merging chastity/sexual abstinence/celibacy against that background. And: why? There is enough stuff to write on any of this topics.--Turris Davidica (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Just because some obscure person at some less known university came up with some results on something that got deleted and unfortunatelly merged here - plus a woman who wrote a book, where she says that she is NOT using the word as the dictionary does, but in a different way. We just simply can't change the encyclopedia and the general common use of those words because of two atypical sources. Hafspajen (talk) 09:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose merger -- "Sexual abstinence" is a technical term referring to genital activity, while "Chastity" is a traditional moral/religious virtue and state of mind, while "Celibacy" is basically the state of not being married. I fail to see how obscuring these distinctions would give a useful result... AnonMoos (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed the top-of-article tagging, since the merge proposal has clearly failed at this point (as far as the discussions of the last three weeks are concerned). AnonMoos (talk) 09:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Expand each topic, not merge. The disputed topic seems to be real,and appropriate for an article.Reading over the material at the various locations, I am rather puzzled why it was regarded as fringe in the first place. There seems over the years to have been a consistent effort to remove all serious discussion of less usual forms of sexuality from WP; we seem much more comfortable discussing pornography. It makes an odd mixture. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
DGG, the above merger proposal is not about involuntary celibacy. Flyer22 (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


The feminist group Cell 16, founded in 1968 by Roxanne Dunbar, was known for its program of celibacy and separation from men, among other things. [1][2] Considered too extreme by many mainstream feminists, the organization acted as a sort of hard left vanguard.[3] It has been cited as the first organization to advance the concept of separatist feminism.[2][4] In No More Fun and Games, the organization's radical feminist periodical, Cell Members Roxanne Dunbar and Lisa Leghorn advised women to "separate from men who are not consciously working for female liberation"

Moved all this into article Feminism. This is the theoretical foundation for lesbian separatism, and has nothing to do with this article. Stop adding it here. Hafspajen (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC).

Ok, but the article Feminism deleted it. Maranjosie (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Did they? Blast. Why? Hafspajen (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The comment by the person who removed it was "Rv recent edits on celibacy as WP:BRD; seems quite UNDUE and FRINGE" (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^ Bevacqua, Maria. Rape on the Public Agenda: Feminism and the Politics of Sexual Assault (2000) ISBN 1-55553-446-5
  2. ^ a b Echols, Alice. Daring to Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America, 1967-75, University of Minnesota Press, 1990, ISBN 0-8166-1787-2, p164
  3. ^ Heath and Potter. Feminism For Sale. This Magazine (2005) [1]
  4. ^ Saulnier, Christine F. Feminist Theories and Social Work: Approaches and Applications (1996) ISBN 1-56024-945-5

Wikipedia:Deletion review#Involuntary celibacyEdit

Whether or not to recreate the Involuntary celibacy article is up for discussion at WP:Deletion review. Flyer22 (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Requesting permission to restore User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy to mainspace - another round of AfDEdit

I'm not an admin, but I hope that no one minds me jumping in here to close this - please let me know if this is an issue. I've taken some time reading through this and the previous discussions, and I fail to see any significantly new points raised in this discussion, and the general overview of this is tending towards a no consensus overall. While there do appear to be sources, and it may pass GNG, it does not appear to have significant MEDRS, or if it does, these are yet to be raised. Additionally, issues have been raised over the style of the writing and it's sutability for Wikipedia.
Overall, therefore, there is no consensus to restore the content at this time. However, there is a consensus that, if the issues are addressed, this may be restored to mainspace in the future through a DRN discussion. Mdann52 (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
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.

User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View RFC/AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL))


I've noticed a growing trend on Wikipedia which diverges from our initial goals with a dangerous precedence being set. Our goal is to document the world based on verfiability and notability. It is here that we have the right to document the unusual apart from the usual with a neutral point of view. Mainstream acceptance has never been a requirement, while this social phenomenon is unusual to rare there are enough secondary reliable sources to deem it notable. I feel in many ways the previous close was against consensus. We have the term no consensus for a reason such as this case when there is no consensus. The ensuing dispute only emphasizes the lack of consensus.

Upon reviewing the sources, this topic has been covered both academically and by mainstream media including a documented shooting which the perpetrator directly specified incelism as a motivate. I've added an additional six citations to tokyogirl's version the argument that this lacks notability or is not a social condition simply does not hold. I am requesting that the current version be moved to the mainspace. Valoem talk contrib 19:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Administrative note: I've transcluded this nonstandard AFD (in an RFC format) to today's AFD log, in order to receive the maximum amount of community exposure for this nonstandard request. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • CommentI doubt I would have chosen this way to do it, but I suppose IAR is enough of a justification. What we need to discuss is the issue DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • DGG: Yeah, this was a hard call for myself... but since we're having a discussion about undeleting an article and returning it to the mainspace, I invoked IAR and figured AFD would be the best route. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • no restoration the deletion review decision was correctly decided as was the AfD it was discussing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
There has to be a way of reviewing decisions, even Del Rev. And an RfC at WP does have the advantage that it can essentially do anything. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Although this is notationally true, I would point out that an RfC that lacks consensus cannot do anything; the default is that things remain they way they are (which, in this case, means the article remains deleted.) I'm still marginally side-eying the idea of using an RFC as an end-run around the somewhat stricter standards of DRV; but it is clear at this point that this particular RFC is never going to reach the level of support that would be necessary to restore the article. --Aquillion (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No restoration. Not having sex is called celibacy, and we already have an article that covers this mainstream, traditional issue. "Incel" does not exist outside the fringiest realms of fringe science, there has been no change in the sourcing attempts in this article over the years. It's the same people, Donnely and Gilmartin (both have had BLPs deleted) ,cited pushing the same fringe. If this closes as no endorsement to restore, I'd like to see at least a 1-year moratorium on recreation and in indefinite topic ban on Valorem. We shouldn't be subjected to the same degree of POV-pushing and advocacy year after year after year. Tarc (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • No restoration. Not having sex for mainly religious reasons is called celibacy. That is why the Celibacy article belongs to the Wikiproject Religion. And PLEASE respect other editors decisions, we had this discussion like in December 2014. Hafspajen (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • - no restoration- Comment I think Coffee's idea to make it an RfC is a good one, as more eyes is good. As far as mainspace, I don't see any improvement on the material discussed when it was nominated for deletion. It is still cobbled-together material written like an essay to give an imaginary condition some form of substance. The fact that someone committed homicide and blamed this, and that people would take that at face value, is alarming. The result was merge but none of the material is mergeable. Hence should not be in mainspace. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • No restoration. This is plainly a neologism; I don't see any particular evidence that the sources cited below are talking about the same thing. To the extent that it's worth covering, I would expect it to be initially covered by a subsection of the Celibacy article (which could get its own article if and when it becomes clear that there's enough noteworthy material to support an independent article); but I doubt that it is really noteworthy enough or has sufficient coverage to support even a significant section there. The idea of going straight from no mention on the main Celibacy article to having its own article seems bizarre to me. Beyond that, the appropriate place to take this is DRV, not here; I don't feel that it is at all appropriate to use a RFC to try and restore an article that has received such extensive discussion in the past. --Aquillion (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, @Tarc: I have been nothing but civil throughout this debate. I was never involved any prior debates regarding this topic except the last DRV. This encyclopedia is founded on debate and discussion. To suggest a 1 year topic ban because I civilly requested further discussion on a subject (a second time) is nothing short of the thought policing we built this encyclopedia to destroy. What I do is what we should all do, surf through topics and subjects deemed notable and create or restore them. This is how we expand this encyclopedia, and was how we built Wikipedia. I have a history of challenging consensus, UFO sightings in outer space, Dieselpunk, Justin Knapp, and The Halal Guys. Upon reviewing the sources in this article, I see the same prejudice to concepts we are unfamiliar with. Web MD and others show the undeniable notability of this subject and show it is distinct from celibacy. Though the term is an oxymoron, to say that it makes the concept null is absurd. We document what is notable not accepted:
  • Olson, Carl (2007). Celibacy and Religious Traditions. Oxford University Press. p. 127. ISBN 9780198041818.
  • Donnelly, Denise; Burgess, Elisabeth ; Anderson, Sally ; Davis, Regina ; Dillard, Joy (2001). "Involuntary Celibacy: A Life Course Analysis". The Journal of Sex Research 38 (2): 159–169. Retrieved 19 May 2014.
  • Hawes, Joseph M. (2002). The Family in America: An Encyclopedia, Volume 2. ABC-CLIO. pp. 131–132. ISBN 9781576072325.
  • O'Brien (editor), Jodi (2008). Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Volume 1. SAGE. p. 120. ISBN 1412909163.
  • Lehmiller, Justin J. (2014). The Psychology of Human Sexuality. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 232. ISBN 1118351215.
  • Dirk van Zyl Smit, Sonja Snacken (2009). Principles of European Prison Law and Policy: Penology and Human Rights. Oxford University Press. p. xliii. ISBN 9780191018824.
  • Vines, Matthew (2014). God and the Gay Christian. Convergent Books. ISBN 9781601425171.
  • Hinsch, Bret (2013). Masculinities in Chinese History. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 126. ISBN 1442222336.

It is clear this subject has notability I am seeing significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Published works subject to editorial review is notable, Web MD is notable. There are 15 other sources in the article subject to both peer and editorial review. Prior debates all deletes are revolved around WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:I HAVENTHEARDOFIT. If this subject is not notable I need an explanation as to why. Please breakdown each individual source and compare it to the sources found in celibacy. We do document the unusual, it is as simple as that. Valoem talk contrib 01:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Same squeezing-blood-from-a-stone that one sees from partisans all this time in this project; name-drops, unreliable sources, aspects that are already addressed, and so on. That's the part you keep whiffing on; sex abstention is a long-documented and much-discussed thing, but it is a choice one makes. What is fringe and non-notable here is the pseudo-scientific view that there's an "involuntary" aspect to it. Tarc (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
How are they unreliable, that seems to be the trend when dealing with topics considered unusual. First claim the source is fringe (which in this case it is not) and then claiming sources are unreliable without divulging into why. We are looking at published sources subject to editorial oversight. By your definition nothing is reliable and one can always use that argument. Valoem talk contrib 01:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Valoem left a message on my talk page about this discussion. I would certainly have seen this discussion and participated, even without that note.

    I revised my position on this several times during the DRV. On reviewing what was said there, I'm still of the view that there's an encyclopaedic article to be written here, based on Tokyogirl's draft, but I think the article should be called "Sexual inactivity". I'm now persuaded that we should not have an article called "Involuntary celibacy".—S Marshall T/C 02:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

While I'm inherently dubious about this as an encyclopedic subject, there do seem to be sufficient references to justify it... that some men are driven to violence as a result of mental problems due to a lack of an outlet for their sexual urges seems well supported, even though distasteful. It is (from my understanding) fairly well known that a lack of 'sexual outlets' can cause psychological issues, even if the text as it stands it not particularly descriptive of the issue. That the subject in and of itself seems misogynist is not a reason for exclusion... that the lack of sexual relations with women can cause psychological problems for men is a legitimate topic, and the article can be improved through the normal editing process. Reventtalk 02:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore tho I am not quite sure of the title, or whether we might not need several articles. As was earlier mentioned, "Not having sex for mainly religious reasons is called celibacy." -- but that's actually a reason for keeping this, because there are other reasons for celibacy than that, and the referenced content in the article shows it. I think it absurd to ask for a topic ban for something that has been patiently worked on undisruptively despite opposition, which might conceivably appear to be represent a show of prejudice against the topic. If so, policy would be to disregard !votes that appear to have such a basis. But in the circumstances it was perfectly reasonable to ask if there was any support for it before going ahead yet again--it shows prudence, not canvassing. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not restore to mainspace - 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 and request of undeletion. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
that the merge was in fact a deletion (as you admit yourself), was improper--that's not what merge means, and doing deletion under the pretense of a merge is one of the indications of possible prejudice against the article topic. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Not at all, DGG. The topic was deemed unfit to have it's own standalone article, so the result was merge and keep as a section of the celibacy article. Editors of the celibacy article overwhelmingly agreed the content did not fit in the page, discussed the matter extensively, got moderators involved and asked for other people's opinions. It was then decided to remove the information from the celibacy article. Then someone created an article for Denise Donnelly, as a way of keeping a mention of "incel" on Wikipedia. The article was marked for deletion, and consensus was it should be deleted. A subsequent deletion review also ended without a majority supporting recreation, and the previous deletions were not deemed improper. Making this attempt number four. As I said back in December, I would not oppose to a compromise, provided it is a reasonable and workable compromise that both the supporters and opposing views can agree on. Call me optimistic if you will, but I think a lot of the problems people have with the article is based on its name. An article titled sexual inactivity (covering both voluntary and involuntary sexual inactivity), or perhaps a mention at sexual frustration (which is exactly the same thing as "incel") would also suffice. A lot of the sources used to justify an "involuntary celibacy" article do not specifically mention the term involuntary celibacy, and the same can be said for many potential sources mentioning the phenomenon of not having sex (while wanting to). I'm sure this gives us some leeway with how to name the article. Once we can agree on a reasonable title, I think that would really smoothe out the process for @Valoem. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Your assertion that celibacy is always "a voluntary condition by definition" is wrong. The main (and before the late 20th century, the only definition) is "the state of not being married". Webster's Practical Illustrated Dictionary of 1943 lists only one definition: "celibate state; single life". No marriage == celibate, according to those dictionaries. You might be used to people using them differently (you might also be used to people thinking that alright is a single word), but that doesn't remove the importance of marriage in the primary definitions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • KEEP This book seems to suggest that involuntary celibacy has been the subject of significant academic research. The Telegraph suggests the phrase "involuntary celibacy" has become a part of the internet vernacular. This book and this book both have an entire chapter devoted specifically to involuntary celibacy. There is a large body of high quality source material and I have not seen any arguments as to why we wouldn't create a space for the information contained in these sources. Regarding Celibacy, it seems to have much too heavy a focus on religion and involuntary celibacy should be on that article as well, probably using Summary Style. Webster's definition of celibacy doesn't even mention religion and the Free Dictionary only mentions it under one of the two possible definitions.[14] CorporateM (Talk) 16:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment' - CorporateM - the sentence involuntary celibacy does occur outside marriage ... is just a pure logical mess . Or you live in celibacy - and then do not have any sex, or you are married - and that is NOT celibacy per definition. Also Donnelly is not a professor, that book is not serious. Your first reference. Just look at [this history]. Blocked User :Candleabracadabra created this page as a pure disruption. Hafspajen (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - And about that note in the The Telegraph: Last week, 18-year-old Ben Moynihan was found guilty of attempting to stab three women to death in Portsmouth over the summer of 2014. During the spree, Moynihan taunted police with a series of bizarre notes that blamed his actions on his inability to lose his virginity. Women were "fussy", he said, adding that he'd "[grown] up to believe them as a more weaker part of the human breed". Just in case you were about to mistake him for a misunderstood romantic, he helpfully added: "All women need to die and hopefully next time I can gouge their eyes out." '- Wow, great. He is suffering from incel (Involuntary celibacy)? Also The Telegraph doesn't mention it as a widespread use, but in dank corners of the internet and it does not mention it as a term but something cited or as a citation: (as [so called by them] 'involuntary celibacy' ) - just check source. In these dank corners of the internet, a whole language has developed for 'beta males' to bemoan their 'involuntary celibacy' and discuss techniques used by Pick Up Artists (remember Julien Blanc?) to attract the opposite sex. - This is how is mentioned in The Telegraph. I am praying already for all those woman not to walk in into these traps. Hafspajen (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • ? What policy are you invoking here? How does this deny the notability of the subject? Valoem talk contrib 21:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Denise Donnelly, a Georgia State University associate professor of sociology, and how might I ask does this make the subject not notable? Also the current version being discussed is not that version posted by Candleabracadabra. Valoem talk contrib 19:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) - There is no other notable or widespread academic use of this term outside Denise Donnelly's own works or this Incel blog... Also I might regret this what I am going to say - but - I sincerely suspect she is part of this Incel blogg, and in that case it is no independent research. I also hope that this is not any of her own try to get this idea into Wikipedia to reach a bigger range for her ideas. Hafspajen (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weakly in favor of moving to article space under another name - Sorry, but the inherent contradiction in "involuntary celibacy" seems to me to be more dubiously notable than the subject of "involuntary abstinence" which seems to me to be a much more neutral and very likely less trendy title. Sexual abstinence seems to me to be both a much less problematic related term, and on that basis I think "Involuntary abstinence" is a more acceptable title as it is less problematic in terms of actual linguistic meaning of the words, less RECENTist, and probably overall a better fit with COMMONNAME. John Carter (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
My issue with this is that sources certainly state the condition is Involuntary celibacy, this would contradict common names, would it not? Valoem talk contrib 19:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Urban Dictionary has pretty similar definitions for both terms.[15][16] and both terms seem to have plenty of source material.[17][18]. Each term seems to carry slightly different connotations. I think either term would be fine, with a redirect and a section documenting the debate about definition. CorporateM (Talk) 21:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Were you joking about Urban dictionary in this serious discussion? The definitions on there are vile and insulting. --Rent A Troop (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • As I said at the previous discussions that this thing has NOTHING TO DO with real celibacy. Celibacy is religious. This is a kind of sexual frustration - and I offered as a solution this many times as a workable compromise -to add it there - but Valoem and the other re-creators doesn't and didn't want or wanted to hear about this compromise. Overall no compromise at all. Sexual frustration is frustration caused by a discrepancy between one's desired and achieved sexual activity. Of all above explanations that is exactly what the incel is. Sexual frustration is an article that has two lines, by the way. If incel would find its way to this article, added as the term incel means this and that but it is not celibacy only called celibacy - in the word strict meaning, but ... this and that. I said all the time that it should be added there but nobody will listen, but instead try to reinforce its connections with real celibacy -and in this case it becomes a fringe theory. But it is perfectly acceptable to add it to sexual frustration I strongly encourage that solution, as I actually always did, and still do as an emergency solution. Hafspajen (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
BUT - as the article is written now: Involuntary celibacy or incel (also sometimes referred to as "love shyness" or being "love shy"[1]) is a term used to describe individuals who are routinely celibate for involuntary reasons as opposed to doing so voluntarily.[2][3] Well this to start with - is wrong. The very description of the first line is already not encyclopedic because it serves this as a regular definition. And celibacy is voluntarily. The article will set up a totally different definition. And people of course will say ; nooo, celibacy that is not what it is defined in the Oxford dictionary , cos I read that on Wikipedia, they say something different. And I guess that is exactly the meaning with this crusade. Than it continues The term has gained popularity in recent years - that's one bit that is OK - and goes on but has been utilized in the past by persons such as Theodore Parker and Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth, as it applied to unmarried persons and Christianity. -Well, I doubt the part about Karl Barth. He was talking about Paul the Apostle in the cited part. Hafspajen (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Celibacy is not necessarily "voluntary" if you're looking at the primary definitions of the term in actual dictionaries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Bullshit. "Involuntary celibacy" is an oxymoron, and this is the firs time I ever whote bullshit on Wikipedia and I feel this is the time I really need to say so. Hafspajen (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary breakEdit

  • Comment Is "Involuntary celibacy" some buzzwords or jargon used just to label a potential condition or is it officially being used as a diagnosis or etc? It is a risk of turning Wikipedia into a statement instead of a summary collection of documents if this is all hearsay or a collection of observations for now. I took a look at the page's references and they seem to be a collection of personal views or make trivial mentions of Involuntary celibacy without elaborating what it exactly is. Other references seem to speculate what it is and number 6, 18 requires a log-in in order to view the source. However prison would impose involuntary celibacy as highlighted in source number 10. Source number 13 I think needs to be removed because being castrated was a condition for accepting the job as a eunuch. Source number 19 is small mention on allegations and speculation of Involuntary celibacy. Source number 21 is the Washington Post reporting or relaying what Elliot Rodger labeled himself as a alleged involuntary virgin. Along with source 22 as another allegation of his "incel". Source number 23 is reporting on supposed "incels" on a forum related to Elliot Rodger which the forum PUAhate no longer exist. Source 24 is just reporting on Elliot Rodger and only make a small mention of Involuntary celibacy. I think source 19, 21, 22, 23(possibly 24) also need to be removed. The sources that stood out to me as describing Involuntary celibacy would be 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 17. I'm beginning to lean towards a deletion or merger of the article now after checking out the sources on the subject. --Rent A Troop (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Rent A Troop - "Involuntary celibacy" is some kind of buzzwords or jargon used just to label a potential condition and it is not officially being used as a diagnosis. Hafspajen (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Who altered my comment? I was asking a question at the beginning and it has been removed. The question wasn't directed at a single person --Rent A Troop (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Rent A Troop: How did you come up with merger or deletion. The guidelines established by GNG would suggest that even those sources would be enough to demonstrate notability and allow a separate article. Valoem talk contrib 20:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
As you say it is suggested, but Wikipedia:Notability also mentions, "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." There is also this section, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." WP:NRV. "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." WP:WHYN. I also think allowing this page to be restored would be borderline WP:NOTNEWS, but I'm not entirely sure on that part yet. --Rent A Troop (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - To be clear, I saw this discussion here highlighted here recently. I take no position on the question asked here in this RfC, and I have not been a fan of Wikipedia's DRV process at all for some time now. However, this RfC appears to be trying to circumvent DRV though, which I'm sure has its own process(es) for review (?), and should not, IMHO, be circumvented. Might things need changing at DRV (with a lot of "new blood" to start out with)? Sure, but this isn't the way to start that kind of process. No Wikipedia article is so critical that it can be used to circumvent Wikipedia's established processes. Really people...nothing good can come from an RfC like this. Guy1890 (talk) 03:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Err, maybe it can be moved or piped to the DRV location? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a DRV would be better, as it stands the content in this article is notable. Review WP:GNG shows this passes each and every requirement. Denise Donnelly also passes WP:PROF two closes should reflect the lack of consensus on this topics, not deletion. Valoem talk contrib 09:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
No it's not notable. The impact is on people's psychological health, hence needs some consensus-type references indicating that it acually exists...which it doesn't have. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
This not the requirements set by WP:GNG, to suggest that this must be an accepted medical condition and to apply WP:MEDRS is wrong, social conditions are notable the sources are more than acceptable and define this as a social condition. Valoem talk contrib 12:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem is, there may be a nugget of viability here in discussing a medical or social condition, but it has been warped and co-oped by the fringe nuttery of this "love shyness" bullshit. THAT is the true fringe here, the people who have been trying for several years to advance their agenda by using the Wikipedia as a PR vehicle. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Rename and restore The word "celibacy" has a certain meaning which is more loaded with implication than the content of this article is trying to express. The title should be deconstructed so as not to coin a WP:NEOLOGISM and reflect the sources which discuss this concept without using this term. In my opinion, the major barrier here is a troublesome title and a lack of definition and differentiation of this concept versus similar concepts. I oppose restoring this article without a name change from the use of celibacy because in my opinion, that word is the source of most trouble and that trouble will not go away without ceasing to use that word. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - To be clear, I agree with what Bluerasberry said above. The word "celibacy" has a certain meaning which is more loaded with implication than the content of this article is trying to express. If the article shall ever be written that it should be going something like :
1) The word Incel is a neologism coined by a blog site supporting young men with difficulties .... etc, etc.
2) It should pass on the historical references. Anyone who studied some history of ideas would react to that, because it is wrong.
3) Should also contain a reference to the celibacy's true (Encyclopedic) definition.
4) All this done, then start developing the issue according to the incel- community, but still staying stricly NPOV.
5) (Preferably - but not necessarily) could be added to sexual frustration, considering that the article sexual frustration is only two lines, and it is the very same topic. Not to celibacy though. Hafspajen (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

:@Blue Rasberry: Do you have any suggestions what the new name should be?--Rent A Troop (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Blue Rasberry: I'll skip over the questioning and get to the point. You're saying the article has a problem with the title because its a coined phrase and violates the WP:NEOLOGISM. So you want the original title removed and have Wikipedia create new phrase to label it. That process doesn't make any sense. --Rent A Troop (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
If we rename this it would be pure WP:NEO, there are more sources out there than just this blog. Sexual frustration is not involuntary celibacy, the two are separate conditions one can be sexually active and still frustrated, Incel defines a very specific condition which each source suggests is separate. I believe some parts of the article is sexual inactivity, the other belongs strictly to involuntary celibacy. We have to start somewhere. Valoem talk contrib 19:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Valoem Rent A Troop WP:NEO is a policy about making new terms. As I understand, "Involuntary celibacy" is a neologism because it is purported to be a technical term with a certain meaning which is not obvious by the words themselves (so it is jargon), but it also is not used in most of the sources cited. The sources cited are describing one concept, but the problem is that many sources give this concept a different name. Per WP:NEO, Wikipedia should not apply a single term to the concept when so many terms are used. However, there can still be a Wikipedia article on the concept. WP:N does not require that a concept has one accepted term to describe it. If a concept appears in WP:RS, even if that concept is named by many terms, then it can have an article.

I oppose restoring this article without a rename. The term "involuntary celibacy" is too contentious and much too much of a distraction, especially since that term is not used by most of the sources cited. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Bluerasberry : I see what you mean now. "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." I still think the author of the page has a source problem. It could be titled "Denial of Sexual Relations" as one possible suggested title, but I don't think that would be all encompassing of the subject --Rent A Troop (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • restore-it seems like an important topic/article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I've held back on this for awhile to see how it would develop. But now that I've had time to look into it properly, I'm not seeing anything in this assortment of feeble sources that would justify reversing the results of earlier discussions. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and sooner or later if you're on the wrong side of that consensus you need to accept that reality and move on. You shouldn't get to endlessly rehash the same discussion again and again every couple of months in the hope that people won't notice and your preferred change will make it through by stealth. So, take no action, I guess. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC).
  • Restore. I feel that we need to write Wikipedia for our readers, not ourselves. I don't see it as far-fetched that someone might come here and type 'incel' into the search box. Right now, when they do, they get a page about an ovarian cancer drug, which is almost certainly not what they were actually looking for. Obviously keeping the article nutjobbery-free is going to be a challenge, but we've handled worse before. HiDrNick! 13:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
It is already a problem, when someone shoots people and cites involuntary celibacy as a reason. If it is not abiding by MEDRS then material like that can stand despite being so obviously problematic. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - The funny part is that I agree, I feel that we need to write Wikipedia for our readers, not ourselves. But we can't write things in an irresponsible way. There are content issues here. Hafspajen (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
But don't we hash out content issues on article talk pages? There's no deadline - articles don't need to be perfect to appear in main space. HiDrNick! 21:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
If you didn't read the arguments please read them yet. There are plenty. Also it is a strong suspicion of WP:NEO, that made many editors to vote against, now and before. I don't have anything against the editor personally at all, but I do care for not going out in mainspace with definitions that are not crystal clear. It is much about the Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. ... As Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's, that project may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. You may wish to contribute an entry for the neologism to Wiktionary instead. - As user Tarc noted there is a possible suspicion of people trying to advance their agenda by using the Wikipedia as a PR vehicle and maybe a possible Wikipedia:Conflict of interest too. Even if not, still it is a subject that is rather ... not based on a broad coverage as it should be to cover the intention of the article. Also, several compromises were offered but rejected, and this makes it even more into a possibility that it was meant to promote the term. As we said again and again, the article sexual frustration is only two line, and we have pointed out that if somebody is interested in writing about this kind of topics there is an article, underdeveloped and has the same kind of topic; it is describing about the same thing. Hafspajen (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I have no doubt that sexual frustration needs immediately and massive expansion, but how does that issue make involuntary celibacy non-notable. Valoem talk contrib 16:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The sources provided give an in depth determination that this is not WP:NEO. If Tarc's note does have any truth please look through the editors history to make that determination. As an uninvolved editor (historically I've had no connection until the last DRV) I find such accusations in conflict with the good faith we preach. We are all trying to establish articles based on guidelines. I have not seen one against its inclusion hold any weight. Valoem talk contrib 00:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I said possibly. I said even if not ... but sometimes I find people want me not to think at all, because of AGF. I don't find that the sources provided give a real in depth determination that this is not WP:NEO. Have tried to think about the compromise thing instead? Hafspajen (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Since it looks like people might have a hazy idea about the definition of celibacy, I copy over the definition, so we all know what we are talking about (it is the state of being unmarried - used in the sense of complete abstinence from marriage; generally for religious resons...):
<blockquote>Celibacy, the state of being unmarried and, therefore, sexually abstinent, usually in association with the role of a religious official or devotee. In its narrow sense, the term is applied only to those for whom the unmarried state is the result of a sacred vow, act of renunciation, or religious conviction. Celibacy has existed in one form or another throughout history and in virtually all the major religions of the world.</blockquote>
  • The Oxford Dictionary is formulating it as: The state of abstaining from marriage and sexual relations. To abstain is defined as: Restrain oneself from doing or enjoying something.
1. Abstinence from sexual relations.
2. The condition of remaining unmarried, especially for religious reasons.
1. abstention from sexual relations.
2. abstention by vow from marriage.
3. the state of being unmarried.

Hafspajen (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This only confirms that celibacy and involuntary celibacy are not the same and needs separate articles. By this definition terms that are oxymorons such as Dark light or Black White have no place on this encyclopedia. The term used to define this condition just so happens to be an oxymoron, but that does not make it any less notable. Valoem talk contrib 16:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
"involuntary celibacy" is a minor, non-notable neologism, is the point of all this. If "sexual frustration" is truly a notable medical subject, then expand that article. "Incel" and "involuntary celibacy" are terms that do not belong anywhere on an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
According to you, but not according to the GNG policy established on this encyclopedia. Valoem talk contrib 16:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, here we go again. Why can't this topic be added to sexual frustration, may I ask? Because it isn't sexual frustration? Cos celibacy - it isn't. Actually it is only 1 editor who doesn't like this idea - Valoem. What's the point? What's the agenda? Hafspajen (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
No, one can be sexually active and still frustrated the term is liberal in that sense, but I would be okay with a move to the term Sexual inactivity with a subsection on this particular topic. It has more correlation. Valoem talk contrib 17:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, according to the GNG guideline, no policy, it is a non-notable neologism. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Facepalm Why Sexual inactivity, a non existing article - when this is an article on Sexual frustration? And according to the cited sources it is not simply inactivity, but is a situation that these people are involved involuntarily? We are straying away again somewhere into an undefined territory again. Check definition Frustration. Hafspajen (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Tarc may I borough this from thou, we are going round and round in circles.
  • Why the facepalm? We are not going in circles I am disagreeing that sexual frustration is a suitable merge for reasons I clearly stated above. Involuntary celibacy is due to inactivity and defined as such by a few sources, frustration encompasses much more than that. Sure maybe a few sentences there is good, but we uses sources to determine if the subject is independent of sexual frustration and also independently notable. They certainly suggest so. Valoem talk contrib 20:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Because, my dear friend Sexual inactivity if we start writing that article in a serious way, a state of being where one obstains from, whether volunarily or not, sex. It might has also to do with Asexuality, anoestrus and even fertility and even Menopause and [Sterility. And the part not possible to be sexually active and still frustrated true, but - sexual frustration doesnt only mean sexually active and frustrated .. it can mean frustrated because not sexually active... Cry. WP:CIR. Hafspajen (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Like I stated at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 7, "Creating a Sexual inactivity or an Involuntary sexual abstinence article just to cover involuntary celibacy would be needless WP:Content forking. As was already pointed out at the Celibacy talk page, we have enough articles about sexual inactivity, voluntary or otherwise. These articles (including the Asexuality article) refer to one another, and to have another article doing the same is overkill. If the involuntary celibacy topic is not to have its own Wikipedia article, but is sourced well enough to be covered on Wikipedia, it should go in one of the existing articles about sexual inactivity. The Sexual abstinence article is about voluntary and involuntary sexual abstinence. So, yes, an Involuntary sexual abstinence article would be a violation of WP:Content fork. But it is a valid point that we should stick to the terminology that the sources use for the topic. If the sources don't refer to involuntary celibacy as a form of sexual abstinence, then placing it in an article called Sexual abstinence can be considered a violation of the WP:Synthesis policy." Flyer22 (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - You guys do whatever you want, I have reached my limits of being able to discuss this politely, my next edit might be something I might regret. How many times are you supposed to start a thing all over again? We had a discussion like a year ago, opposing the merger of an article, and now it started all over again, at article Celibacy - starting adding involuntary celibacy New Age definitions like New Celibacy, New Love and New Sexuality and other deviant definitions from some book writen by someone who clearly stated my own definition is not from the dictionary. I precisely succeded to convince Vaoem that Involuntary celibacy can be different celibacy, when somebody else starts this discussion merging it again with celibacy... We had this discussion with Flyer22, Casliber, Tarc, Mythic Writerlord and User:Turris Davidica for ages, it feels like it. Hafspajen (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
On top of it a parallel discussion with this discussion Talk:Celibacy about suddenly merging -Involuntarely celibacy (the very same subject) into Celibacy again. ... Twin solutions suggested in the same time? Both going against previous consensus? Is this a technique meant to let everybody drop down by pure exhaustion until nobody ever cares any more so they later can just walk in add what it was opposed and discussed rather till absurdity until everybody just doesn't care any more? It is not a discussion but a case of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I don't know how Wiki functions any more, but it is a seriously twisted discussion, allowed all over again and again and again and again and again and again again and again and again and again and again and again - and I sincerely don't care any more. Let Wikipedia be used to spread whatever it suits anyone. Nobody else cares either. I have other things to do, that I might get paid for in the future, too. This discussion any any other new discussions in future looking like this is just a major waste of time. Wish Coffee and Drmies should never had allowed this. Thought that Wikipedia processes were not about how to exhaust everybody else and than take home the game by bringing up the same subject ten times a year, but was constructed in a somewhat different way. Not the please let me have just an another round of AfD - style. Previous consensus and all the editors opinions of course is not worth a sheer shit. Well, sorry, told you ... I am out of here. Hafspajen (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Valoem, the notability process looks something like this:

Step #1: Decide whether the subject gets its own standalone article. In this case, the answer seems to be "no". (Re-read the lead paragraph at WP:N that begins "This is not a guarantee..." for the relevant "rule".)

Step #2: Following the advice at WP:FAILN guideline, specifically "Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages", figure out if there is a "closely related notable article".

Options: This subject has several possible candidates. Given a subject that can be described as "unhappy because he can't get married and/or otherwise find a (voluntary) sexual partner", you could reasonably focus on the "unhappy" part, on the "not married" part, or on the "no sex" part.

In this discussion, different editors have different ideas about the most important focus.

  • If you focus on the "unhappy" part, then the obvious merge candidate is Sexual frustration.
  • If you focus on the "not married" part, then the obvious merge candidate is Celibacy.
  • If you focus on the "no sex" part, then the obvious merge candidate is an article like Sexual inactivity.

None of these are perfect, and nobody's "wrong" for preferring one over the other. The choice just shows what each person believes is the most important or most unique aspect of the concept. (As a tactical measure, if you really want to see incel mentioned in the mainspace, I'd suggest that you cling to any suggestion for a place to mention it at all, even if you think it isn't the ideal solution.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, regarding those merge candidates, I don't see why the focus has to be one or the other. As you no doubt know, sexual frustration can be due to any number of reasons, including marital aspects; so the Sexual frustration article can validly address the no sex, the unhappy, and the not-married aspects. The same goes for the Sexual abstinence article, which already addresses different reasons for not engaging in sexual activity, including the involuntary factor that is noted in the lead. And as for the Celibacy article, like others, I don't see why involuntary celibacy cannot be covered in that article. If alternative definitions of a term are significant enough, we are supposed to cover those different definitions in one article; we ideally should not create a separate article just to cover each definition of the term. And like you noted in the Canvassing section below, celibacy is not always voluntary. Nor does its definition always focus on marriage. All the fuss over this involuntary celibacy topic escapes me. As you know, I've been involved with various contentious sexual topics over the years at Wikipedia; I never thought this would be one of them. And the application of WP:MEDRS to non-medical aspects is silly. As anyone can see, the topic is not completely or even mostly medical. Flyer22 (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The focus has to be one or the other because of a technical limitation: a page title can only be redirected to one page. However, there is no requirement that all mention of the idea be limited to one article. The subject could be mentioned (briefly) in each of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
When I stated, "I don't see why the focus has to be one or the other," I was not speaking of a WP:Alternative title matter, or simply of article titles. But while we're back on the subject of titles, you stated, "If you focus on the 'no sex' part, then the obvious merge candidate is an article like Sexual inactivity." I don't see that as the case. If it's a "no sex" matter, then, in this case, the text would fit fine in the Sexual frustration article. In my "21:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)" post above, I stated that a Sexual inactivity article is not needed; I stand by that. I was/am stating that while "no sex" is the main focus of sexual frustration, sexual frustration can be due to any number of reasons, and that it's much the same for sexual abstinence; sexual frustration and sexual abstinence can be due to one or more reasons. I therefore do not see why involuntary celibacy has to focus on the sex, the unhappiness, or the not-married aspects (especially since marriage and sexual activity usually come hand in hand); depending on the context, the focus can be on any of those three aspects, whether the content is in the Celibacy article, the Sexual frustration article or the Sexual abstinence article. And involuntary celibacy is not simply about the unhappiness anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


  • Note to admins - Valoem has left messages for 5 editors about this RfC, 4 of whom have opined in favor of the subject matter; Edison (voted keep in AfD 1 & 2), Mangoe (keep in AfD #2), Tokyogirl (worked extensively on draftspace restorations), S. Marshall (permit recreation in DRV). This appears to be a pretty bald-faced violation of WP:CANVASS' vote-stacking prohibitions. Tarc (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The editors I asked are editors who were previously involved which is allowed per WP:CANVASS not to mention every other editor here was involved in previous debates favoring the deletion side. This is not canvassing, but a request for comment and in this case there needs to be a balance. To jump to every possible option to nullify any arguments I have shows your inherent bias against this topic. Valoem talk contrib 02:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Either you're not reading or not understanding; the only editors you contacted were those who voted in your favor in the past. That is not permissible, per the link provided. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
If you look at the discussion, you will notice a natural canvass of all previous editors involved in the discussion. To ignore that two people pinged here was DGG and @Jimbo Wales: is hardly acting with neutrality. It is uncomfortable to me, that an article so well sourced does not have a place on this encyclopedia. By this standard anything not accepted by the mainstream can be deleted which is counter intuitive to NPOV we are trying to create. As per DGG this is a circumstance which views much be balanced I've asked editors with an extensive history of being fair and balanced. It is clear I am here to help build this encyclopedia and often it is impossible to go alone. The last DRV only highlights the growing problem on Wikipedia. Valoem talk contrib 17:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  Facepalm Here, let's read through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination) again. Can you explain why you did not notify any of the roughly one dozen regular non-IP editors who opined to either delete or merge/redirect? Tarc (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
There's no need they are already here and I love how bitey you get. Topic ban this topic ban that, not very conductive behavior, but I guess it's your right. Valoem talk contrib 17:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this is boiling down to a competency issue. You clearly were selectively biased in who was contacted wrt this RfC, but are unable to recognize this fact. I'll leave this tangent in the hands of any admins who wish to do anything about it. Tarc (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
As for being sure of approval, when I was contacted I recommended first expanding the article, as Corporate M is in fact doing. Most people who contact me and have some experience here recognize that I do not tend to give unqualified approval, or necessarily the response that was expected. DGG ( talk ) 20:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't include you in the list of canvass targets, as IMO this person contacted you in more of an advice-seeking role rather than a solicitation to come vote as the others were. Tarc (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
While it is OK to notify user who were involved in previous debates - but this running around and re-creating things in all possible ways and looking for new ways to go around old decisions -it is definitely WP:Forumshopping. Hafspajen (talk) 07:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It is almost certainly canvassing if you are only notifying editors that have previously voted in your favor. The way to address it would be to also notify those that voted delete to make sure everyone is aware of the discussion. CorporateM (Talk) 16:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I saw this from seeing Valoem's canvassing flashing up on my watchlist. I would be extremely concerned to see our deletion processes shortcircuited by this RFC in userspace. The correct place to test the waters is DRV where the discussion will be seen by a wider spread of users then those who have this location watchlisted. This smacks very much of asking the other parent and trying the backdoor because you don't like the first answer you got. I'm sorry but this discussion can have no validity and this discussion needs to go to DRV. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 18:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Spartaz, I am assuming if this version if moved to the main space it well be AfDed again. The previous DRV was closed improperly, of course there is no consensus to allow restoration, but there was also no consensus not to allow restoration. The arguments for this version of the article are vastly stronger than the calls for delete. Anyone with an understand of WP:GNG can see the sources listed pass notability guidelines. In the end this requires AfD not DRV. The close should have always been no consensus, not delete. Also this is an RfC and I am requested comments from established editors with a solid history of neutrality. Per WP:IAR I really don't have a choice in this matter, I can't see how we can be fair and balanced when deletionists naturally canvass each other and I am expected to fight alone. If I ask for any help I get smack with canvassing does that seem reasonable to you. Valoem talk contrib 19:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • You mean you didn't get the answer you wanted so you simply refuse to accept the outcome? What deletionists are you referring to? I have never seen the term deletionist used pejoratively unless the person using it has absolutely not interest in hearing views that do not agree with theirs. Not happy with the DRV? You can ask AN to review it or raise another one later with better sources. At some point you have to accept that the argument went against you and until you actually try to tackle the concerns that led to deletion you are back to throwing insults instead of having a colleagiate debate. Sorry but I'm not engaging with that. Spartaz Humbug! 19:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I am unaware that deletionist is a pejorative term and have been nothing but civil throughout this discussion. Discussions are based on strengths of arguments not voting. I provided reliable sources, if you think they are unreliable then the discussion must provide a reason. You stand correct in the fact I do not accept the previous outcome. My questions were not answered and the issues and reasons regarding the delete were unsatisfactory. I've provided more than enough sources to establish notability. We document what is notable and verifiable on this encyclopedia, not what is accepted. Spartaz did you review the previous DRV? We cannot have a notable subjects deleted this set a terrible precedence moving forward. Spartaz I kindly ask you to review the subject matter, look over the sources and assuming your neutral please make a decision regarding that article's place on this encyclopedia. If you find sources sub-optimal please explain why and compare them to sources provided in the celibacy article that way we are comparing apples to apples. Valoem talk contrib 20:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh Please don't be such a drama monger. We can't have notable subjects deleted as this sets a terrible precedent so you say but this has been through AFD and DRV and the consensus of that does not seem to be with you. This really smacks of refusing to accept that the discussion went against you. And... you shouldn't conflate my concerns over the process with taking a position of the article. I'm entirely neutral on that since I frankly don't care whether or not we have this article. What I do care about is that you are trying to short circuit the established systems to try and change the outcome and that I saw you canvassing participation in this discussion on my watchlist. This is what I am objecting to and is what I am calling you out on. Oh, and have I seen DRV? Um yes. I think you will see from the records that I have been a DRV regular since 2006 and that for a period of 18 months until about a year ago I closed most DRVs. On that basis I think I can authoritively say based on my experience that your emotional characerisation of the process is .. well .. misplaced.. to say the least.... Spartaz Humbug! 21:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Really? Both AfD and DRV were not one sided. If it was we wouldn't be here. There is a clearly lack of consensus in the first close and the DRV should state no consensus not to allow recreation. So don't Oh Please me, my rational is more than founded. This article deserves another chance at the AfD's. Look at the sources, Wikipedia is not a vote and we have WP:IAR for reasons like this. Valoem talk contrib 21:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
You are becoming ridiculous now. You say that there was no consensus to delete but a closing admin found one and DRV declined to overturn it. No consensus to overturn or not, DRV is quick to act in obvious cases of wrong calls and the closing admin has been hauled over the coals at DRV over other closes but still there was no consensus to overturn. That certainly doesn't suggest that the close was fundamentally wrong or misjudged. Possibly a marginal call perhaps but certainly not the Guildford Four or Birmingham Six is it? Dial down the emotion, stop relitigating this AFD/DRV and go find better sources. Spartaz Humbug! 21:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Please give me an example of a source you deem reliable, and please show me what is wrong with the sources in the article. No one on the deletion side wants to see this article restored so quickly because is calls into question their judgment of WP:GNG guidelines. Spartaz please take a side, review the article and tell me what is wrong. Valoem talk contrib 21:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Go back and read my earlier comment where I explained that I do not have a position on the article and that my beef is with your attempts to bypass the existing consensus building mechanisms. I'm also getting increasing irritated by your irrational argument and hyperbolic statements but I'm predominantly interested in seeing process followed correctly here. Spartaz Humbug! 21:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment on the title "Involuntary celibacy" is not an oxymoron,because celibacy can also be voluntary, which is arguable the usual state of affairs, and is thus discussed in our article on celibacy. My doubt about it is only that I am not sure it covers all aspects, but since I have nothing better to suggest, and it is used in the literature, it does seem to be a satisfactory descriptor by our usual rules. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but no, that is a complete contradiction. Celibacy is a choice; you can't call not choosing something to be an "involuntary choice", it's an oxymoron. "Involuntary celibacy" is not science, it is not a medical or psychological condition; it is a neologism. Wanting to have sex, being told "no", and how to deal with it used to be a fun movie trope, from Fast Times at Ridgemont High to Revenge of the Nerds. It's not science. Tarc (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Isn't this a recognition that it's notable at least as a trope? DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Not any more than TOTUS was. I think some form of "sexual frustration" may be article-worthy; there's science and reliable discussion around that. But applying this "incel" movement's term to that is what the problem is here. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
This assertion that "celibacy is a choice" keeps being repeated, and a commonsense look at the actual dictionary definitions shows that it's not true. An unmarried person is celibate, according to the primary definition in every dictionary I've looked into. That person might not be chaste, and it might not be voluntary (see anyone for whom getting married is illegal, anyone who is recently widowed, anyone who is getting divorced against his will...), but according to the primary dictionary definitions, and historically the only meaning of the term, a person who is unmarried is, without exception, "celibate". I have not yet seen a single dictionary definition that says celibacy is usually a choice, much less that a person who is involuntarily unmarried isn't celibate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment For those following Jimmy Wales has endorsed the topic the discussion can be found here. This is not apart of WP:MEDRS, it is part of popular culture and sources suggest so. Valoem talk contrib 21:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
He is sitting on the fence Valoem - stop trying to twist facts. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - the canvassing really is getting out of hand, and the way you are using Jimmy Wales' polite reply to your badgering as an endorsement of the article, I personally find a bit distasteful. You are doing everything in your power, it seems, to attract people to support your point of view when a majority before did not. It is not people's imput you care about; it is for people to side with you and agree with you, so that you can bypass earlier decisions not to include the material. (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I asked editors of the highest caliber, why did they agree? Because I am canvassing? This topic has a place on this encyclopedia plain and simple. Discuss the topic at hand not the editors involved. Valoem talk contrib 21:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
They agreed because most of them agreed with you before, so you knew they would again. There are other "editors of the highest caliber" who disagree with the recreation of the article and the endless campaign for it's restoring, but you did not ask these editors. You only asked those you knew would be on your side, and asked specifically for others to help you and side with you. Those are not the actions of a man who is interested in hearing a wide set of opinions, who is welcoming to opposing views. Even the Jimmy Wales thing wasn't about how much you respect the man's judgement... it was a way for you to wave it in people's faces: "Jimmy Wales thinks it should be kept! Jimmy Wales endorses me!". Clearly you are on a personal vendetta here against "deletionists" who are "biased". But you yourself aren't biased at all, right? (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
What makes the editors you canvassed a higher caliber then the ones who voted to delete this - apart from the fact that you think they are more minded to restore this? Spartaz Humbug! 21:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
They have a solid history of dealing with each subject objectively. When you review an AfD history of any editor you want to see that discussion can change their opinion, after all it is a debate not a kangaroo court. You want a balanced number of Keep to Deletes, when an editor is only one sided its show an inherent bias DGG and Wales are some editors to my knowledge have been neutral throughout. Valoem talk contrib 21:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
How are you defining a solid history if dealing with each subject objectively? What criteria and evidence did you base that conclusion on and why did you not consider anyone who voted deleted to meet your objective criteria on? I do presume that you undertook the same level of due diligence on the deleting voters as you did on the keep ones to find your higher caliber cohort? Spartaz Humbug! 21:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I explained quite clearly above didn't I? Valoem talk contrib 21:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Clearly not or I wouldn't have responded. Please answer my question and explain why none of the delete voters were considered higher caliber editors, And re your note on my talk page, its not a personal attack to challenge a user when they are not making a logical or rational argument. Spartaz Humbug! 00:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Given this statement on Coffee's page where you acknowledge that you deliberately choose keep voters who you thought you would support you, would you like to correct you claims about higher calibre editors above? Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 15:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Spartaz, I do not think any of the editors he asked would give support unreasonably. The AfDs and the Del Rev were contested and were not overwhelming decisions. Are you possibly stressing this issue because this time it might be your position that is not supported, or at least it will have to be re-defended from scratch? Consensus in the RW about what is or is not Fringe changes. changes. New people join and have different opinions. Earlier people leave. People find better sources. Some people might be more persistent--I had more or less given up on this one, but not because I thought I was wrong. One of the characteristics of WP is that no decision is stable. This is very frustrating when one thinks one has finally gotten the right position accepted, but if people challenge it, it needs repeated defending. Some things I was sure I'd finally won on, I subsequently see I may be in danger of losing. It can be frustrating, but that's one of the inherent characteristics of our way of decision making; stable decisions could only be enforced by authority. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
DGG if you select editors with a known predisposition to keep material it doesn't matter how carefully they consider the material. Its still canvassing. Spartaz Humbug! 22:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This discussion on possible forum shopping is taking the deliberations off topic for the future of the page. It is good to know as the possible motive for some people commenting, but continuing it here would be distracting --Rent A Troop (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I tend to feel we should not have this as an article because it is obviously causing a great deal of distress to some people and I dare say the topic is not particularly important. I personally can't understand why we have such a problem but I think it must be something to do with the term "incel" which has no connotation for me and so it is a feature I can't satisfactorily take into account. I note from WP:NOTCENSORED that it is permissible to remove content on the grounds of it "being objectionable" although that is not generally done. Perhaps this is an exceptional case. Thincat (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Read it again. It applies to "such things as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clear vandalism ... content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the United States. " It does not apply to sexual topics that make people uncomfortable. That is never the grounds for removal of such material, except if deliberately intended to shock or offend or insult, and of no possible encyclopedic interest. There is no conceivable sexual or sexualized practice I can imagine that we would not have an article about on grounds of offensiveness, if it is notable. That it makes people uncomfortable is, if anything, an indication of importance. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree it's a subject of importance - it's just wrong, which is why medical sourcing guidelines should apply as the subject matter concerns people's health and wellbeing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

*Comment: Strongly urge procedural close of this AFD. This is a bizarre situation which has been mucked up in the process of short stroking. The User:Valoem put this forth as an RFC, not an AFD (although regrettably included afd in title of RFC). The RFC, which is traditionally a 30-day process, has been converted (by an admin who closed two of the AfDs linked above) bizarrely to an AFD, which is a 7-day process. My reading of the RFC was that the editor was asking if he could (using IAR) bypass the most recent DRV, and use the RFC process to get article restoration in the page's most current form in order to commence a new AFD. Migrating the process to deletion discussion directly has conflated the original discussion with a direct deletion discussion. Arguments above conflate restoration with keep and no restoration with delete; these assertions, while partially connected, are not identical. I'd like to see the RFC run its intended course, then see a AFD unconnected to any other procedure. Previously involved admins (and I'm looking straight at you User:Coffee) should not take any further administrative actions to either process. BusterD (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

    • BusterD: I'd say you aren't looking very straight at all, as it seems you have a very skewed perception of WP:INVOLVED. Me acting in the role of an administrator in a topic area in the past, does not mean that I am disallowed to further administrate that area. Let me quote the policy for you since you seem to be so misguided: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." Good day, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Under normal circumstances we'd be in agreement. However, 1) User:Coffee closed the second AFD in a way with which I'd take issue and myself label No Consensus. Then 2) that same admin closed the Donnelly AfD in what the closer called a "non-standard, procedural close" adding comments like "too much of our good editors' time has already been wasted in this hopeless pursuit" which seems to indicate a preference in outcome of this current procedure. And then 3) this spectacularly poor choice, given the previous connection. I'd say the above puts Coffee's actions here at least within the range of reproach and I believe abstaining from any further admin action on this subject would be the wiser course. In my opinion, the only creditable way out of this bog is for an uninvolved admin to procedurally close this AFD leaving the RFC in place. In the unlikely event this RFC request for restoration is granted, a clean AFD procedure might weigh the issue itself more fairly, without the clear prejudice of someone who has given the lengthy but unenlightening discussions on Talk:Celibacy more weight than a formal procedure deserves. BusterD (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
this is not an AfD. it is a review of a DR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
This procedure is listed as an AFD, set to expire in less than 24 hours. BusterD (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
1. That decision was endorsed at DRV. So, your personal "issue" with it holds no bearing here, or anywhere else for that matter. 2. That close was never disputed, and still stands as an administrative action. Your inability to understand my closing rationale, has no bearing on that, and shows only that you can't have possibly followed how long this community debated this matter. Furthermore, your attempt to state that it was a supervote, or that I close AFDs according to my personal opinion, is an accusation that I do not take lightly. So, I'd suggest you open a DRV if you actually want to back that up with more than hot air. 3.1. That "poor choice" was made per an agreement between Valoem (the opener of this RFC and requester of that very action) and myself at my talk page. Please try and educate yourself a bit better. 3.2 Read my above comment, then read it again, as it seems you are really failing at comprehending WP:INVOLVED. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@BusterD: asked me to comment regarding process. I agree with @DGG:'s prior comment in that NOTBUREAU applies. Technically speaking it would have been ideal if the OP went through the correct bureaucratic channels. What that means exactly, I don't know, or even care to know. If a consensus is established one way or another, I don't think it matters on which page it is established nor is it sensible to start the discussion over somewhere else. If an admin can MOVE this page to the proper location, without disrupting the discussion, that could work. CorporateM (Talk) 23:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Second breakEdit

Anyone who has viewed my edit history knows that my primary objective here is to make sure subjects and topics which pass GNG find their way on to the main space. This is not a subject that I personally suffer from, but one which warrants my interest. Any accusations of fringe pushing is unwarranted. I implore all editors involved in this discussion to look at what we cover here based on WP:GNG:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

  • "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
Yes, [19] dedcates a section to the subject, [20], and this [21]. Each of which gives extensive coverage and is only 3 of the 20 sources which discuss this subject. The last source is from 1985, which showing this subject has been studied prior to Denise Donnelly.
Yes, these sources appear to have been subjected peer review and/or editorial oversight. I implore anyone to discuss why any of these source may not be reliable.
Because many are actually just placing together of the words "involuntary" + "celibacy" - hence treating at some sort of entity is (a) a neologism and (b) original research
  • "Sources" including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
The tone in this article is sufficiently neutral and I am seeing a wide range of coverage in newspapers, books, documentaries, and academic journals.
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.
It appears right now we are suggesting Denise Donnelly as a primary source. Only two of the sources provided in the article are from Denise Donnelly. Secondary sources have been abundantly cited.
  • "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
Two objections regarding this topic involve WP:MEDRS and the term involuntary celibacy being an oxymoron that could become a neologism. As stated prior, it is incorrect to apply MEDRS as this is not a medical condition, but a social condition similar to Celibacy syndrome in Japan. The second issue involves the term, I am willing to compromise on this and move the topic to Involuntary sexual abstinence. This would reduce oxymoron issue. It also appears this term has also received considerable coverage in scholarly sources: [22].

In fact this source here from the The American Journal of Urology and Sexology, Volume 12 distinctly differentiates between voluntary and involuntary abstinence. It is incorrect to merge this topic into sexual inactivity or sexual frustration, sources provided all suggest these are different topics. Valoem talk contrib 16:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: It does still appear that involuntary celibacy is the common name. Valoem talk contrib 16:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a neologism used in fringe social circles to describe an otherwise ordinary topic of sexuality. You can post 6k worth of rebuttals today and another 6k tomorrow, but none of it will alter that truth. Tarc (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
And what is the truth? Are you suggesting that no matter how many sources are provided this will not be notable? I recommend you reread the pillars of Wikipedia and WP:GNG. Valoem talk contrib 17:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The truth that had been told to you by a number of editors who have suggested expansion of the sexual frustration article, which is what this topic actually is, rather than dredge up this neologism which a consensus of editors at DRV already decided was not article-worthy. Despite your best efforts to tilt this unofficial RfC to your favor, by canvassing like-minded editors who you felt would vote in your favor, there appears to be no consensus to restore "involuntary celibacy" itself to article-space. Time to accept that and move on. Tarc (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
No the consensus is no consensus to delete and is the very reason why no consensus allows the article to be retained. Most of the sources do not mention sexual frustration. Involuntary celibacy may lead to sexual frustration, but is not the same as sexual frustration. Please find a reliable sources that say "Involuntary celibacy is the same as sexual frustration" and I will gladly close this RfC. I implore you to find sources to support your claims, I have sources to support mine. Arguments on Wikipedia are not a vote, but based on arguments using established policy. No argument against recreation is supported by policy. If naming is the only issue, I will compromise. Valoem talk contrib 18:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not the same, it's some neologism for some form of sexual frustration. It would fit well as one paragraph among others in the article, it would not fit in celibacy, as it's not a form of celibacy, which is by definition voluntary. "Celibacy" and "abstinence" are as well two distinct topics, celibacy is a part of abstinence, the voluntary part, usually with some kind of (religious) vow or such. Incel would like to be a new buzzword to hide the "frustration" bit, as frustration doesn't fit in the manly picture the frustrated "incels" wish to have of themselves, it's not only a neologism, I'd call it new-speak as well. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 18:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@Sänger: Sources? This is again suggesting that anything named after an oxymoron is a non-notable neologism. Please direct me to a guideline that oxymoron's can never be notable. Sources distinctly mention this term and this term alone, thus not a neologism. Valoem talk contrib 19:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
That's...not even remotely true, Valoem. The article does not exist at present, and the reason it does not exist is because a consensus of editors have deemed it so. If there is not a clear consensus to restore, then the status quo will be maintained. This is how the project works. Tarc (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. User:Valoem has presented sufficient significant coverage in multiple and diverse reliable sources independent of the subject to warrant inclusion. The Journal of Sex Research is a peer-reviewed scientific journal which clearly meets WP:IRS and arguably WP:MEDRS, so is Sexuality and Culture. A History of Celibacy, a best-selling and well-reviewed book on the overall subject, also written by an academic, contains a section directly detailing. Then we have the WebMD source, written by a respected medical journalist and reviewed by another physician. These four sources all meet IRS and all directly detail the subject, at least as a social situation. I see no argument above refuting this assertion. This source and this one seem to help indicate the common name for this subject. I'd like to point out that in no previous procedure has the outcome for this subject been deletion yet the subject has no coverage on Wikipedia. BusterD (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This whole discussion is an abuse of process and a runaround the existing pocess because Valoem doesn't like the answer he already got from DRV. As such it can have no validity in establishing any consensus - especially as Valoem has shamelessly canvassed for like-minded individuals to vote in his favour and any admin who attempts to use this ridiculous page to restore the article would be showing dangerously poor judgement. As the location is locked only an admin can close this. Please can someone bring this farce to an end now. If Valoem wants to establish any consensus he needs to go to DRV - once he has allowed some dust to settle and given everyone a breather from this. Spartaz Humbug! 20:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Again we have IAR for these reasons. The answer from the last DRV should be no consensus to delete please do review the discussion. RfC is a perfectly sound place to discuss this. If it is a DRV you want then move the discussion to DRV, I have no issues. Valoem talk contrib 21:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
um no 5 previous discussions that did not reach a single conclusion to maintain this material does not a good case for IAR make - plus IAR to condone canvassing is most certainly not any standard under which anyone can reasonably say the encyclopedia is improved. Spartaz Humbug! 23:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The Deletion Review closed as "There is no consensus to allow the recreation of the article"; what you think the close should have been is not relevant. Regarding WP:IAR, you'd have to demonstrate how the project would be improved by allowing this exception. Tarc (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
You are explaining the outcome of the latest DRV in your favor again, Valoem. The outcome was indeed "no consensus", in the most literal sense of the word: there was no consensus on whether or not to restore it or keep it deleted, the community was simply too torn on the issue. You can call that a tie if you wish, but you can't call it a victory and it in no way strengthens your case for restoring the article. There was no consensus then, and there is no consensus now. It's an endless vicious circle that's not going anywhere. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. If DRV is not AFD round two, then it shouldn't be used to change a merge outcome to a delete outcome. Normally such a DRV would either approve the actions of a closer, or disapprove the close. If it validates the close, it validates a merge of content, not a deletion. Since no discussion of this subject has ever closed as delete, and a merge was disallowed through talkpage discussion (by many of the same editors urging no restoration in this discussion), the only option is recreation and another AFD. The versions put forward make it clear this newer version is significantly better sourced than the one discussed in the second DRV. For better or worse, thanks to User:Coffee, we're now in a new AFD, so editors might want to make better deletion arguments than "I'm tired of doing this over again." At least three of the editors asserting keep/restore are long established and have never discussed this subject, so we're not rehashing. Valoem has put forward a set of sources meeting all the criteria of IRS. Some are merely incidental mentions, but most support the core sources which directly detail and come from RS. I'd urge all participants to put aside history and discuss the subject of this AFD, as the article exists in userspace. BusterD (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • That's not what happened. The old AfD found a consensus to merge, it was done so, ten down the road other editors at Talk:Celibacy decided that the material was not relevant to the article, so it was deleted. "Involuntary celibacy" this pointed to an article that did not mention it at all, thus was deleted. "Involuntary celibacy" is a bastard child; disowned by its parent, unwanted by the distant relatives, and orphaned on the streets. Tarc (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Then let's find it a home. I think my narrative holds up pretty well to the events as they occurred. It's a defacto delete. No formal process concluded it. But we're in a fresh AFD and none of that matters anymore. The page has been recreated with new and more thorough sourcing. In my analysis of sources, I didn't mention the incel community or its sources. I'm more interested, like the sourcing, in the prison population, or incarcerated mental heath patients, or eunuchs, or people who are socially inept (like gamers;-). None of these groups can voluntarily end their enforced celibacy, and all of these groups are sexual human beings too. Tarc, as one of the "five horsemen", you have earned my strong respect and deep appreciation. I hate to differ with you. But here we are. "Incel", I can do without. Incel, I could see merging into sexual frustration. "Involuntary celibacy" meets GNG as a social situation, based on presented sources. BusterD (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the sentiments, thanks, and no hard feelings; it's ok to disagree. It was a de facto delete, sure, but IMO that's kinda where we fall on this since there was never a consensus expressed at all to have a straight-out "incel" article; the excising of the content from celibacy doesn't mean they get their article back. I'm not opposed to an expansion of this frustration article as long as it doesn't become "involuntary celibacy" in all but name. Tarc (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • As wikipedians, we usually tend to agree. That's grand. So we have some common ground upon which to build. What's the best outcome? I agree that Donnelly and Burgess aren't sufficiently notable for inclusion. But I think their research, backed by A History of Celibacy and the WebMD page, taken together meet the standard for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. If Celibacy needs not apply WP:MEDRS criteria, neither should Involuntary celibacy. I can see Rich's point that a page move is possibly necessary, but that's for later, part of what Warden calls "ordinary editing". BTW, where the heck is ARS now? Could use those votestackers (that was a jest, folks) right now. Anyway, I've got an early call, so I'm off to bed. Thanks for forgiving our differences. As I mentioned to CorporateM (a mentee of mine, I'm proud to say), I'm loyal to the process. Even when we disagree, over time wikipedians tend to get it right(er). Good night. BusterD (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Involuntary sexual abstinence probably would do. Covers the part, is not an oxymoron and if written carefully it might work. I am fine with it if others agree too. Hafspajen (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't speak for others, but I'd be okay with such pagespace. It might satisfy Rich, who strongly desired a pagemove if kept. I very much appreciate your willingness to consider such an outcome, User:Hafspajen. It's somewhat more than I anticipated from editors who seemed to feel strongly in earlier processes. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • But I was from the very beginnig for a compromise. Hafspajen (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • As long as "incel" itself is nowhere to be found in said article, it may be doable. Tarc (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned above, I don't see any reason why this couldn't be covered by a sentence or section in Celibacy. It's clear that the authors in question are not notable enough for an entire article based on their fairly fringe views; and I'm not convinced that they're all talking about the same thing, so I don't think they particularly provide any evidence that we should have an article lumping their views together under an arbitrary neologism. But we could perhaps devote a sentence or two to them on the Celibacy article or on Sexual frustration. I agree that the main thing is that we can't use the term 'involuntary celibacy'; the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to promote neologisms. --Aquillion (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Third breakEdit

  • Aquillion it has been discussed that celibacy is not an appropriate redirect. Per discussion incel is different from sexual frustration. Policy based rationale shows this article has enough sources to pass WP:GNG, there is no reason for a merge. Valoem talk contrib 23:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
    There is no consensus for "incel" to redirect anywhere or to be be brought back to article space on its own. Seeing how there's been over a week's worth of silence, this is essentially a dead issue. Tarc (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no time frame, you know this, I've been busy and have been focusing on restaurant related articles. The term incel is the most stated term since was are uncomfortable with the term being an oxymoron we are going with Involuntary sexual abstinence, the term incel warrants some mention in the article and a redirect. Valoem talk contrib 01:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
What you have been spending your own time on isn't relevant. The point here is there has been no consensus achieved to overturn the deletion/merger. That isn't a debatable point. Tarc (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. If User:Valoem persists in including "incel" I can see why some editors above have lost patience. This is an AFD procedure. Generally speaking in such procedures, a "no consensus" outcome defaults to keep for now. Since it seems that previous talk page consensus won't allow a merge to the most appropriate target, and there's no clear consensus for deletion and many strong policy and source based reasons to keep, I'd argue that the page should be allowed to be restored for now, and consensus remeasured at some future date, say 3 to 6 months. After the procedure is closed and the page restored to mainspace, a requested move might be the best course. I concur that "incel" is not yet notable enough for inclusion, and might never be; on the other hand the common human state of wanting sexual contact and being unable to make such contact (per WP:COMMONNAME involuntary celibacy or whatever name the community deems appropriate) seems to meet GNG, based on presented sources. It's for a closer to decide. BusterD (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • You're mistaken; Valoem is appealing a standing AFD, so this is a DRV discussion, not an AFD discussion. That means the existing consensus to merge or delete stands unless he can show consensus to overturn it. The page was, after all, already merged properly under AFD (and that page was later deleted appropriately under AFD); the appropriate place to appeal either is DRV, not here, and regardless of where he takes, the default is that both those AFDs stand and the page remains deleted. Strong consensus is needed to overcome an AFD result and restore an article, which is plainly not present here. This entire RFC is a bit of a policy runaround; I think the appropriate response is to close this discussion and advise Valoem to go to DRV again if he has any concerns about the deletion. He even admits that he was aware of it and that he is trying to "ignore all rules" to get the article restored, which means that he knows that was the appropriate thing to do under policy; he filed an RFC instead because he thought -- incorrectly -- that an RFC would give him a lower standard to get the AFD result overturned. But that is not the case; the AFD that removed the involuntary celibacy article is the current "default", and absent any sense of consensus to overturn that result and restore it (which is plainly not forthcoming), it will remain deleted. --Aquillion (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
      • If there was a second third AFD with a delete outcome, why is it not listed above? The Donnelly AFD is not a discussion of this subject matter. Am I missing something? BusterD (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
        • The 'merge' AFD was valid and remains binding, and the Denise Donnelly AFD was also taken as an AFD on the subject, as its closure says. If you object to those conclusions, the appropriate forum is to take it to DRV (where it was taken before; it seems reasonable to conclude that Valoem realized it would fail there again, so he sought to push it through another channel.) Regardless, it is clear there is no consensus to restore here, nor that any is likely to arise; and I feel that numerous detailed, well-articulated arguments for why this is a neologism that cannot support an article have been put forward. It is unquestionable that it cannot be restored without consensus; a non-consensus outcome defaults to the current situation standing, not a radical overturning of a previously-established result. I am confident enough in both Coffee's grasp of policy and appropriate approach to controversies like these to be reasonably certain that they will not do so. --Aquillion (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
        • When deciding on a proper forum for this discussion, administrator User:Coffee had several options available, and that user chose to list this at AFD. So it's not a DRV, otherwise Coffee would have chosen to list it there. While that admin has honorably kept the discussion open the same time period as a normal RFC, AFD rules apply here. Many editors apparently assessing the desired outcome as delete have treated this AFD like a DRV and primarily used previous discussion as evidence (irrelevant to this process). Editors asserting keep largely seem to have treated this process as an AFD, have presented applicable sourcing from multiple independent reliable sources and argued not against overturning, but as keep on the merits (an argument not valid in a DRV procedure). This IS AFD round three. To my reading there's been little clash on the merits. There have been lots of expressions of frustration, but little in the way of delete assertion. I'd say there's a strong consensus to keep, based on strength of argument, and virtually no consensus to delete, based on arguments presented. Despite assertions of canvassing, I was not canvassed to this process and had no previous involvement with the subject. Most of the keep asserters above fit that profile. IMHO, IAR was a proper rationale for this forum choice, though I wrongly objected and cast unfortunate aspersions at Coffee initially. For those comments I have personally apologized. BusterD (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    I don't think this thing is classifiable under any normal wiki-nomenclature. "Incel", whatever it is, is an orphan topic that no one wants to mention in existing articles and is undeserving of its standalone home. I view this as a sort-of straw poll to get a measure of where editors are at, and so far nothing has really changed from the last go-around. Valoem keeps repeating "it is reliably sourced so gimme an article" as if it were a tautology, but obviously several editors reject that assertion. Tarc (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, if we disregard the people pulled in through canvassing, I see a strong consensus to leave deleted, and a great deal of discussion on the merits. It is clear that this article is a neologism sourced solely to one or two fringe commentators, neither of whom provide enough sourcing to support even a mention in another article, let alone an article devoted entirely to their theories. Most of the people arguing 'keep' seem to have no real argument beyond a strong emotional belief in those fringe theories. Outside of Donnely and Gilmartin, the supposed sources they've dropped do not actually talk about the same thing, which means that the arguments premised on that track (which is most of the 'keep' arguments on this page!) can be disregarded. --Aquillion (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No consensus to overthrow decisions There's no consensus to merge this to celibacy, as it's not related to celibacy, a volunteer condition. There's also no consensus to create an own article for this neologism for some special condition of sexual frustration. There is a consensus to expand the article about sexual frustration with a paragraph about this special one, and you may feel free to do so. But...there is also no consensus to create a redirect to promote the neologism of some fringe theorists "incel", so that should not happen as well. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 15:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No restoration: Holy Jebus, what's with the filibustering? If you can't say what you think in a paragraph, then learn how. Last I heard, closing admins didn't judge by weight. Me, I'm just unconvinced, and no, Valoem can save the trouble of writing Yet Another 1000-word essay rebutting these few sentences. Not going to work. Nha Trang Allons! 16:41, 8 April 2015 (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.


I know that this is a contentious topic, because of the effort to get "incel" into Wikipedia. (I don't really care one way or the other about that; the notability is borderline at best, so it could go either way.)

But, really, guys, the very first source in this article directly says "celibacy is often enforced" sometimes. "Enforced" means exactly the opposite of "voluntary". So, sure, if your notion is celibacy is limited purely to religious celibacy chosen by mature adults, I'm willing to say that it's voluntary. But celibacy isn't limited to that. The very source that allegedly says every dictionary declares that it must be voluntary (it says nothing about any dictionaries) says that the most common meaning is just plain "unmarried" ("The term is mostly used in the sense of being unmarried". (It's a book entirely about religion, so the fact that it goes into details about the religion-specific use shouldn't be surprising.)

Given these sources, it is simply not true that absolutely every single one of the actually-celibate people on the planet has made a voluntary choice to remain unmarried or not be sexually active. It could be that something else is forcing them to be celibate (exactly like that first source says). If you really think that anyone who isn't married and/or having sex is doing that "by choice", then you should spend a month improving our article on Sexuality and disability. Or Prison sexuality, to give another example of non-voluntary celibacy that's mentioned in the first source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Well, that on depends on how you define celibacy. Not having sex is not always voluntarily. But here you chose to call the people living in prison or having a disability to call it live in celibacy ... What you cite is a the Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Volume 1. Can't check source, but it is a sentence cited from the book, used ... as some books in the field of sociology tend nowadays to use it. But it is not a definition of the celibacy. I don't know where that sentence was coming from, but I think it could have been one of the arguments to add incel. Try instead to check the definition in all major lexicons and dictionaries. Hafspajen (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Excuse me if this seems pedantic for a moment, but you have falsely accused me. I am not defining celibacy at all. I am quoting to you exactly what the WP:Reliable source says about it. We have to follow the sources, even if we disagree with them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Here we have the Encyclopedia Britannica:

    Celibacy, the state of being unmarried and, therefore, sexually abstinent, usually in association with the role of a religious official or devotee. In its narrow sense, the term is applied only to those for whom the unmarried state is the result of a sacred vow, act of renunciation, or religious conviction. Celibacy has existed in one form or another throughout history and in virtually all the major religions of the world.

    Hafspajen (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Either way, it is the deliberate abstinence from sexual activity, usually in connection with a religious role or practice., according to Britannica Concise Encyclopedia - page 359 it is the state of being unmarried - used in the sense of complete abstinence from marriage; generally for religious resons... Hafspajen (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The Oxford Dictionary is formulating it as: The state of abstaining from marriage and sexual relations. To abstain is defined as: Restrain oneself from doing or enjoying something.
  • Children's ... - Britannica is even more outspoken: A voluntary refusal to marry or engage in sexual intercourse, celibacy is often associated with taking religious vows. The three types of religious celibacy are sacerdotal, monastic, and institutional. That is a definition. Hafspajen (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by defines it as:
1. Abstinence from sexual relations.
2. The condition of remaining unmarried, especially for religious reasons.
The Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. defines it as

1. abstention from sexual relations. 2. abstention by vow from marriage. 3. the state of being unmarried. Hafspajen (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed until there is consensus for such changes, which seems like little more than incel dogma. Tarc (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
These are the changes; all that I will state on the matter is that WhatamIdoing was following the sources, like she always does. For example, isn't stating "All dictionaries" WP:Synthesis in this case? That's Hafspajen's wording. Simply stating "Dictionaries" in place of "All dictionaries" would suffice. Flyer22 (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Rich Farmbrough. Flyer22 (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The only source you mentioned that uses the word voluntary is "Kids Britannica". All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:07, 19 March 2015‎ (UTC)
This is WP:Synthesis because the "All dictionaries define celibacy as necessarily voluntary." sentence is not supported by the source. And even if it did state that, it's not true, as is clear by looking at different dictionary definitions of celibacy. Also, linking dictionary was unnecessary WP:Overlinking; people usually know what a dictionary is. Flyer22 (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree. That sentence violates every concept behind verifiability. It is not in the cited source. It's not even sort of, kind of, maybe in the source if you squint a bit. It's not there at all.
Hafspajen, let me make this very easy for you. If you want to write that "dictionaries say this" or "all dictionaries say that", then you must cite, at the absolute, rock-bottom minimum, a source that actually contains the word dictionaries somewhere in it. The encyclopedia that you've cited there does not contain the word dictionaries (in the plural) anywhere in the entire volume (and none of the four instances of dictionary in the singular have anything to do with its three-paragraph-long entry on celibacy). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Editor Rich Farmbrough took it upon himself to redirect voluntary celibacy to celibacy as a way to single-handedly bypass consensus while the issue is still being discussed. I nominated it for speedy deletion until some form of consensus is reached, because it's a first step to redirecting "involuntary celibacy" in a similar way. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 07:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that your assumption that it has anything to do with redirecting anything else is wrong. Even if it were part of a larger stand, then redirecting "voluntary" here could just as easily be a prelude to sending "involuntary" somewhere else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Hafspajen, this edit summary is inappropriate, and that text is still a WP:Synthesis violation. WhatamIdoing, Rich Farmbrough and I are going by what the WP:Reliable sources state on that matter; the only POV-pushing we are doing in that regard is going by what the sources state/noting here on this talk page what they don't state. I always follow what the WP:Reliable sources state, with WP:Due weight, as you should very well know by now, since I have corrected you various times at this article on that matter. I hardly care about this involuntary celibacy hoopla, and certainly have not commented a lot on the matter. Do I not see a problem with involuntary celibacy being covered in the Celibacy article? You are damn right I do not. That does not mean that I am pushing any POV on this topic. You, on the other hand? Let's just state that I am tired of reading both sides of this dispute. Flyer22 (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Isn't Merriam–Webster considered a "major" dictionary these days? "the state of not being married" is the primary definition. Also, did you notice that you cited four encyclopedias and only two dictionaries?
I think it's time to take this to NORN. I'll post the link in a moment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#All_dictionaries_say. Please share your views there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposalEdit

There seems no doubt that "involuntary celibacy" is a thing. However it is not clearly defined in the sense that we have, for example:

Christian celibacy is voluntary for monks and nuns, but involuntary for all desiring to be priests in the Catholic church. (Introduction to Religious Studies, Harvey J. Sindima, Page 103)


..individuals may be limited to a choice between commodified sex and involuntary celibacy... (Rethinking Commodification: Cases and Readings in Law and Culture edited by Martha M. Ertman, Joan C. Williams)

It is fairly clear that while the older, technical, meaning of celibacy may have related to an unmarried state (indeed the 1933 OED admits no other definition), Wiktionary is quite to correct to ascribe a second meaning "2. (by extension) Abstaining from sexual relations."

And moreover, neither of those meanings are inherently either voluntary or religious.

Therefore the material at User talk:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy that is not undue, belongs to the article Celibacy, at least in the first instance.

Any additional material (that would constitute WP:UNDUE in Celibacy) relating to the condition known as love-shy belongs in that article, since that is the WP:COMMONNAME of the condition.

Involuntary celibacy should redirect to Celibacy as should voluntary celibacy.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough18:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC).

Note: This was also the outcome of the second AfD on Involunatry celibacy. I can see that there are people here opposing the inclusion "non-religious" or "non-voluntary" celibacy. They should not go against the consensus established at AfD, without first establishing a new consensus. All the best: Rich Farmbrough18:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC).

  • Oppose in the most vigorous possible ways - With all respect you seems to omitted reading the rest of the talk page. 80% of it is about Why not merge. WE are NOT going to start that again. Hafspajen (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Per:Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines Read the archives: -> If you are a new editor to an article, be sure to read the archives. Not only are content disputes valuable examples of talk page behavior, but they contain a lot of expert knowledge surrounding the topic. You may quickly find your questions and/or objections have already been answered if you try searching all the archives for that article at once using the prefix parameter. Hafspajen (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not referring to "incel" per User:Tokyogirl79/Sandbox_2 or "Love-shy", but the more general topic, as outlined in User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy. I specifically made a reservation for "undue", though I am not opposed to a suitable mention of a fringe group or position if properly sourced.
There is no good reason for this article to concentrate on religious celibacy. Moreover the insistence of the word "voluntary" is, as above, against the sources, and presumably seen as a way to keep "incel" out of the article. This it cannot do, since the word "voluntary" is, in a defining sense, illegitimate.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
However do you realize that all the information you added were not out of a dictionary, but certain and very few authors very own definition of celibacy - that is rather far from the DEFINITION of the celibacy? You did not added a definition of celibacy but a couple of authors that they themselves do admit that their way of treating the subject is personal and deviant from the mainstream definition?
You cited Abbott, Elizabeth. But he 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. The New Age stuff you added ... with New Age authors talking about New Celibacy ans New Sex and New Love ... Well, all this, if it should be added it should be done differently. Hafspajen (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I did not add any information, certainly not from Elizabeth Abbott. If we had consensus to limit this article to "the state of being unmarried", we could do so. However that would not introduce "voluntary" or "religious" as constraints.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it's not just "one view, her view" that chastity, celibacy, and virginity are all used, by different people and in different contexts, to describe the same idea. The modern definitions, i.e., in actual dictionaries, do generally include the concept of chastity as an alternative definition. I believe that you quoted several such alternate definitions on another page not that many hours ago. "Abstinence from sexual relations" and "deliberate abstinence from sexual activity" seem to be in those definitions, and those are both within Abbott's concept, although they are absent from the pedantic older definitions (the same main definitions that you're rejecting when you present it as solely a voluntary religious practice). It would make perfect sense for a person who specializes in 19th century history to be aware of how much such a definition has changed in the last few decades.
By the way, did you notice that Abbott has an entire chapter about celibacy not always being voluntary, particularly in the non-modern, non-Western world? We shouldn't lose that kind of history in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Incels article created to get around WP:Consensus against creating involuntary celibacy/incel topicEdit

Yes, it has been created again, in yet another form. This is why I stated at Talk:Incels, "Coming from this matter after following MurderByDeadcopy's edit history minutes ago, I see that the article 'Incels' has been created to get around the WP:Consensus formed on this topic at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination) and at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 7#Involuntary celibacy. Because of this, I am WP:Pinging Sandstein, who closed the deletion review, and I will be alerting Talk:Celibacy to the existence of this article."

My only problem with the Incels article existing is that it was created to get around WP:Consensus. And let's not forget Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (3rd nomination), which was a few months ago. In that discussion, I supported the existence of that article (though I was more so for a merge). But, alas, WP:Consensus was against that support. Flyer22 (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Also WP:Pinging Juliancolton, who closed the third deletion nomination. Flyer22 (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I support deleting incels or at the very least merging it, but I'd prefer the first. MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 21:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
My God... they never stop, do they? Mythic Writerlord (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
It looks like someone has sent it to AFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Rahul Krishnan sessionsEdit

I've twice removed variations of the mention that "Rahul Krishnan organised workshops on Celibacy and Social Pressure in University of Pennsylvania from 2009-10". The material is being added by Ankit1121 (talk · contribs). The statement is unsourced, identifying a random person offering the workshops, with no indication that the workshops were any more notable than the hundred or even thousands of other such workshops offered at schools and youth programs elsewhere. I don't see any encyclopedic value offered by the statement. As the material has once more been restored, I'm bringing it to the talkpage for further discussion. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 06:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 modifiedEdit

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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 missingEdit

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 (talkcontribs) 09:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Paul the apostle listed as marriedEdit

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. (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Celibacy" page.