Wikipedians are unable to establish any coherent definition for "incel"

You can talk about anything related to Wikipedia criticism here.
User avatar
journo
Sucks Fan
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2023 5:57 pm
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Wikipedians are unable to establish any coherent definition for "incel"

Post by journo » Mon Jan 15, 2024 8:45 pm

Wikipedia can't figure out how to define [[incel]] in a way that is accurate but will also appease the numerous bigots who claim they don't think involuntary celibacy is real. At last polling, over 6 years ago, that denialist cohort was a very slim majority of interested editors. The definition therefore gets changed every month and with a barrage of changes this last month alone.

Some first-sentence snapshots since Molly resurrected the article in 2018 to a denialist tone. Almost all incoherent.

April 2018:
"Involuntary celibacy (sometimes shortened to incel, or referred to as love-shyness) is a neologism used to describe the state of people who wish to find a romantic or sexual partner, but are unable to do so."
(Confusing what is a neologism and what isn't.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =838125888

July 2019:
Incels are members of an online subculture[1][2] who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one, a state they describe as inceldom.
(Circular meaning, ie no meaning)
"incels are people in a subculture defined by those who call themselves incel"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =889254575

October 2022:
Incel, (/ˈɪnsɛl/ IN-sel, an abbreviation of "involuntary celibate"[1]), or sometimes incels, is an ideology,[2] an online subculture,[3] an identity,[4] an online community,[3][5] and/or a movement[3] characterized by public displays of sexual and/or romantic frustration.
(Definition which highlighted how many separate meanings it has)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1114853721

July 2023:
The incel (/ˈɪnsɛl/ IN-sel, a portmanteau of "involuntary celibate")[1] subculture is an online subculture of people who define themselves as unable to get a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one.
(Circular non-definition again)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1167007629

January 4th 2024:
Incel (/ˈɪnsɛl/ IN-sel) is a portmanteau of "involuntary celibate".[1] Originally coined as "INVCEL" around 1993 to 1997 by a queer Canadian female student known as Alana, the term rose to prominence in the 2010s as it became more closely associated with an online subculture of people (mostly white,[2] male, and heterosexual[3]) who define themselves as unable to get a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one.
(Breaking MOS:FIRST and WP:NEO more again)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1193605639

January 12th 2024:
Finally, a rational editor named User:SWinxy said enough, just call it what the recent Wikipedia definitions are actually referring to. This was a few days ago, they said
Incel (/ˈɪnsɛl/ IN-sel; a portmanteau of "involuntary celibate"[1]) is a pejorative term closely associated with an online subculture of people (mostly white,[2] male, and heterosexual[3]) who define themselves as unable to get a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1195186758

User:Swinxy's edit summary read:
describe *what* it is or means, not who coined it or what it's a portmanteau of. I've rearranged the first paragraph to do this
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1194093295

Swinxy's definition still broke rules but at least was an accurate statement of the definition Wikipedia has been going for since Molly.

Swinxy has since been swiftly reverted by User:Alanscottwalker to yet another new definition.

User avatar
boredbird
Sucks Mod
Posts: 507
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:24 am
Has thanked: 645 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: Wikipedians are unable to establish any coherent definition for "incel"

Post by boredbird » Tue Jan 16, 2024 8:02 am

I think an incel is someone who wants to fuck Molly White which is why she wrote this article about her fans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... y&dir=prev

They love it when she's mean to them and she loves being mean to them so it's a win-win.

User avatar
ChaosMeRee
Sucker
Posts: 225
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2023 11:59 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 154 times

Re: Wikipedians are unable to establish any coherent definition for "incel"

Post by ChaosMeRee » Tue Jan 16, 2024 12:20 pm

I laughed when Wikipediocracy happily stood by the claim I am an incel because of my focus on Jess Wade. They are so uninterested in her status as an undeserved Wikipedia role model they don't even realise she's apparently not into dudes, so any rage I might have due to her unwillingness to mate would of course be quite impotent. Definitions notwithstanding, I'm pretty sure this would not get me accepted into the incel "community" . Which I am of course furious about. Not.

I'm not even a stalker, as they also claim. I only became aware of her likely orientation from her Tweets (the Wikipedians in their awe of Princess Jess having happily allowed a situation to arise where reading her Tweets is a necessary thing if you want to understand why she makes the sort of edits and thus the sort of mistakes she makes.)

It was her Tweets that alerted me to the full picture of why she was so insistent Clarice Phelps was notable (beyond her usual advocacy for women she considers noteworthy). She had been told by chemistry historian Kit Chapman she was the first back scientist to discover an element. Or a super heavy element. Or an African American. Or be part of a team to discover it. You could tell the claim hasn't been properly researched by the simple fact it took on many different forms depending on which unreliable or non-independent source was claiming it.

In the ensuing farce of creations and deletions, Chapman claimed to have wrote the book on it (the history of super heavy element discovery), it just hadn't been published yet. It got a glowing review from someone claiming to be Jess, before it was published. When it was, of course, the claim was not backed up by the book.

No reliable source published the fact Kit Chapman's book didn't contain what Kit Chapman said it would, even though the contents of Wikipedia and criticism of Wikipedia had been directly affected by his Tweet. This curious discrepancy notwithstanding, Phelps did finally get her biography.

To date the "reliable" sourcing (source, singular) of this specific claim whose eventual emergence meant that it did eventually get included, is still deeply suspect. The claim is on a website for an organisation that Chapman is a member of. There is no author, no date of publication, and the copy is the same kind of promotional loosely worded SHITE that Wade et al had always been presenting as proof Phelps was notable.

Nothing was done about any of this, in terms of Wade's editing privileges or standing. If anything, it only added to her fame. She was fighting the good fight.

Wikipediocracy could have helped ensure the facts got out there to counter the growing mythology surrounding Princess Wade, Hero of Wikipedia.

They went a different way. They called me an incel.

Hence why I'm here, laughing my ass off.

I'm angry at Wade not because she won't fuck me. It's because she has fucked my children. And all the children whose education is now permanently degraded by the presence of Wikipedia and it's fake heroes.

The children of today and tomorrow will likely never have the skills required to know just how untrustworthy the Wikipedia published claim.....
The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) recognizes her as the first African-American woman to be involved with the discovery of a chemical element.[2][3][4][5
....really is. They will be taken in by the fact IUPAC surely would have applied the most rigorous of research before making this claim. That there is no other reason they would make it.

Don't be fooled by the existence of multiple sources. They are of course all simply repeating the claim from the IUPAC website (or indeed, from Wikipedia!). Just the usual Wikipedia problem. Monkeys and their fucking typewriters.

The children of today and tomorrow will lack the abilities to dig deep into the guts of Wikipedia to figure out who said what, when and why. Wikipedia already knows the public don't even know what Wikipedia is, let alone how to properly use it. They could give a fuck. They love the fact people just take it as read, especially if they see little numbers in square brackets.

I don't mean to take away Phelps' only claim to fame. Maybe it is true. But it also stands to reason this claim is probably complete horseshit when you consider the vanishingly small part Phelps actually played in this discovery, and the long and complex history of chemical element discovery (all elements, since you will note this claim in its final Wikipedia form is not about the subset of super heavy elements).

"African-American history began in the 16th century" according to Wikipedia. That very same famously unreliable encyclopedia is not so bad it cannot be used to remind people (through examples like Vivien Thomas) that black folk, despite all the tragedies of their history, had been in positions of not just responsibility but discovery in laboratories as early as the mid-30s. Their work was of course not being fully recognised at the time, but it is the job of later historians to correct the record. With books and shit.

And so, since we know elements like Technetium, not remotely a super heavy element, were being discovered as late as 1937, we can surmise that for a claim like this to be true, you would need some serious confidence in the research done to back it up. Nobody benefits, least of all the black folk, if it later turns out Phelps was not entitled to the recognition Wikipedia is giving her, and it only came about through white guilt or white stupidity.

This is why, for the most extraordinary claims, Wikipedia requires the highest level of sourcing. An actual academic paper. A named author, a date of publication, a peer review. History must be right, first time. Because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wikipedia is not advocacy. Wikipedia is not your desired version of the truth.

So where is it? Doesn't exist it seems. Not a problem for Wikipedia.

While of course many people were involved in getting them to this point, this was (is) a scandal entirely originating in Jess Wade's arrogant presumption she knew what Wikipedia is and how it should be written. An entirely undeserved claim of pseudo expertise she still doesn't meet even today.

Without Wade, either Phelps never has a biography, or she only has one after she has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources who have absolutely no agenda other than the summation of human knowledge. And like many of Wade's other subjects, Phelps certainly wouldn't have this permanent cloud over her achievements, ever tied to a Wikipedia scandal.

Wade has never shown even the slightest inclination to acknowledge much less own her role in scandals like this. This was a perfect example of her arrogance. All she did was absent herself, then return periodically to simply demand the biography be recreated, without acknowledging any of the ongoing issues with sourcing and mysteriously insufficient books being raised on the talk page, LIKE A MODEL WIKIPEDIA EDITOR IS REQUIRED TO DO. It was as insane to watch her do it as it was insane to watch others letting her do it, like it was normal behaviour, not rank disrespect for everything Wikipedia supposedly stands for.

And I do hate her for it.

But of course, you can't really stop Wade when the entire world's media is calling anyone who acts against her wishes, a sexist pig dog. Wikipediocracy could have set the record straight. Used their media contacts. They chose a different path.

And of course, as they would well know, my record in standing up for feminist issues when the cause is right and just, speaks for itself. The main reason I hate Eric Corbett, is his rank disrespect for women in general and the efforts to make Wikipedia more attractive to women in particular.

There is some irony then I guess, that Wikipedia is apparently no help in me understanding Vigilant's meaning. I took it to mean he thinks my angry pursuit of Wade was all about sex. The fact I want it and she won't give it to me.

The truth tells a very different story. As it always does.

Vigilant used to be a very vocal attack dog.

I don't mind admitting I was upset to be called an incel. But I didn't cry or retaliate in kind. I took effective action.

I took revenge.

I cut Vigilant's balls off. Got them right here in my pocket.

Took him down with nothing but my patented mix of inconvenient facts delivered with extreme hate.

Now he doesn't say shit.

Don't believe me?

Go poke him.

Poke the angry dog.

Tell him I've been talking smack about him. Saying he takes it up the ass from Jess Wade, Wikipedia and Uncle Jake.

Tell him I think he is their bitch. And that he likes it. That contrary to his former glory, if he ever even was that man, these days, he is now very afraid to be the only man in a room who is right, let alone be loud about it.

The top dog.

The man.

Or woman.

Vigilant is quiet as a mouse now. So is Jake. I was right about Gateway Pundit, I was right about Jess Wade.

And man alive, they cannot handle it. Not one tiny little bit.

Calling me an incel was them announcing their surrender.

Unfortunately for them, this is a war where prisoners are not taken.

Traitors get shot. Quisling fucks get hung from lamp posts, their corpses pissed on from a great height.

HTD.

User avatar
journo
Sucks Fan
Posts: 164
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2023 5:57 pm
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 98 times

Re: Wikipedians are unable to establish any coherent definition for "incel"

Post by journo » Tue Jan 16, 2024 2:06 pm

ChaosMeRee wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2024 12:20 pm
I laughed when Wikipediocracy happily stood by the claim I am an incel because of my focus on Jess Wade.
That's a lot of unorganized text you wrote.

"Jess Wade British physicist and Wikimedian and campaigner for gender inclusion in science"

They are claiming you fit #2 below

"Incel" is mostly used as a pejorative for
1) involuntary celibates
2) tradcon men who are against feminism
3) sexual entitlement/violence or otherwise sexually controlling behavior
4) Marjan Siklic's 2016 forum (as well as successor forums)

Anyway, the word is used as a pejorative for those 4 groups, which are broadbrushed together to paint all hard-up people as misogynists, traditionalists, and/or sexual abusers. Wikipedia's celibacy shaming is extreme because they write it as if they are dead serious and clearly gun for systemic maltreatment of group #1. Worse than the jokey kind of celibacy shaming found here and elsewhere.

User avatar
boredbird
Sucks Mod
Posts: 507
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:24 am
Has thanked: 645 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: Wikipedians are unable to establish any coherent definition for "incel"

Post by boredbird » Tue Jan 16, 2024 3:32 pm

journo wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2024 2:06 pm
Wikipedia's celibacy shaming is extreme because they write it as if they are dead serious and clearly gun for systemic maltreatment of group #1. Worse than the jokey kind of celibacy shaming found here and elsewhere.
"Wikipedia" didn't write the article though. Molly "Gorilla Warfare" White did. She is writing about other Wikilusers and they just let her. Maybe Molly doesn't count as a luser anymore since she is busy making money through CryptoOnlyFans. That would be a lot harder for Tamzin and TheresNoTime though nowadays who knows, anything's possible.

User avatar
ChaosMeRee
Sucker
Posts: 225
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2023 11:59 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 154 times

Re: Wikipedians are unable to establish any coherent definition for "incel"

Post by ChaosMeRee » Tue Jan 16, 2024 11:32 pm

journo wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2024 2:06 pm

They are claiming you fit #2 below

2) tradcon men who are against feminism
Doubtful.....
me wrote:And of course, as they would well know, my record in standing up for feminist issues when the cause is right and just, speaks for itself. The main reason I hate Eric Corbett, is his rank disrespect for women in general and the efforts to make Wikipedia more attractive to women in particular.

User avatar
Cla68
Sucks
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:18 pm
Has thanked: 101 times
Been thanked: 90 times

Re: Wikipedians are unable to establish any coherent definition for "incel"

Post by Cla68 » Mon Feb 05, 2024 2:58 am

That wikipedia article on incels is really negative in tone. As some of you have noted, it's likely because the incel situation is involved in the current socio-political struggle in the West. Quite a few of mass shootings are committed by incels, either self-identified or not, apparently because a lack of mating success can cause some men to develop nihilistic, violent, depression. The left apparently doesn't want to admit that so they try to frame it as a struggle against systemic misogyny and toxic patriarchy in Western culture which, of course, requires socialism to fix.

User avatar
gnngl
Sucks
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2023 12:00 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 9 times

Re: Wikipedians are unable to establish any coherent definition for "incel"

Post by gnngl » Mon Feb 05, 2024 3:20 am

Cla68 wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2024 2:58 am
That wikipedia article on incels is really negative in tone. As some of you have noted, it's likely because the incel situation is involved in the current socio-political struggle in the West. Quite a few of mass shootings are committed by incels, either self-identified or not, apparently because a lack of mating success can cause some men to develop nihilistic, violent, depression. The left apparently doesn't want to admit that so they try to frame it as a struggle against systemic misogyny and toxic patriarchy in Western culture which, of course, requires socialism to fix.
Ok, you've lost it

User avatar
Bbb23sucks
Sucker
Posts: 1342
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:08 am
Location: The Astral Plane
Has thanked: 1266 times
Been thanked: 267 times

Re: Wikipedians are unable to establish any coherent definition for "incel"

Post by Bbb23sucks » Mon Feb 05, 2024 3:27 am

Cla68 wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2024 2:58 am
requires socialism to fix.
?
"Globally banned" since September 5, 2023 for exposing harassment.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4577
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1131 times
Been thanked: 1818 times

Re: Wikipedians are unable to establish any coherent definition for "incel"

Post by ericbarbour » Mon Feb 05, 2024 9:10 pm

Whatever. Can we at least agree that WP, by letting Molly control this article, is producing word hamburger instead of "content"? They SHOULD have made a basic short item and LOCKED it to keep the manchildren (and their enemies) out. But no.

Post Reply