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: 168
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2023 5:57 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 102 times

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

Post by journo » Wed Feb 07, 2024 3:26 am

ericbarbour wrote:
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.
the tl;dr on my post at least is that the WP:RS use the term is primarily as an ambiguous pejorative, only pointed out by a Wikipedia veteran years the page was revived. RS has even further moved in this direction after most media getting a bit scared to attach it to a few forum owners or forums.

So a broadbrushing pejorative is *what* the word is in RS. A collection of people or subcultures is not primarily *what* the word is used as in RS, as User:Swinxy pointed out https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1195186758

It'd be like creating a page for [[karen]] and just listing people the media ever called a karen or groups who self-identified as such. 'Karen' is first and foremost intended as a flippant pejorative for an entitled woman before any meme subcultures or ideologies. While not a direct analogy, incel is used as a flippant pejorative for an entitled or misogynist man, before (and often without) any intent to identify or label subcultures or ideologies.
Last edited by journo on Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:50 pm, edited 22 times in total.

User avatar
journo
Sucks Fan
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2023 5:57 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 102 times

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

Post by journo » Wed Feb 07, 2024 3:32 am

Image

The above is User:Edge3 on Wikipedia lying it's not WP:BLUE or WP:RS that Small directly promotes blackpill shit. It's a particularly psychopathic thing for User:Edge3 to contest because it's plainly obvious the blackpill is the reason they run their sites. It's not minor and no one who has researched the sites for than 10 minutes is confused about that. The RS goes into that in detail. Even a cursory glance of Galante and Small's decisions the entire life of the site show that.

The very first splash image on incels.is is covered in animated floating gifs of "blackpills", and that's just the front page. I distinctly remember when Small put that there.

Image

But nevermind that, here's Small insisting on making pro-blackpill pages the "important pages" on the forum-linked wiki through sidebar links.

Image
Image
https://archive.is/5ebJK

The rules section of his forum, authored by him (and which includes his direct email contact) lists blackpill propaganda as one of six top resources for members.

Image

Here is Small designing and then selling blackpill T-shirts and mugs. Small admitted to being this Reddit account on his KF where he admits to his name, was ID verified by KF administration, posted pictures of his own mail addressed to him, and who the BBC said was his KF account in a recent media report.

Image
https://archive.is/Z8G2g

This stuff is in RS anyway, it's not even undue.

User:Edge3 making a moderation decision on WIkipedia to pretend those owners didn't consciously load their websites up with blackpill shit was ridiculous.

Wikipedians have no issue calling random shooters incel, but when it comes down to actually holding people in charge of forums responsible for blackpill ideology, they run as much interference as they possibly can. The suicide cult link was rejected at least 3 times for 2 straight years before Freedom4U finally broke that pattern.
Last edited by journo on Thu Feb 08, 2024 12:59 pm, edited 27 times in total.

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4597
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1141 times
Been thanked: 1842 times

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

Post by ericbarbour » Wed Feb 07, 2024 4:19 am

journo wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2024 3:32 am
Here is Small selling blackpill T-shirts and mugs. Small admitted to being this Reddit account on his KF where he admits to his name, was ID verified by KF administration, posted pictures of his own mail addressed to him, and who the BBC said was his KF account in a recent media report.
That's hilarious. Wearing a shirt like that is like a KICK ME sign on the back--a display of self-abasement. Guaranteed not to get you laid.
Wikipedians have no issue calling random shooters incel, but when it comes down to actually holding people in charge of forums responsible for blackpill ideology, they run as much interference as they possibly can. The suicide cult link was rejected at least 3 times for 2 straight years before Freedom4U finally broke that pattern.
Not surprising--also would not be surprised if Small has personal friends deeply embedded in the "wiki cult". WP can go after Kiwi Farms, 8kun or Dramatica because those particular incels "aren't cooperative", or whatever stupid excuse there is. Never what you know but who you know.

User avatar
journo
Sucks Fan
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2023 5:57 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 102 times

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

Post by journo » Sun Feb 18, 2024 8:30 pm

User:FeydHuxtable is now arguing with the dwindling [[incel]] page patrollers about the definition of "incel", making a few claims
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ince ... al_Slander
including that:

1. the "subculture" "incel" definition was a very minor definition in WP:RS at the time a few Wikipedians made it the Wikipedia definition. Got amplified into a moderately used definition due to citogenesis (he's not wrong). Though he's wrong it was ever a relatively popular definition, including now. It's most common usage (and meaning) is as a general pejorative for celibacy (regardless of ideology/subculture), which he is right about and the Wikipedia article only devotes a single sentence to.

Feyd's second claim is that

2. that Molly and crew's sentence in the lede of [[incel]], this:
"incels are characterized by deep resentment, hatred, hostility, sexual objectification, misogyny, misanthropy, self-pity and self-loathing, racism, a sense of entitlement to sex"
is
arguably the most expansive demonising sentence in the history of humanity FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

User avatar
ericbarbour
Sucks Admin
Posts: 4597
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:56 am
Location: The ass-tral plane
Has thanked: 1141 times
Been thanked: 1842 times

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

Post by ericbarbour » Sun Feb 18, 2024 10:00 pm

journo wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 2024 8:30 pm
User:FeydHuxtable is now arguing with the dwindling [[incel]] page patrollers about the definition of "incel", making a few claims
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ince ... al_Slander
Oh, we're supposed to take that nerd "seriously"? He has this on his userpage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Feyd ... tenCentral

User avatar
journo
Sucks Fan
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2023 5:57 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 102 times

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

Post by journo » Sun Feb 18, 2024 10:06 pm

ericbarbour wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 2024 10:00 pm
journo wrote:
Sun Feb 18, 2024 8:30 pm
User:FeydHuxtable is now arguing with the dwindling [[incel]] page patrollers about the definition of "incel", making a few claims
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ince ... al_Slander
Oh, we're supposed to take that nerd "seriously"? He has this on his userpage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Feyd ... tenCentral
He's been floating aroud in that talk page and related ones for years but this is the first time he's declared Jihad on the article as a whole

User avatar
journo
Sucks Fan
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2023 5:57 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 102 times

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

Post by journo » Sun Feb 18, 2024 10:09 pm

The only admin FeydHuxtable could get to take that article from Molly would be Acroterion, who once suggested Molly tone that article the fuck down and further establish an opposing viewpoint in the article, to no avail. But outside of that guy, I can't think of anyone off the top of my head.

Veterans who'd be *eager* to help Feyd include User:Valoem, User:Amin, and maybe User:small_jars with some coaxing. small_jars also contested major parts of Molly's definitions and framing, after which Molly made very minor adjustments.

User avatar
journo
Sucks Fan
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2023 5:57 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 102 times

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

Post by journo » Mon Feb 19, 2024 11:45 am

User:Writ_Keeper is now saying that "incel" doesn't mean "unwanted celibacy" to justify the article as it is written.

She's leaving out the authors of [[iincel]] as it is tried to keep their incel definition at [[involuntary celibacy]] a few years ago. In other words, they intended this "sexual slander" to be *at* [[involuntary celibacy]], ie "unwanted celibacy". So it's no wonder people go to [[incel]] and just see it as an attack on unwanted celibacy.

User avatar
journo
Sucks Fan
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2023 5:57 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 102 times

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

Post by journo » Wed Feb 21, 2024 9:55 am

The re-write [of incel on English Wikipedia] would be based partly on the collab between Austin & Swansea universities. I'm going to return to this page in a week's time. If I don't see a plurality of 3 admins approving the re-write proposal, I've going to leave this topic for at least another year. End of conversation. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC
How would you possibly get 3 admins to help you with this when not a single admin has shown interest in this back when this was much easier to do? Also SURIC, out of Swansea, is tangential and arguably an indirect downstream product of a a weird incels.is whitewashing podcast. That's a bad suggestion.

If feyd is reading this (unlikely), the only mature route imho on this subject using the dry and non-sexist sexology literature on [[involuntary celibacy]], [[unwanted celibacy]], [[forced celibacy]], or whatever else variation for something outside the [[incel]] page. There are also many veterans on the record of supporting that. Also, don't think many admins would be opposed to that. Then you could try to AFD [[incel]] in favor of a more responsible and mature page, but that might be difficult.

Post Reply