Wikipedia Incel article: Difference between revisions

[[GorillaWarfare]] owns (not just stewards) the incel Wikipedia page as of mid 2018 against wikipedia conduct policy, writing most of the article and constantly reverting unorganized registered users on technicalities about sources like the [[Donnelly Study]], but then allowing those sources to be used later as long as it was introduced by editors she liked.  Her actions were alerted to Wikipedia's Arbcom team, which Gorilla had served as a member before, as well as the Wikipedia ANI board, which revealed that the only Wikipedia admins or high-profile editors who hadn't given up on the incel article were explicitly and proudly [[anti-incel]], including former senior designer of the Wikimedia foundation [[Jorm]] and fellow Wikipedia admin [[Gamaliel]] who posted this [[misandry|misandrist]] and activist banner on Gorilla's talk page after the Arbcom submission was rejected for review.  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GorillaWarfare&diff=858543044&oldid=858509008 diff]

Wikipedia editor [[DaveDial]] threatened a topic ban on gender for editor [[thylacoop5]] despite not having admin privileges after [[thylacoop5]] made the following comment: "The following editors: [[Dave Dial]], [[Jorm]], and [[GorillaWarfare]] have recently suggested that this article should primarily focus on misogyny and violence and exclude other topics; with the rationale that this is where media coverage primarily focuses. By analogy, Islamism in the media primarily focuses on terrorism by groups such as ISIS/AL-Qaeda. Yet the islamism article has 14 subsections that do not mention militancy. Doesn't that show that there is a precedence on Wikipedia of broadening the focus?".<ref>http://wikirev.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=2045&p=3711&hilit=incel#p3711</ref>

The mention of the [[SPLC]] article in the intro makes all incel communities seem like moral equivalents to the KKK, even communities like [[Incelswithouthate]], [[Incelistan]], [[Braincels]], and [[Love-shy.com]]. This is political smearing of incels.  The intro also makes it seem like most self-identified incels encourage violence, when this is a vocal minority of users on 4chan related sites.  There is a negative feedback loop where authors for incel pieces come to wikipedia first, get the notion that all communities advocate violence, write another piece, which wikipedia then cites again as another citation of evidence of incels advocating violence.  This is also why anti-incels jumped so hard at the chance to re-write the involutary celibacy article, stuff the entire article with news against wikipedia policy, then move the page when they couldn't change it enough.

Much of this problem with the page lies in the faulty assumption that "incel" is a subculture rather than a life circumstance.  Because if it's a subculture than it can only be defined in it's relation to 4chan and the [[PSL]] scene, when it's usage expands beyond 4chan and the [[PSL]] scene.

In its discussion of incel communities, as of August 16th, the article mentions only [[r/Incels]] and [[r/Braincels]], omitting or downplaying any non-[[Reddit]] incel communities such as [[love-shy.com]], [[Incelocalypse]], [[Incels.me]] or [[Incelistan]]. The piece also states, "Self-identified incels are mostly white", a claim many incels find dubious given internal demographic research done by forums has shown their forums are almost or at least half non-white.  '''The mods of incels.me are pretty much all non-white for the record.'''

A big shitfest on wikipedia about whether or not 'involuntary celibacy' is a thing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Involuntary_celibacy_(4th_nomination)]