Talk:Celibacy syndrome

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NWhitten1776.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Criticism
I added a bunch of info on criticisms of the "syndrome". Jmattthew (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Jmattthew, examine the WP:Neutral policy thoroughly; as noted in its WP:Due weight section and the subsections relating to that (WP:BALASPS and WP:GEVAL), it does not mean "give equal weight to." Your edit added WP:Weasel wording to the article; also see WP:ALLEGED. Stating "a controversial theory of a alleged syndrome" is overkill, and the "a" should be "an." And "They theory" should be "The theory." For the first sentence, similar to the Rape culture article, which is an article about a controversial topic, all that needs to be stated is that it is a theory. Another part of the lead can then briefly note that the theory is controversial and why that is, per WP:Lead, which is what your edit also essentially does. You additionally need to fix the gaps that are between the references you added. There should be no gaps between references. And punctuation, per WP:REFPUNCT, should usually be placed before, not after, the references.


 * On a side note: I added a heading for this talk page discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Flyer22, Thanks for this feedback. Wouldn't it be better for you to make whatever changes that you feel are appropriate, especially regarding my typos?  Anyway, I've hopefully fixed all grammatical and punctuation errors.


 * I've completely rewritten the lead. Instead of calling it a "controversial" or "alleged" theory, I've noted that, despite misnomer, it's a media theory rather than an actual syndrome (as admitted by The Guardian journalist who proposed the theory).  I've attempted throughout to be factual, sourced, and neutral.  If you think my additions aren't those things, please suggest specific changes (or make your own).  Unfortunately, I don't understand what you meant when you referred to the "due weight" policy.  I thought I gave due weight, but see if the rewrite improves it.  I also don't understand where you found reference gaps.  Please suggest what specifically should be fixed or add "citation needed" where you feel that it's needed. Jmattthew (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Jmattthew, regarding these latest changes you made, there are still problems. You have now started off the lead sentence by disputing the topic without even explaining what the topic is. The lead doesn't explain what the topic is until the second sentence. That is bad form, per WP:Lead sentence. Consider wording the lead sentence the following way: "Celibacy syndrome is a theoretical syndrome that is purported to cause young Japanese men and women to avoid sexual activity." Furthermore, the theory is not about all conventional relationships; it is mainly about sexual activity, and the first sentence should be clear about that. You can note the "love, dating, courting" aspect after that. And before or after the "love, dating, courting" bit, go on to state: "The theory is not recognized as a syndrome by any medical or psychological body, and it has been reported by unknown members of Japan's media, according to journalist Abigail Haworth of The Guardian." Then the rest of what you added to the lead can follow that. Also, per MOS:Headings, headings are in sentence case, not title case (except for the times that the headings are an official title of something, like a book or a film).


 * As for why I didn't fix your edits and make tweaks to them, I decided to comment on them here at the talk page first, especially in case you reverted me. I looked at your contribution history and felt that I should bring the matter to the talk instead of changing your text. I didn't even want to fix your typos and give the impression that I approve of your addition in its entirety. I wanted you to learn of Wikipedia formatting and rules that you weren't aware of before, and to apply them. I also wondered if Casliber is still watching the article and would tweak your text. I figure that he is watching it, but doesn't want to address the matter. What I meant by pointing out the gap between your references is exactly what I stated above. In the lead, there was a space between a pair of references you added; you can see that with your version in this link. There should not be a space between references; the references should be placed right up against one another. A bot fixed your gap and WP:REFPUNCT issues here, and an IP fixed your typos here and here. By pointing you to the WP:Neutral policy and its subsections, I was simply aiming to make you aware of the fact that being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what it means in common discourse; your first edit to the article includes the following edit summary: "providing a neutral point of view." Too many Wikipedia editors don't know what WP:Neutral actually means. I know that you don't edit Wikipedia much, but, since you do edit it, you should become more familiar with its rules.


 * On a side note: Since this article/talk page is on my WP:Watchlist, there is no need to ping me to it via WP:Echo. Because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies, this will also be my last time pinging you to this talk page unless I think that pinging you here is needed. Flyer22 (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that stating an article by noting what the condition isn't is not a terribly good way to start...except that the subject has no validity, which is why I nominated it for deletion in the first place. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate education on the finer points of Wikipedia editing. I fixed the header formatting and changed the word order of the 2nd sentence to mention sex disinterest first.  Jmattthew (talk) 11:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks ok (i.e. appropriately weighted) now, to my eyes anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
The "celibacy theory" may very well be pure nonsense. However, whether it is or not, the plain fact is that it's not a "syndrome" by definition. Unfortunately, the existence of this Wikipedia entry and the fact that its title contains "syndrome" implies the validity of that term. Therefore, I believe that the priority of the lead paragraph and the lead sentence of this article should be to address the "syndrome" misnomer. That is why I have structured the lead paragraph (in essence) as: "CS is not a syndrome. It's a theory that [long description]." While my structure deviates slightly from the style guidelines in WP:Lead sentence, I believe it's preferable to: "CS is [long description].  Oh and, by the way, it's not a syndrome." I don't think this wikipedia entry should be deleted. It's useful for people to learn that the subject has been thoroughly refuted, especially given its widespread hype. Jmattthew (talk) 11:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree, per what I stated with my "10:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)" post above; the initial sentence is not an appropriate WP:Lead sentence. Like the aforementioned Rape culture article that I mentioned above, no matter how disputed a topic is...it should not begin by disputing the topic without even explaining what the topic is. It should not take until the second sentence to define the topic. I am likely to change that initial sentence to what I suggested with my "10:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)" post, which is not a long initial sentence in the least, or to something similar. Or I'll leave the initial sentence in its poor state because I don't feel like debating this topic. Then again, I am also likely to take this article off my WP:Watchlist. Oh, and if people have such a bad attention span that they cannot read past the initial sentence, they likely shouldn't be reading a Wikipedia article.


 * By the way, I moved this section down because, per Talk page guidelines, newer sections go at the bottom. Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Celibacy syndrome is a syndrome not recognized by any medical or psychological body." is a very bad way to start an article - one should ideally start with a concise definition, i.e. what it is (or purports to be) rather than what it's not. It's also non-neutral, because it leaves the impression of driving one's point home. Contrary to what many people think, debunking is not and should not be the primary function of any Wikipedia article. Tagged appropriately. GregorB (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * GregorB, thanks. As you can see above, I addressed this...to no avail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)