Talk:Incel/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Mostly white (again)

This has been discussed before in Talk:Incel#Incels_primarily_white? and Talk:Incel#"Often_white"_is_inappropriate_in_the_lede_of_this_article.

but I have sources not just argument

Looking at demographic variables, profile seemed to emerge—while incels were not more politically right-wing or disproportionately white (see Appendix 2/Tables 10 and 11) as they are often portrayed in popular mainstream media (Bates, 2020; Romano, 2018; Srinivasan, 2021), they were more likely to be living with either a diag-nosed (34%) or undiagnosed (24%) mental health condition (see Appendix 2/Table 6) and more likely to be NEET (not in education employment or training), lower educated, and still living with their parents (see Appendix 2/Tables 7, 8 and 9),which may in turn have deleterious effects on their ability to form romantic relationships.

In fact, the paper says that incels are disproportionality BIPOC ...though not by that much. I feel poetic justice would have us add that to the lede.

A significantly smaller proportion of incels were white (63.58%) compared to the proportion of white non-incels (75.13%), while the proportion of BIPOC (black, indigenous, or people of color) incels was greater than the proportion of BIPOC non-incels

I suspect that what's actually going on parental income during childhood, but obviously that's pretty hard to show.

I'd argue that this is the WP:BESTSOURCE, even though it's a study, because studies are better than newspaper articles, and actually asking asking people is better than analysing their posts for themes (which is what most of the earlier literature did), with all the limitations that come with Qualitative research.

P.S An earlier argument in some of the posts was a pedantic "mostly white" doesn't mean disproportionately white. This seems like a bit of a silly argument given I very much doubt the reader will read it like that. Also incidentaly they are no more right leaning than average according to this paper. Talpedia (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

First of all, the phrase "mostly white" is not used anywhere in the article at the moment. The phrase actually used in the lead is "often white", which is significantly less strong than you're making it out to be, and your citation doesn't do anything to change that, since we were already talking about 50-60%, and your paper shows 65%. The pargraph in the demographics section is considerably more nuanced, and includes caveats already.

I'm not super familiar with this journal, but this study is already used in the article, and frankly I'm not personally super convinced by it, though I didn't object strongly enough to remove it from the article at the time it was added. The main author is a grad student, and the research was done as part of their master's dissertation; per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence, and I don't think "significant scholarly influence" has been demonstrated here. Furthermore, it's a primary source, with data drawn from moderators of the Incel.wiki page, who shared a link to our survey on their pages encouraging incels in the community to participate, which honestly doesn't strike me as a particularly representative sample for several reasons. In fact, the author highlights "asking people" as a key limitation of the study, not a benefit. I don't think this study is particularly usable, and hoenstly after looking at it more closely, I'm actually more inclined to remove the sentences attributed to it in the demographics section than use it more extensively. Interested in other opinions, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to do a bit more reading before being pinned down to much - but let's give a provisionally response. Let's leave the specific details of wording for now, because I think questions about sourcing and fields is going to be deciding here.

frankly I'm not personally super convinced by it

I don't disagree but I'm equally unconvinced by everything else. It's basically the only thing we've got given that the earlier research is based on pretty suspicious methodology from qualitative analysis on biased samples of posts using an inductive / abductive mode of analysis to infer race from text, rather than the hypothesis based methods more common in other fields. I would have far preferred if there were more statisical studies before such a strong claim was made by scholars and reporters, and if there was a statistical review. Given this my feeling is kind of "no one knows but there is some white supremacy mixed in". I'd also prefer if people weren't actively using claims about incel radicalization for broad political purposes in my country including suggesting referring people to terrorist prevention organizations such that the accuracy of these claims becomes very important. Not wikipedia's concern of course (WP:RGW), but it makes we very interested in this topic and the need for good scholarship.

I'm not clear what I might want and what ours choices are.

• I don't feel the evidence is strong enough for wikivoice in the lead either way - I think the claim should be removed from the lede given the uncertainity.
• I'd probably like the source included in a section discussing race, caveats and all, that mentions the limitations of the discourse analysis approaches and the (assuming there are sources - one of the psychiatry reviews was moaning about this - but I'm not sure it mentions demographics directly)

It's also worth noting that this review doesn't mention race at all so the absence of comment could be interpreted as this not being WP:DUE and there not being consensus.

The issue of course is the wikipedia dislikes trusting individual's assessment about source reliability preferring more "bibiometric" type arguments (as you have used). In such circumstances I've seen people make arguments based on which fields a topic "belong too". My opinion tends to be that if you have two fields which aren't pseudoscientific both views should be expressed.

Some arguments with decreasing amounts of "subject specific knowledge"

• Statistical claims about belong to psychology not discourse analysis
• Both the views of psychology and sociology / social sciences should be represented in the article because these are distinct fields.
• This claim lies within the domain of psychology or psychiatry.

Direclty, addressing some points

significant scholarly influence

The study gets cited in this review in "sexuality and culture", (no longer a pre-print) it does not however get cited in either of the psychiatry reviews I looked at. I guess we would just cite this review rather than the source directly. My real argument is "everything is terrible" but converting this into bibliometrics this becomes - "the literature on the topic outside of discourse analysis is so small that any publication is massively influential"

particularly representative sample

I don't disagree. But these criticisms apply equally well to the preexisting research.

Talpedia (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with talpedia on the subject of race. 'often white' doesn't mean anything in anglo-forums based out of USA, and it reads unhinged. If the point is to point out white supremacy on the forums (of which there is a lot of, sanctioned by minority staff on the forums), there's sources for that and would be best just to say that explicitly. Also Talpedia your deleting of sourced info involving suicide encouragement is odd. There's plenty of sources on that, even in the last two months, including the recent ISDGlobal report and secondary commentary on it. 2600:4040:4030:5000:3367:6585:CF1F:252C (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

> Also Talpedia your deleting of sourced info involving suicide encouragement is odd.

Did I do that? I think this just got moved: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incel&diff=1141591156&oldid=1141498538&diffmode=source

Think you would get farther just by editing that particular sentence on race in the lede and sourcing it properly, that's like a 5 year old sentence, or a slight variation of one. ie before all the sources you are referencing 2600:4040:4030:5000:98F9:C300:62F7:6D82 (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure there was a bit of discussion here so I thought I should talk where first. Talpedia (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Overall talpedia, I would advocate a rollback of your additions involving violence and suicide, including the implication all violent incels are just wanting notoriety rather than actual violence. The emergence of violent incels from certain blackpill forums (since 2021, eg Davison and Genco) alone is proof against your insinuation. I agree that sources establish the existence of 'peaceful incels', but the worst incels of course have legal and practical reasons to claim they don't desire violence they advocate, and citing their whitewashing as as truth makes no sense..2600:4040:4030:5000:98F9:C300:62F7:6D82 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know I was making this implication. My addition was that about 1 in 10 incels admired these people https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incel&diff=1141587595&oldid=1141585708&diffmode=source Talpedia (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"x out of y incels are" isn't an intelligible statement using any of the definitions present in the current article. Incels from a particular forum? Anyone self-identified as incel? As of now this article is written as a proxy for incels.me, although not officially. In that respect, I would consider the vast majority of those in incels.me supportive or sympathetic to violence. They've had over 5-6 years to change that perception with increased media scrutiny so all these academic articles acting like 2018-2020 incels.me never existed isn't very persuasive. 2600:4040:4030:5000:BFD9:4D65:D363:B3EF (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

If we're to take the subculture definition seriously, "x out of y incels are" is especially non-sensical as subcultures don't have members. Anyone trying to quantify the beliefs of all punk fans based on surveying two punk forums I'd also consider laughable. How could you possibly quantify that? Soft science academia is a joke and most published research is wrong. 2600:4040:4030:5000:96F8:E747:4BF3:77D1 (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

:shrug: define a condition of membership and analyse members, I'm summarising a review. I don't disagree that identifying membership is methodological dififcult. On the other hand if you go to a punk gig at random and everyone is an anarchist that's pretty different from 1 in 100 so the data is a useful in a sense. Talpedia (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Going to a punk gig to make conclusions on the beliefs of a global subculture without memebership would make no sense. Just as these survey articles make no sense with regards to the subculture definition. Back to the subject at hand, if you want to change the race sentences, I'd suggest just editing them and sourcing them correctly. The talk page is a garbage can for stuff people don't want to deal with. 2600:4040:4030:5000:96F8:E747:4BF3:77D1 (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I'll give people more time to reply and if people don't respond in a material way make the chagne. Talpedia (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I share some of WK's concerns. I also don't think we should be determining the lead based on "poetic justice". I do, however, wonder if we should simply remove the statement about race from the lead, since over the last few years sources have emerged drawing that into question. I think the demographics section does an adequate job of describing the available research and the fact that various sources have come to contradictory conclusions, but it would be tough to reflect that succinctly in the lead. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

References

I also don't think we should be determining the lead based on "poetic justice"

Nor do I. That was mostly a bit of WP:FORUM comment. I was just expressing annoyance at the ease with which peopole were willing to describe incel movement as a "white" movement based of limited evidence, and now limited evidence points the other way. It's sort of a statement of the worlds hypocrisy - but I would propose caution in both cases not poetic justice.

I think we should remove comments about race from the lead given that there seems to be a lack of consensus.

Alos, I think "Researchers from the University of Texas ran a poll of self-reported incels, which found that 63.58% of those who responded identified as white, a smaller percentage than expected" should read "smaller percentage than the general population". Talpedia (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

General population of *what*? The study draws no such conclusions, making that statement original research, and even if it did, it's not a reliable source. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"draws no such conclusions"

Look... I'm not just making things up:

"A significantly smaller proportion of incels were white (63.58%) compared to the proportion of white non-incels (75.13%), while the proportion of BIPOC (black, indigenous, or people of color) incels was greater than the proportion of BIPOC non-incels (36.42% vs 24.87%), X2 (1) = 6.56, p = 0.01"

They got a general set of responders and then compared the incels to the non-incels.

We are already citing the source in the text, but I've address some arguements about about reliability. Namely that it is the only source out of psychology addressing this claim, and the discourse analysis approaches are questionable. Talpedia (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Those are all within the context of the study's sample size; it's "fewer white people than the rest of the sample". The study doesn't generalize that out to mean that the incel subcommunity has fewer white people than the "general population", and saying it does is original research. As I said, how would you even define "general population"? General population of the Internet? The US? The world? The study doesn't indicate anything of the sort, and we shouldn't either. it is the only source out of psychology addressing this claim means absolutely nothing about whether this source is reliable; I know that WP:OTHERSTUFF is about deletion discussions, but the general principle works here, too. You need to prove that this source is reliable, not that there aren't *other* reliable sources. You linked to WP:BESTSOURCE above, but you're misinterpreting it; that talks about how to choose between sources that are already reliable, not how to determine whether a source is reliable in the first place. That's why it's part of the NPOV page, not the RS page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm using general population to mean "those outside the group in the study" it's fairly standard usage no OR but I'm happy to use more technical language, really the point is that in the study being incel would appear, based on the research makes you less likely to be white. "than expected" -> "than non-incel's within the study"?

"You need to prove that this source is reliable" it's already in the article, I'm just proposing improve the summary. If you wanted to delete the source you could make an argument for that.

Other stuff I could address, but it's moot unless you want to delete the source. Talpedia (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

being incel would appear, based on the research makes you less likely to be white -- this is original research; it is an interpretation of the data in the study that the study itself does not say. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Fine, it's good thing I'm writing it in the talk page then. Are you having with "than non-incel's within the study" versus "than expected"? Talpedia (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Not particularly; it's wordier without providing any additional information. I'm not opposed to it super strongly, but it doesn't seem like an improvement. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess "than expected" feels kind of meaningless to me - how are we to know what the researchers expected. How about "than non-incels"? Talpedia (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hm, that's fair, but we definitely need to avoid saying things that could be misinterpreted as talking about non-incels in general. I'd say "than the control group", but that's not really accurate, since this is a survey and not a true experiment with a real control group. Your earlier formulation of "than non-incels in the study" might be the best compromise. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Talpedia (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Talpedia: If you are still interested, you may want to take a look at my last reply over here regarding "racism". See: [Aug 7, 2023, 14:08]. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Original research

This citation basically represents an evidence of pure WP:OR that gathered a bunch of newspapers (amounting to WP:NOTNEWS?) to draw conclusions. It seems like high-profile admin is involved into this article. Is it even safe to put a tag over the top? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's "safe"; do you have any reason to think it wouldn't be? But I don't agree or understand why you say it's OR. The reason all the sources are there, broken up into individual words is that people (usually with an agenda) have incessantly challenged each word there, so each word gets a specific citation, and we group them together like that so the sentence^[1] isn't^[2][3][4] an unreadable^[1][5][7] mess^[5][12] of footnotes^{[1][2][6][9][10]}. What original-research conclusion do you think is being made here? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Rules are rules. You don't make research on Wikipedia to prove some words that generally characterize a movement or set of beliefs by using newspapers. There are folks on wiki who would even argue that news aren't WP:RELIABLE sources. But this is highly contentious topic I guess. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

...they might argue that, but that would be wildly against the current consensus, which is that newspapers can be/are reliable sources. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Previously, it was already pointed out that some pieces were WP:OR: see this March 2020 post; didn't go deep into archives though. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is OR? The citation is simply a WP:CITEBUNDLE, which is fairly common practice on Wikipedia for reasons Writ Keeper already explained. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The issue of the news sources was already raised before: see 14 November 2021 (archive) and as the time passes it's more and more concerning cause many sources are 2018-affixed. Regarding the said bundled citation: it is used in two places and used to support facts that aren't supported in exactly same way that some other sources do (both cited and not cited).

In the second use case the bundled citation it's the sole source, which, by looking at the statement it's used against, is WP:OR. The other citation (i.e. (paywalled, Burton, Anthony (2022)) is NOT used in both places as the first one, but to my surprise down below it's used to support a contradicting (to the intro) statement (regarding endorsement of violence):

Others take the more nihilistic view that nothing will change society, even violent acts, and focus their efforts on constructing a scientific justification for this nihilism.

— 

Therefore I question the way these citations are joggled. The intro makes misleading impression that all "incel"s, inceldom, and incelosphere do is discussing something radical (which is not true and partly explained in the article). This is especially questionable if compared to Feminist and Radical feminist articles, which clearly distinguish non-radical and radical members and their discurs/agenda. This article doesn't enjoy the same treatment. I guess this is result of terrorism-related news coverage and studies with heavy bias and general lack of independent overview on motivation behind incel identity and actions.

There is a bunch of sources that are enlightening on inceldom. The first one is bordering overview.

References

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

First of all, master's theses are generally not considered reliable sources. Second of all, yet again, this article is about the online subculture that refers to itself as "incels", not the "state" of not-having-sex-despite-wanting-to that could be referred to as "involuntary celibacy". The online subculture is characterized by that list of adjectives supported by the bundled cite. The Wikipedia article doesn't say that those adjectives characterize *anyone* who wants sex and isn't having it; it characterizes the members of the specific online subculture that is the subject of the article. Again, the subject of the article is *not* "anyone who doesn't have sex despite wanting to"; only those people who define and refer to themselves as "incels" as part of the online subculture. Third, I'm still not actually clear on what your problem with the sentence is? You're kind of vaguely waving at the sentence and saying OR, but you're not actually saying *which* concepts in that sentence are OR. Maybe you could give a specific example of a change you'd like to see implemented, so we can understand your point better? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at the above two excerpts taken (August 7, 2023 Permalink). The bundled citation [17] is used to support completely different statements. Somehow "discussions" (most sources discuss discussions and forums that were held back in 2018) turned into "communities". The news from this [17] citation are used to achieve WP:SYNTHesis which is in fact is evidence of WP:OR. This is by intent I'm sure. If you scrutinize sub-sources used inside [17] further you will find even more disparaties. Hope this is clear. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 04:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not clear, as these statements do not conflict with each other. Given that we're talking about online forums, where the actual content is basically 100% discussions, talking about discussions within the communities vs. the communities themselves is drawing a distinction without a difference. And, you understand that the bundled citation is more than one source, right? It's made up of 13 different sources, so there's a lot of ground that group cite can cover. Finally, doing a quick spot check of the sources, I don't see any problem with them: literally the first source I clicked on (source [7]) includes this sentence: The incel community exists in a dark corner of the internet, infamous for its sexist, racist and homophobic language, where cyberbullying and posts normalizing rape are common. So, no, I don't see how that doesn't support the language it's being used to cite, or how anything in here is OR.

What do you want to change these sentences to? If all of your complaints and insinuations about the evil Wikipedia editors conspiring against you boil down to is removing the words "discussions in" from the first sentence, then we can do that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for writing lengthy replies. My concern is that the sources in the intro were lightmindedly cherry-picked to demonize (international?) inceldom meanwhlie omitting all others important circumstances.

The very first source from the bundled citation which is used repetedly says the following:

A small radical fringe believes that violence, especially against women, is an appropriate response — that an “Incel Rebellion” or “Beta [Male] Uprising” will eventually overturn the sexual status quo.

— 

Only a tiny percentage of incels seem willing to turn to violence or terrorism, and the movement isn’t a threat on the level of an al-Qaeda or ISIS.

— 

And then you go back and all of sudden you read that incel community is characterized by ... the endorsement of violence against women and sexually active people which is a bit contradicting to the source. Don't you see a problem here?

...literally the first source I clicked on (source [7]) includes this sentence:... This [7] source is citing some individual called James Ellis from Canadian TSAS. No way this may be considered a WP:RS. The same goes to NYT who cites (must be a joke) sociologist. These just lack factual scrutiny and basis. There are more issues: somehow, the Spiegel source is used to "support" the January 2020 report by the Texas Department of Public Safety. No kidding. Meanwhile being nothing more than first hand report on 4chan and some other incel forums. The racism tha is discussed at length in this article the Spiegel article actually attributed to a minority facebook group which was later deleted, as they admit (possibly) - at their own request, revealing their interest and lack of independence in this topic. Etc. etc.

...What do you want to change these sentences to?... I would suggest overhauling the intro. It would be the first good step. The second would be dropping the most of media reporting and upgrading them to newer and secondary sources keeping intro WP:NPOV and in compliance with MOS:INTRO. If you noticed many news sources are simply outdated as they are dated from 2017 to 2019. The other suggestion would be to get more eyes and hands on this article. Currently a half of the article is basically written by GorillaWarfare (should I say? a very controversial wiki-personality). AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? What exactly is controversial about GW?

There's a difference between "endorsing" violence and actually perpetrating violence. It's obviously true that only a very small percentage of incels actually do violence, but many more who endorse the violence of others when it happens; the very article you're citing, for example, says of Minassian that he has become a hero to many incels by killing ten people. It does say that the incel community is not monolithic and that Some of these moderate incels actively police the extremists in their midst, which is exactly why we use softening words like "often" and "many" in the Wikipedia article. But it then goes on to say that many incels have a much more sinister, and specific, worldview, and that they are men on various online forums celebrating violence and forming a mutually supportive echo chamber that justifies harming others, especially women, in the name of the incel uprising. So, no. It is more or less fair to say that source 1 doesn't wholeheartedly support the notion that incels often endorse violence, but it certainly doesn't contradict it. If source 1 was being used to cite that claim, then you might have a case--though even then it would be arguable at best--but it's not; instead, there are three other sources supporting that.

If you want to argue that newspapers aren't reliable sources, or that sources older than five years or whatever are no longer reliable, well, WT:RS or WP:VPR are there for that, but, y'know, good luck with changing the long-standing sitewide consensus on the definition of a reliable source. In the meantime, you haven't presented any reliable sources of your own that support the notion that there's anything wrong with the article as is; one isn't reliable, and the other says: We argue that incels’ focus on technology reinforces essentialist views on gender, buttresses male domination, dehumanizes women, and minimizes incels’ own misogyny, which doesn't strike me as in any disagreement with the content of the article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Merger proposal

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.

---

Hello, I come here from the incels.is article. I am creating a discussion following WP:PM, since a merger was decided in the AfD as consensus but the merge instructions were unclear and most importantly I have substantially contributed to the other article after consensus to merge was established, so a merge might not be necessary anymore. (The AfD merge close banner says to discuss the merge on talk page, but I also decided to open WP:PAM based on WP:CCC after substantial article growth.)

Per point 3 of WP:PAM (merge discussion process)

Mergers that are controversial, potentially difficult to carry out, or where at least one is either rated Class B or higher or is over 100K in size will need assistance from uninvolved editor(s) in determining whether to merge the pages.

2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Closing the loop to note that the IP here has discovered that WP:DRV is the place to challenge the outcome of an AfD: Wikipedia:Deletion review#Incels.is. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:08, 15 June 2023 (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.

Clarification of multiple definitions

I think that this article should make note of the fact that "incel" can refer to a life circumstance as well as a subculture, and provide information about both definitions. 205.189.94.8 (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Reference idea: "Intervening in Problematic Research Approaches to Incel Violence"

There is a recent reference resource that could help the section on Incel#Of reporting and research. It's called "Intervening in Problematic Research Approaches to Incel Violence" [1]https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1097184X231200825

It is, however, restricted access for the time being and so I'm not sure if it could be used for the article. (But the pdf of the article was sent to User:GorillaWarfare who would know the Wikipedia policy.)

Thebetoof (talk) 08:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thebetoof: I've stuck it in the ref ideas template at the top of the page. I don't have a moment to read through it and incorporate it, but perhaps someone else will. As for the paywall, that's no problem: WP:PAYWALL. I believe this source should be accessible through The Wikipedia Library. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 18 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Manofthewater (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Vanessaamartinez.

— Assignment last updated by Vanessaamartinez (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)