Talk:Incel/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Added Diego, Twohey, Lamarcus, etc arc

As its less newsy now. Was described as valuable on talk before. Thank you Bashfan34 (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent Wa Post news article

Recently, Washington Post, puts this media arc further in incel territory. Taylor Lorenz wrote a news article on this while also naming the forum founders and mentioning that Cloudflare is protecting their forum https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/22/incels-rape-murder-study/ Added Wa Post source to article Bashfan34 (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Naming of site

NYtimes didn't name the site but spoke of it as a single incel forum, and used subtle language which seens to imply existence of different types of incel spaces. CCDH called .is "the incel forum" but mentioned there are others. Wa Post calls .is even more vaguely "the forum". My uninformed guess is that all three just don't want to drive traffic to the site. Additionally, this seems to be Wikipedia's policy. So in the WP section about .is I just call it "Reddit offshoot". Thought "subreddit offshoot" might be more appropriate but that makes it sound like it's a subreddit, which it's not. So keeping it at Reddit offshoot just because it's an offshoot of a Reddit subreddit. If someone can think of a better name to call it, I would be happy. Not trying to place blame on Reddit for its exstience, but due to the fact that the newspapers of record are not explicitly naming the site, and only its founders, could only come up with "reddit offshoot forum". Bashfan34 (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

If someone can come up with a better name, please edit it. Like Wikipedia veterans, I also share a reticence to list its URL on Wikipedia. Its the academic sources and digital journo type places that continuously name it. This forum has hundreds of academic sources and a few digital news places which explicitly lists its URL, but the newspapers of record choose not to, only the founders. With this new Wa Post article, it seems the forum could easily have its own WP article, but not going to author that. That would just be unnecessary stress. Think will just stop thinking about this topic while I'm still feeling relatively emotionally ok. Bashfan34 (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Too heavy on Anglosphere and lack of consistency with other articles

Anglosphere focus

Incels have been reported on globally, with forums and prominent figures in multiple non-English speaking countries. This article is almost exclusive to incels in 2-3 Western countries. While WP has other language wikis, en:wiki is not just about the West. A good article would incorporate more from foreign language RS coverage, of which there is a ton. If people want links of examples, I can send them.

Consistency

There are two articles here about incels I've found on WP, Jack Peterson (spokesperson) and here at incel. Think there should be a link up btw the two articles more of for the first to be deleted. If he was the only incel notable enough to have his own WP page, then he should be in here imho. If he's not notable, then his page should be deleted. Just consistency. Bashfan34 (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Improved the Jack Richard Peterson article to fit WP standards more, and fleshed it out. Added link btw incel and there. As far as I can tell these are the only two articles about incels on Wikipedia, and wanted consistency. I didn't create the Jack Peterson page and its former version has been what appears to be a self-authored (ie Jack authored) blight on this wiki for years. If people believe Jack Peterson article should be AFD'd, I'm not necessarily against that, but have improved the article as it exists the best I can Bashfan34 (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

This is very derogatory towards women

This article claims that women are more violent in relationships (when this is not true), that women are “child–like” and cry a lot, and get angry etc. Incel’s are literally complaining about not getting sex and feel entitled to women giving them sex. 2A00:23C8:116:7601:F889:88BE:B7F2:B3B1 (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you are talking about? I searched the article for both of your objections, and I see nothing in the article that says anything like what you are saying above. Please clarify and provide exact locations and quotes of the problematic text. --Jayron32 12:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Who wrote this, the huffington post cultural editor??

This article has many unsubstantiated accusations and patently false assertions.

It really needs more sources. Especially when lumping all 'manosphere' organisations under the labels of misogyny, a word as over-used as it is misunderstood. As far as I can tell the driver for these organisations is apathy, not anger. 80.229.191.1 (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you want it to change, then like you say, you need to provide more (reliable) sources to support your change. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Misconception of the term "hypergamy".

This is a petition to credible sources for a dubious excerpt (Incel - 2.4). Or, if not, then a petition to remove the excerpt.

This part of the text below refers to a misconception of "hypergamy". The correct definition of this term is different from that shown in the excerpt. If this excerpt refers to a common misconception among incels, please provide a link to a trusted and reliable source in the text that supports the sentence.

"It includes the belief that 80% of women are attracted to the top 20% of men, an application of the Pareto principle that is referred to among incels as the "80/20 rule", and the belief in "hypergamy", or that women will abandon a man if they are presented with the opportunity to have sex with or enter into a relationship with a more attractive man."

You can find the correct concept of the term "hypergamy" for example on the Merriam-Webster dictionary page, in its entry.

Gufiguer (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Misconception of the term "hypergamy".

This is a petition to credible sources for a dubious excerpt (Incel - 2.4). Or, if not, then a petition to remove the excerpt.

This part of the text below refers to a misconception of "hypergamy". The correct definition of this term is different from that shown in the excerpt. If this excerpt refers to a common misconception among incels, please provide a link to a trusted and reliable source in the text that supports the sentence.

"It includes the belief that 80% of women are attracted to the top 20% of men, an application of the Pareto principle that is referred to among incels as the "80/20 rule", and the belief in "hypergamy", or that women will abandon a man if they are presented with the opportunity to have sex with or enter into a relationship with a more attractive man."

You can find the correct concept of the term "hypergamy" for example on the Merriam-Webster dictionary page, in its entry.

Gufiguer (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Origins of the term in the lead

Beginning a discussion here to see if we can come to an agreement on whether the lead ought to include a mention of the origin of the term. As I mentioned in an edit summary, I don't think this detail is particularly leadworthy—Alanna coined the term, but her community was a pretty different beast from contemporary incel communities. It's a small portion of the history section—proportionate to its lack of mention in many if not most sources about incels—and is sized similarly to other grafs that aren't mentioned in the lead, so I don't think its omission is inappropriate.

Its inclusion also makes the second sentence of the lead quite long (even more so if it was edited back to properly reflect the fact that discussions in incel communities share the listed characteristics, and to restore "resentment" which keeps being removed for some reason). There are some other issues with the text that was introduced that I can go into if there is consensus to include the detail in the lead, but I'll save you the reading for now.

Pinging Loginnigol, Praxidicae, and Anachronist to weigh in if they like. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree with GW here. It seems like providing proper context for this would be impossible in the lead section - better to do it in the body of the article. The origins of the term are not fundamental to understanding what the concept is today, which is what the lead should focus on. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that it probably should be in the lead, but not worded like it was. Maybe something like this - The term incel originally came into prominence on a website designed to connect individuals who identified as involuntarily celibate. ShaveKongo (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

That alternative is fine with me. Given that there is a significant amount of space devoted to the history of the term in the article, a brief mention in the lead is warranted. The WP:LEAD guideline exists for a reason. That is why I restored it, although it seems I was quickly reverted. The "status quo" revision is unacceptable because it states only the current situation, and says nothing about history or origins, thereby failing to summarize the body text in accordance with WP:LEAD. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The "History" section devotes one paragraph out of seven to the origins of the term, and half of that graf is describing the originator's view on how the meaning changed. Including that in the lede seems disproportionate. I'd say that the bare-bones etymology in the lede now is satisfactory. XOR'easter (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it isn't satisfactory if it fails to provide relevant historical context. Anyone reading just the lead section would come away thinking that the term "incel" started out from day one with all the baggage of its current meaning. It certainly isn't "undue weight" to include relevant context. Brevity isn't a valid reason to exclude it. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

But does the main text of the article establish that part of the history as "relevant context"? I'm not convinced that it does. If a reader stopped after the lede, would they be missing out on an essential aspect of the modern situation, or a bit of ironic trivia? I'm inclined to think that it's closer to the latter. Moreover, the suggested addition ("...came into prominence on a website...") reads as redundant with the text already in the intro. If I saw that and didn't know that there was history it might be hinting at, I'd think, "Yes, you already told me it's an online subculture thing." XOR'easter (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

To summarize the below, I tend to agree with XOR'easter. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

sideshow from a globally-banned editor
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Agree with Anachronistic. I don't think opposition to them is malicious, just misguided. Because simple subtraction can conclude it's not trivia as XOReaster suggest. A majority of the history of self-described incel forums is between 1997 to start of r/incels posting(2016). A friendly reminder that RS and therefore this page is missing history on the majority of the life of self-described incel forums, ie from 1997-2013 (17 years). 2013-2016 was mostly love-shy forum, which this article does go into more than 1997-2013, but it's arguable whether or not it was self-described (I think it was, but RS is not always explicit on that). This page, with the exception of a paragraph covers 2016-2022 (7 years). 7 years is a strong minority on the history of a collection of communities claimed by the article to be spanning 26 years. This is mostly self-evident from the page, and doesn't take special knowledge to arrive at that conclusion imho. RS and this page does indeed mention the self-described people started in 1997, and gives hints at Cernan's forum at least in a sentence, so some sort of timeline using timelines are in RS (starting at 1997) may be helpful to give readers a perspective on how this page doesn't cover a majority of this history of the term. If it is a subculture, subcultures have histories. Also, as a sidenote, the 17 years of self-described forums went Alana (1997-2003ish) => Lee's forum (2004-2006) => Cernan's forum (2006-2008) => Bella's forum (2008) => Kaycee's forum (2008-2013) => unknown owner forum (2013). Each of those forums were separate communities, and were not an umbrella community. For example, Alana was not on the forums during and after Lee's. And Kaycee's forum is argued to have been a part of a hostile takeover of Cernan's, as both Cernan and Bella were not welcome on it (as far as I know). Kaycee's ended in 2013 and was a heavily moderated any-gender-allowed forum, likely responsible for this lost documentary. 2600:8806:0:C2:60EB:1F8C:E6C3:8B49 (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC) If it's the conclusion from the Wikipedia community that lack of RS on 1997-2013 automatically makes all of 1997-2013 "alana's community", then Alana should indeed be in the lede, as "her community" was the vast majority of the life of self-described incel communities. If it's instead the conclusion that 1997-2013 is a black hole, of which there is no way to determine if the communities were singular or separate (or even to establish a basic history of them), there isn't enough RS on the timeline of the topic for this to be a non-userspace/draftspace page imho, as almost all RS is articles addressing the communities after 2016. tl;dr 7 years of something out of 26 does not an article make, and to suggest so is not in the spirit of building an encyclopedic article. 2600:8806:0:C2:60EB:1F8C:E6C3:8B49 (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC) The latter is what Wikipedia concludes, to the extent that it concludes anything at all, which is one reason why people (including me) feel that mentioning Alana in the lead is unnecessary, since it's not particularly relevant to the current understanding of the term. You seem to agree with that, as well, given your post above: Each of those forums were separate communities, and were not an umbrella community. Not sure how you're then drawing the conclusion that that means that this article should be draftified (thought that's a whole different conversation anyway); the post-2013 meaning of the term "incel" is the topic of the article, so the fact that we don't have sources for anything before that is not particularly surprising or a problem, since--again--that history is included for completeness but not tremendously relevant to the article's subject. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Not sure how you're then drawing the conclusion that that means that this article should be draftified. Because the article only gives a few sentences on the majority of the history of the self-identified communities. I hear some reading this thinking "but why should we care if we've already overemphasised and WP:nothenews'd Judith Taylor in 2018 to citogenesis our own now-minority-RS definition of incel-as-primarily-a-culture" Because if each 1997-2013 community is meaningfully separate, then they have their own culture, of which would be included in an encyclopedic article about the "culture of incel". For example, incelsupport.org was genetic determinist culture in the last part of it's life. incel.myonlineplace emerged as a negative reaction to that in 2008, taking an opposite approach, with a culture of believing in incel as something one can work their way out of. All this stuff, while it might seem boring, is culture of incel, and missing from the article. What I'm mentioning is even part of the majority of the culture so far, and is not in RS or this article, but simple math also shows this portion is missing. As the article mentions brief asides of these communities existing in the 2000s and 2010s. The article as it is, is structured "incel started with Alana in 1997"...[virtually nothing]..."culture of 2016+ forums". That's not encyclopedic as it's missing most of the culture. People are must likely going to be saying this for the nest 9 years here, as what I'm saying will be true for 9 years. And I won't be telling them to come here to say it. If anyone does the math they'd know this article doesn't have enough RS to conclude about 26 years, as it is defined in the lede at least. Even after 50 years, that 17 years is still almost a third of the history lol. 2600:8806:0:C2:60EB:1F8C:E6C3:8B49 (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC) No, if each community was separate, and they have their own culture, then they're only passingly relevant to the subject of this article, which is the post-2013 culture that has generated coverage in RSes, not the "culture of incel", whatever that means. If they're only passingly relevant because they're separate cultures, then they're not important context and don't need to be included in the lead, which again is what several of us are saying. Once again, as the box at the top of this page says, "This article is about a particular misogynistic online subculture of people who self-identify as "involuntary celibates" or "incels" based on their inability to find a romantic or sexual partner. It is not about all people who are unable to find a romantic or sexual partner or all people to whom the phrase "involuntary celibate" could be applied, but only to that subculture." I get that you don't like that; you're far from the first. But AfD is thataway. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Your sort of shifting the goalposts. It doesn't matter if the term incel is deemed a culture or not. If it's deemed a culture, and one which (you are laying down a law?) that it can only be about a strong minority of the history of the culture, then it should be titled Incel (2013-) or something like that, as that would give readers the impression that Wikipedia is ok with writing articles when most of the history of the culture is not in RS JoarFF (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Not really? The goalposts are the same they've always been; that FAQ at the top of the page is long-standing. For the title, see WP:TITLE; we don't put parentheticals in the title if there aren't any other Wikipedia articles to disambiguate from. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC) You are still arguing in bad faith. I'm already ceding to you that it can be a culture. If it is a culture, you are laying down an unnecessary law that the topic is only post-2013, justifying the existence of an article missing the history of it. Which it doesn't justify. If punk subculture was 60 years, and we only knew 20 years of the history of it, when research and writing on it was just starting out, it would make sense to title the article Punk (year-of-date-of-start-of-comprehensive-knowledge - now) etc. Especially if we had reason to believe in RS that the first 40 years of punk were entirely or very different than the last 20. The only reason to not do that would be a dishonest attempt to paint the first 40 years as the last 20 for people who don't read tiny disclaimers in the body of the page. imho JoarFF (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC) But...you (or at least, the IP editor, which I'm assuming was you) said yourself that each forum was a separate community and separate culture. This article is, and always has been, about one of those cultures, the one that is covered in RSes and therefore notable. The others are not notable for their own articles, and, since they're separate cultures, are not particularly relevant to this one, even if they did have coverage in RSes (which is still necessary for them to be included here). And no, it would not make sense to name the punk article that, because again, that's not how Wikipedia does article titles; we don't do parenthetical disambiguations unless there are multiple Wikipedia articles to disambiguate between. There's presumably been more than one John N. Smith in the history of the world, so by that logic, we should rename that article to John N. Smith (film director, born 1943), but we don't. Article titles don't have to uniquely identify their subject from every other possible subject in the world, only from every other extant Wikipedia article, which incel does. If those other "incel culture" topics ever become notable and get an article written, then this article may be duly renamed (though possibly not even then, given WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). That's how Wikipedia titles work, and it's fair if you don't like it, but again, this section is not the right place for that discussion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Ok, so if incel is a post-hoc appropriated term to attempt to umbrella multiple, antithetical, cultures over time, and you are laying a law (out of nowhere) that the existence of one culture justifies an an article painting the rest of the cultures as it, then it would indeed make sense to split the article by year, if WP has to follow your assertion. And why is that? Subcultures are not people, there can be multiple of them. If what we know now as of Punk subculture hijacked (within the last 5-10 years) an original culture that was three times as long in duration with the exact same name, it would make sense to separate the hijacked one by the community that hijacked it. Because an encyclopedia is about documenting how things work, not aiding and abetting hijackers while violating WP:NOTHENEWS, just to justify the aiding and abetting using citogenensis. Joan N. Smith cannot be multiple articles but multiple subcultures can. And what if we cannot separate the article by year? The way that RS supports that is by separating the article by name of forums. Your argument is that incel is just incels.is (previously r/incels). So we should just have an article on them then, which others above agreed to but no action was taken. At the end of the day, it sounds like I"m talking to a brick wall. Dosens of people have come to this page with valid arguments about why this page doesn't make any sense. There's people going on TV saying that "chad and stacy are incel terms" which made all of social media laugh, as it was clearly a 4chan, not an incel set of terms. That most likely was citogenesis from this article. This nonsense. This article also needs more than one writer. Sites that show how many edits were contributed by person show only one person wrote the vast majority of the article over 5+ years. That's too little for a topic that now has policy implications for governments JoarFF (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Another way to look at it is the origin of the term is also the majority of the history of the communities. And communities have cultures 2600:8806:0:C2:9158:2ED4:E9D5:3493 (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC) I think, just, even with RS taken into consideration, this lede and article is way too heavy on Judith Taylor's 2018 quotes in RS and Reddit-centric or derived communities. Whether or not that's RS' fault or the article author's fault is hard to determine. But I don't think readers come away from this page with an understanding of the history of the communities and the cultures contained therein, and that this article is essentially just an attempt to criminalize r9k culture, which is fine, but it's a bit Reddity to do that on an encyclopedia. Or you know just have an article called 4chan culture where it cites RS on that including subsequent grifts like Reddit derived incel forums. 2600:8806:0:C2:60EB:1F8C:E6C3:8B49 (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Is this page about incels the subculture or involuntary celibacy?

Because if it’s about the former then we need a separate article for the latter. That would fix a lot of the problems with this article. ILoveHirasawaYui (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

It's about the former, and the latter has not proven to be a notable subject in its own right as of yet, so it doesn't get an article. If you have multiple reliable sources that discuss the topic in-depth, separate from the subculture, then you're welcome to try to draft one yourself. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I found a few: Denise Donnelly, Elizabeth Burgess, Laura Carpenter, Theodor F. Cohen, Brian Gilmartin and Menelaos Apostolou. Are these good enough? I💖平沢唯 (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I recall that in the past (before the Incel community became notorious) either this page or another was about the latter topic, and so would have previously met notability requirements. I doubt it’s actually become less notable, and instead it’s just become overshadowed by the incel community. I recall the page discussed things like the definition of involuntary celibacy, a history of the term, and potential causes of involuntary celibacy. Ganondox (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I found what used to page for involuntary celibacy that was then converted into a redirect to this page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/842912658 Ganondox (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

This is very degrading and demeaning towards straight white men

Not a forum, respones funny tho Dronebogus (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The rise in suicide of young men often straight and white is rising. And derogatory terms like this are used to put down young white men who cant get girlfriends or sex. The article never talks about the derogatory use of the word and how it basically says that men who cant get sex or girlfriends are basically bad and should be ashamed of themselves. Lefty feminists who are misandristic use terms like this to put down and belittle men and its just sickening and not on. 77.99.182.75 (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Are you just here to complain, or do you have suggestions for improvement, grounded in reliable sources? This is not a forum for discussion of the article topic, it's for discussing improvements to the article. The population of men who don't get laid is vast, and the term "incel" covers a narrow segment of that. You've heard the joke about the difference between a priest and a man who's been married 10 years? The priest is celibate voluntarily. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Oh no, whatever will they do?! PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC) @Praxidicae: You do realize that was a personal attack right? And being quite an experienced editor, you obviously know that. I'm amazed at how you let an IP trigger you. — Python Drink (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC) Not helping, Praxidicae; in fact, very nearly as WP:NOTHERE as the ip's own comments. If you're going to respond to such a rant at all, please keep the criticism on point to policy, as Anachronist and Zaathras have done, rather than engaging in a snarky colour commentary that accomplishes nothing but to potential inflame the discussion further. SnowRise let's rap 00:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Could we see a citation that supports this assertion? Zaathras (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC) IP 77-75, My fellow editors have already addressed the practical shortcomings with your post in terms of accomplishing any practical changes to the article: 1) you have not made clear suggestions based on reliable sources as to what specifically has changed, 2) you have not provided a cogent description (let alone also supported it with support) to support your implication in the section header that the article denigrates "straight white men", 3) your comments veer into polemic screed in places, completely uncoupled from any discussion taking place in reliable sources and apparently reflecting your belief that the term is first and foremost a slur by "lefty feminists" rather than a descriptive one embraced by discrete communities themselves, and otherwise used by social commentators and researchers, which is how the WP:WEIGHT of sources tells us to approach the topic. And on a side note--and this is neither here nor there for any content purposes, but as a strictly educational matter--I thought you might like to know that, while it is true that suicide rates among white males have risen slightly in recent time (relative to other major demographic cross-referenced populations) this actually trends these values towards parity with most other demographics, rather than away from them. In other words, the rates of suicide in this class (as a relative value of overall suicide numbers) have raised very, very marginally to be a little bit closer to the (still significantly higher or much higher) rates in almost every other broad class of demographic population. Again, not terribly relevant to any determination I can see here, but still useful for perspective, since this detail seems to be of such concern to you. SnowRise let's rap 00:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

New study that could be incorporated in the page

The Journal of Online Trust and Safety has a peer reviewed article titled Predictors of Radical Intentions among Incels: A Survey of 54 Self-identified Incels on the topic of incel and radicalisation. After a quick reading, I think it might be worthwhile to incorporate it in the page (it also list others studies). As it seems to be a rather controversial topic, I would prefer have someone more knowledgeable with en.wp rules see what can be used from the study. Misc (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Here is another study which needs incorporation -- one of the few to incorporate primary responses from self-identified incels -- it refutes much of the standard narrative. For example, the sample skewed to the left politically and there were fewer whites than the surrounding population.

Costello, William, Vania Rolon, Andrew G. Thomas, and David P. Schmitt. 2022. “Levels of Well-being Among Men Who Are Incels (involuntary Celibates).” OSF Preprints. June 3. doi:10.31219/osf.io/tnf7b. Cabalfanger (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

See WP:PREPRINT. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Interesting article on origins of involuntary celibacy

The article "Incel Activity on Social Media Linked to Local Mating Ecology" [1] published in Psychological Science makes the incendiary claim that "involuntary celibacy arises as a result of local real-world mating-market forces that affect the numbers of women and men seeking mates and the likely gains to be made from relationship formation", and performed geographic analysis of Twitter that supported this conclusion. This could be included in some way in the article, given that it is a peer-reviewed study in a major academic journal. Perhaps in the demographics section? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I would be extremely hesitant to place this in the article under current WP:WEIGHT considerations. We're talking about a WP:PRIMARY report that is not as yet discussed or contextualized in a secondary RS, making a pretty strong claim, based on the quality and nature of the evidence: I don't want to dip even my toes into WP:OR here, but needless to say, there are methodlogical complications galore in a study of this nature, and the level of confidence in the conclusions advanced by the authors here is...let's be diplomatic and say "bold". I'm not sure this is at all WP:DUE at this time, and if included, carefully-crafted wording would be required. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: It sounds like we may have to remove much of the demographics section on that basis, as many of the citations are WP:PRIMARY news articles written by journalists based on their own original interviews. There seems to be WP:WEIGHT issues with these femcels, who receive a majority of the section despite being a minority of the community. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

As to the first suggestion, you may very well be right, but it would require discussion of particular examples, rather than a broad-strokes description of the section as a whole, before I could provide my opinion as to any of the standing content and whether it is due or not. That said, news reports are not typically regarded as truly primary works under our policies (see WP:PST and WP:IDPRIMARY), and certainly not primary in the same way as primary research--especially a singular study making a novel and expansive claim based about complex social phenomena based on an analysis of tweets. Reporters are typically WP:independent of the subjects they report on (or are hoped to be); authors of ambitious studies are anything but with regard to their research. Anyway, there may yet be examples in that section where I'd agree with you, but you'd have to be more specific, whereas my immediate comments here are concerned with the specific source you've supplied and the proposal that we add content based on it, rather than the WP:OTHERSTUFF that might be imputed for removal by the same policy argument.

As to the 'Femcel' section being outsized, again, you might be right that a fact or two here could go, but I'd again have to hear specific proposals before endorsing or rejecting any changes. I will say that the fact that it is the largest subsection of the 'demographics' section is a not a very good argument for reduction however: taking a look at that section, it is clear that Femcel section is simply misplaced: if you look at the content of those four paragraphs, there is one sentence that is maybe, kinda-sorta, about demographics. This is clearly a discrete bit of content about a subdomain of the subculture (or a parallel subculture, or however one chooses to frame it). When you recontextualize it like that, it becomes obvious that this content is not particularly outsized as a WP:DUE matter, because almost all of the rest of the article is concerned (probably rightly) with discussing the main and larger portion of the overall 'incel' community, while the femcel section is an important aside that may be of some contextual value to our readers, and seems to be roughly in proportion to size of this community within the overall subculture, when considering its size in relation to the overall article.

All of which is not to dismiss your observations, but to say that I think there is no harm in considering specific proposals for additional cuts, if you or anyone wants to make them. But the suggestion that other stuff might have to go as well does not really directly impact the concerns I have with the study itself (i.e. whether it is WP:DUE at this point, and how we would represent it if we did add content based on it to the article). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems this study was rejected based on it being a primary source. Just a 2 second search on Google finds a secondary source from an outlet currently cited in en.wikipedia.org/w/Incel https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/inceldom-income-inequality Bashfan34 (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Worth also adding that this study with secondary sources didn't use the term 'involuntary celibacy' primarily, but rather 'incel'. It would make a worthy addition to the page. Material conditions matter. Not everything is about identity. Bashfan34 (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC) — Bashfan34 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Willwill0415 (talk · contribs).

Jordan Peterson revisted

The section Incel#Justifications_for_beliefs that mentions Jordan Peterson, has been discussed previously should be revisited because it is misleading in what it fails to say. While there may be some people who hold those opinions and perceive Peterson as supporting them, his own words are to the contrary , he has "repeatedly and very publicly" told young men and women that they should "think very hard about their own personal shortcomings and not the evil of the opposite sex, and that they should in consequence strive to amend themselves in the very ways that would make them attractive." Source The National Post September 3, 2022.[2] Some version of this point should be included, you do not need to agree with Peterson and his pull yourself up by your own bootstraps attitude to self improvement but he has clearly stated it over and over again and it is misleading to omit it. -- 109.79.67.41 (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's look at it by source. The third source, a NYTimes article not about incels, says that Peterson had sympathy for Minnassian and proposes 'enforced monogamy' as a solution to male sexlessness. Second source is a Webarchive of a Spanish elconfidencial.com article, which does not mention Peterson at all, but instead Gilmartin. Same with the last source, the Elle source, which only mentions Gilmartin.

The sources don't say that incels cop from Jordan Peterson. While I don't doubt some do, (and more likely Peterson was inspired by incels originally than the other way around, as that NYTimes article suggests) Wikipedia's policy is to use correct sources, of which it is not doing for that claim. Bashfan34 (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

A way to word that sentence using the sources provided in the article, if Peterson had to be included, would be,

"Some incels justify their beliefs based on the works of fringe social psychologist Brian Gilmartin.[elconfidential][Elle] American psychologist [[Jordan Peterson]] has stated that without widespread monogamy, women crowd around high-status men, leaving low-status men sexless, angry, and sometimes violent.  Jordan uses self-described incel and serial killer [[Alek Minassian]] as an alleged example of a low-status man lashing out after allegedly being left out of mating. Jordan further states that socially, "enforced", [[monogamy]] would cure incel [[anger]].[NYtimes]"

Bashfan34 (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Considering that Jordan Peterson source doesn't really belong in that sentence if you read the sources. It would be better in a section about monogamy vs. polygamy. You could then also add that other writers have said similar things, like the prominent, early feminist Charles Fourier's essay Hierarchies of Cuckoldry and Bankruptcy where he states, "The sixth objective of [monogamous] marriage is to provide a poor man with a wife in regions where he is deprived or where polygamy or the sale of women holds sway" Bashfan34 (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC) — Bashfan34 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Willwill0415 (talk · contribs).

If I understand correctly you are saying the current wording needs to be improved to better reflect what the sources actually say. That would be great but in the meantime I would again suggest that editors first add a counterpoint to state that Peterson has spoken against incels, even if some have taken his description of the problem as somehow endorsing their own response to it. -- 109.76.196.148 (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

No one really decides any of these things. This entire article is under the purview of one hyper-authoritative administrator since 2018. Should they decide to swoop down and grant your request to change existing original, existing content in any manner that changes meaning of sentences, you'd be among the first. Keep filing complaints about the article, or edit it, and they'll (they'll being a few veterans) ban you and claim consensus, as they have at least 3 or 4 people, even before they moved to other wikis. Bashfan34 (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC) — Bashfan34 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Willwill0415 (talk · contribs).

WP:HARM, WP:BLP & WP:ATTACK & concerns

Hello y'all. How nice to see familiar editors here joined by enthusiastic newcomers. Unfortunately, concerns have developed with recent edits. Such as mentioning the real names of internet people who have always tried to remain private. And mentioning the real name of the suicide forum. Granted, a few unquestionably mainstream papers have covered the Incel topic in similar manner. But just because a few US broadsheets show zero sympathy with one of the world's most marginalised demographics and have chosen to risk alienating their genuinely progressive subscribers, that does not mean Wikipedia ought to follow suit. We have different content guidance to comply with, in this case including WP:HARM, WP:BLP & WP:ATTACK.

After NYT exposed the suicide site and told readers its real name, for several days its new registrations increased by about 2000% . More responsible coverage like Vice's dont use its real name. (Its called Suicide Solution in the linked article).

I see an understandable decision has been made not to name the most prominent incel forum. So why are we naming the suicide site which we're blaming for 50 deaths and possibly hundreds more?

Granted, a case could be made that SS is a net +ve for those suffering from suicidal ideation. There's a reason why it attracts many more members than liberal dominated suicide related sites. Visitors appreciate the relatively relaxed moderation, the genuine concern they receive and the lack of useless platitudes. As the Vice article quotes: I've received more genuine support and empathy in this forum than anywhere else ever in my life. No doctor, psychiatrist or therapist could ever come close to this kind of honest and sincere support. But our article gives no hist of potential positives of the suicide site, so it could be seen as irresponsible to drive more vulnerable people to it by naming it.

Even if we removed all mention of the SS site, another concern is mentioning the real names of those who founded / sysadmined the most prominent current incel forum. Per WP:BLP and especially WP:ATTACK, we should avoid material that is "entirely negative in tone" about named living individuals. Granted, the info in the article is not poorly sourced, and as such is not a blatant policy violation. But I feel it's unnecessary, largely tangential to the article topic of incel, and has strong attack page qualities.

Accordingly, I've be reverting to a 15 September version that doesnt have these concerns. Some arguably good edits may be lost in the reversion - if they dont relate to the specific concerns, they can be added back without further discussion. But per WP:Burden, neither the name of the suicide website nor the real names of the private individuals ought to be re-introduced without first achieving consensus for that here. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The names are published in 3-4 New York Times articles, Wa Post, Jezebel, Daily Kos, PBS, WBUR among many others, so no, it's not against Wikipedia policy to reiterate what's in the news Bashfan34 (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

There were less sources to Josh Moon's name so not sure what your goal is here Bashfan34 (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC) — Bashfan34 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Willwill0415 (talk · contribs).

Just a few articles with the full names, note about half are newspapers of record, go complain to them

"A newspaper of record is a term used to denote a major national newspaper with large circulation whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered authoritative and independent;"

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/22/incels-rape-murder-study/
• https://nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/09/us/where-the-despairing-log-on.html
• https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2022/01/18/suicide-websites-caution
• https://jezebel.com/study-incels-are-getting-more-predatory-radicalized-1849574213
• https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/9/23/2122870/-One-path-to-mass-violence-is-to-rationalize-the-right-to-exercise-male-power
• https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-a-website-with-explicit-directions-for-suicide-remains-active
• https://fr.techtribune.net/google/les-legislateurs-exhortent-les-entreprises-technologiques-a-attenuer-les-dommages-du-site-web-sur-le-suicide/213186/
• https://gatopardo.com/reportajes/el-extrano-fenomeno-del-suicidio-en-uruguay/
• https://foreignaffairs.co.nz/2022/01/04/mil-osi-usa-trahan-leads-bipartisan-call-for-action-to-stop-sanctioned-suicide-website/
• https://trahan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/doj_sanctioned_suicide_letter_final_dec21.pdf
• https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/09/podcasts/the-daily/suicide-investigation.html
• https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2021/how-the-new-york-times-handled-life-or-death-ethical-issues-while-reporting-on-a-popular-suicide-website/
• https://allnewspress.com/deutsch/gesetzgeber-fordern-technologieunternehmen-auf-den-schaden-der-selbstmord-website-zu-mildern/
• https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/21/technology/suicide-website-google.html

Many also contain life background and city location, I didn't add that stuff. NYTimes said on TV and in their articles they found the names in an Epik hack, so don't go accusing WP editors -shrug-. Bashfan34 (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Here's the Washington Post quote eg

The forum was founded in 2017 by Diego Joaquín Galante, known online as “Sergeant Incel” and Lamarcus Small as a response to Reddit banning the subreddit /r/incels. It offers an invitation-only Discord server for its members who have posted more than 400 times to the site, and an active channel on the chat app Telegram. Moderators of the forum also maintain a Twitter account that promotes incel ideology and attacks perceived critics.

— Taylor Lorenz, for Washington Post news article

Bashfan34 (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Granted, a case could be made that SS is a net +ve for those suffering from suicidal ideation. There's a reason why it attracts many more members than liberal dominated suicide related sites

— FeydHuxtable

Your concerns about "liberal bias" in denigrating SS, has no relevance as to the reliability and content of the sources listed Bashfan34 (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Since adding the names (which are in newspapers of record, as shown above), an "incels.me spokesperson" even posted a torture threat on my talk page, which I webarchived. I'm well aware of the dangers of linking reliable sources here, I do not care Bashfan34 (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable, you've shown up here in the past to "completely rewrite" this page, which Gorilla and others rightly rightly shot down, as the article is fine. Wikipedia consensus is that it's about a particular subculuture, not 'involuntary celibacy' as you proposed. Your proposals via this page have not been in consensus since at least 2020, link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Incel/Archive_6#Tobias_Rathjen_and_the_Societal_impact_of_this_article Bashfan34 (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC) — Bashfan34 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Willwill0415 (talk · contribs).

Especially when policies like WP:BLP & WP:Attack are in play, you really should gain consensus here on talk before restoring the challenged changes. I'm going to give you pass for this borderline edit warring as a relatively new editor, and per many valid reasons for being passionate about this topic. But please try to comply with WP:BRD more closely in future.

Thanks for backing up your position with good sources, and for the mostly accurate statement of past history on this page. It might be a bit of a stretch to say Gorilla "shot down" my re-write proposal - as you generously alluded to yourself, after long discussion I gained consensus for most of my changes back in 2020. (Allbeit only very briefly, other editors quite swiftly changed their minds.) I'd argue 2020 editing history has little relevance here however. Back in 2020 I was mostly arguing for more sympathetic coverage per NPOV. The balance of coverage in WP:RS has shifted since then, and I'd not currently make those same arguments. The concern today relates to WP:HARM, WP:BLP & WP:ATTACK. Let's set aside the mention of Sergeant Incel's & his buddy's real name. Some see the good sergeant as someone of exceptional courage, willing to take risks to help suffering people that most of society ignores or dismisses with platitudes. Others see him as one of the worst folk on the Internet, promoting misogyny and preying on the most vulnerable. Whatever the case, higher authority will ensure the Sargent receives rightful reward or punishment.

So let's focus on naming the Suicide website. I notice your bravery in not being swayed from a cause you believe in even by threat of torture. That might well of been a false flag by the way; still, I admire your courage for that immensely. But it's largely irrelevant to the WP:HARM concern. It's the danger to our readers I'm concerned with, not the danger to editors, which I'd judge to be very low (though not non existent). Regardless of whether one sees SS as a overall net +ve or -ve, its undeniable that publicising it has risks. Its well recorded that the site sometimes gives specific advise on relatively pain free suicide methods. Some young people go through suicidal phases and then recover, going on to have happy & fulfilled life. Finding a site that gives specific advise on methods can obviously make the difference between a tragic death and a happier outcome for both the individual and their family & other loved one. This is why even the partly sympathetic Vice article I'd linked to cites multiple experts in Suicide Prevention talking about SS being an "atrocity" & similar. For me at least there's an overwhelming strong case for not naming is and so as not to funnel more readers to it. We should at least learn from NYT's mistake in boosting the site's sign up rate (for a few days) by 2000%.

I'd said before I was going to stay off this page for at least a few years and I intend to honour that. (This little appearance has been to cash in the exception I allowed myself here.) I think me bowing out again may also be good as you may consider my views suspect on this topic per being aware of the 2020 history. So bye for now, but please do consider the policy based case for at least not naming the suicide site. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Your suggestion about not naming sanctionedsuicide is reasonable thank you for the suggestion, so edited it to say 'suicide site'. No versions of mine had the gTLD, because sources didn't include it, but sources do called it SanctionedSuicide. The SS part has become more minor though vis-a-vis this article after Taylor's Wa Post article and others explicitly naming the founders and going into specifics about the incel forum and not just SS. You noted the sources for the names of .co/.me/is fits Wikipedia standards. I think I ultimately agree with what you said about not not naming SanctionedSuicide, and I thought I accomplished that by not putting in the gTLD. Renamed it to "suicide site" think this is a fair compromise. The single paragraph on SS isn't *super important* to this page, but the CCDH did reference it in their report hyperfocuesd on incels, and newspaprers of record chose to discuss the incel site in context of the SS site. There's actually enough sources to give .co/.me/is is an entire page, not just a section here, but the newspapers of record covering it, is why I added it, without listing a URL for either forum. Thanks for your civil engagement, needed to talk to someone civil today. Bashfan34 (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Double checking the sources, the big sources actually don't name 'sanctionedsuicide', only small ones like KFOX, CBS21, and ANSA.it. Big sources just say 'suicide site'. That appears to have been a mistake of mine and I apologize, now it just says 'suicide site'. Bashfan34 (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)2

On a brief note of WP:FORUM, about your concern of 'liberal bias' in negative media coverage about SS and .me/.co/.is, I swear to God on my mothers grave up and down that relaying truthful information contained in newspapers of record about these sites is not a liberal or conservative issue, it's non-political. These are emotionally predatory forums which lure adults unlucky in love into a bizarre suicide cult. Attempts to make them not a suicide cult failed, and some of those who attempted got too stuck in it. These forums I mentioned are now basically the only admin-hosted self-identified incel forums and as a result of the inevitable media attention their cult exploded December of last year Bashfan34 (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, even though like 100% of the sources I added are liberal, liberal royalty/giants even, there is a single conservative source on this with the same framing, I just didn't think it counted as a reliable source by Wikipedia. It was the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property, but that source is bloggy, and probably fails WP:GNG. Anyway with that source in mind, and considering no other conservative sources commentated on it, I'd say the framing was bipartisan. And actually the liberal sources don't appear to be making the media story a referendum on the complete existence of pro-choice suicide sites, only the conservative source seems to call for a total annihilation of those. Some of the reporters I linked stated in publicly available interviews they simply had misgivings about the way the sites were run, noticed a buzzfeed article (an article about a young death on SS, which notes "strange overlap of disturbing online community, in particular an incel forum"), questioned the moral fiber of leadership on SS, and were doing regular reporting on online harms leading them to do investigations/exposes for news articles. Can't speak for them though, not involved with them, so I could be wrong about their intentions for writing news articles. Only relaying what's in their newspaper of record articles. Bashfan34 (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC) — Bashfan34 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Willwill0415 (talk · contribs).

Hey – thanks so much for the fair and open minded response, and for your editing the article to address some of the concern. It's deeply appreciated especially as there might be some reason to suspect I was coming from a conservative or possibly even manosphere perspective. You made some most interesting points here, some but not all of which I whole heartedly agree with. I dont wish to elaborate here partly due to the WP:Forum reasons youre already aware of. Im not sure whether you like to discuss this sort of thing on your talk. If you do, please ping me there. Or come to my talk or even email be if youd like to discuss more. Im slow to reply sometimes, but I do always reply. Or if want to leave it at this, happy editing and look forward to maybe collaborating on some other topic in the future where our PoV might be more aligned. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

"Virgin with rage" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Virgin with rage and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 30#Virgin with rage until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Psychological Root causes?

The article reads as if the authors have basically given up on incels and incels are like orks or something that should be hated because they hate and the light of love should not reach them. One sided article that yet again just shows how little wikipedia is able to understand and neutrally reflect "right wing positions". I think the article makes this dark, sad and hellish situation just worse not better.

The lack of knowledge shows up for example in the red-pill section where the "white-pill path" is not even mentionen. And what is more important: WHERE IS THE SECTION ABOUT THE UNDERLYING PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUES AND A PRESENTATION OF HOW TO EXIT THAT HELL? Just a small, shellow section that just says "no-one cares!" Peterson has written tons of stuff about how he thinks those boys can be brought back into some form of light. A position many mismatched, for him supporting this hell, which he doesn't. Non of this is in the article, which is interesting because WHY this is happening is the actual intersting point for people with compession for others being in hell. Also the role of shallow solutions like SSRI and other serotonin drugs and how they amplify this hell is not included. DO YOUR HOMEWORK and GET BACK TO AN ACTUAL NPOV WIKPEDIA especially with everything "on the right"

And why is there no section on criticism about incel-isolation? Again no points of how to reintegrate and rescue these people from their hell. Not NPOV 2A01:598:B184:2B4:35C8:92D0:62E6:C67D (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a self-help center for people with psychological issues. We write about what is relevant and what can be found in reliable sources. Zaathras (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The help part and more so the research on the courses is among the most important parts. People reading this article might want to know why this is happening, not just bathing in how bad those people are. Also Peterson's books are probably among the most reliable source in this specific topic. Hence should be included. 2A01:598:B184:2B4:35C8:92D0:62E6:C67D (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The last recommmendation I've heard from Wikipedia admins to those who want to cover involuntary celibacy/involuntary sexual abstinence/forced celibacy etc is to add it to some sort of related page like 'celibacy', as they did not want a standalone article for it. Despite Wikipedia being perhaps one of the only places that had a standalone article on it for over a decade. Bashfan34 (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll compile some sources on the topic though, as there are a bunch. I'll put it in my sandbox or something. Bashfan34 (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

And in fairness to the denialists, what people mean by 'involuntary celibacy' on Wikipedia talk so far doesn't seem close to the literal term 'involuntary celibacy'. As 'celibacy' term has origins in marriage, and marriage is increasingly unpopular. Making the term 'involuntary celibacy' an increasingly outdated term, which in sources prior to the 1900s, mostly refers to women who did not get dowries etc. So you can find more stuff about the modern intended meaning(s) of 'involuntary celibacy' under 'involuntary sexual abstinence', 'involuntary partnerless...ness", 'forced abstinence'. 'forced sexual abstinence' etc perhaps. A lot of sources discuss negative health effects of involuntary sexual abstinence in prisons and mental hospitals, just as an obvious example. Bashfan34 (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC) — Bashfan34 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Willwill0415 (talk · contribs).

What you think the term may literally mean or derive from is not really important, what matters is how the term is commonly used as covered by reliable sources. An "incel" is a subculture of sexually frustrated men who desire sex but feel they are being (wrongfully, in their heads) denied. Zaathras (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Not really what I was talking about at all but I'll respond anyway. Am skeptical most reliable sources refer to it as a subculture, or that that is the most common definition in such sources, even limiting it to secondary source news pieces. Because I remember how that was introduced into this WP page, ie very early. My guess is most refer to it as a movement, but will get back to you on that Bashfan34 (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, let's just use the sources provided before jumping to new ones. The first source used calling incel a 'subculture' in the Wikipedia article is a Vox 2018 article. However, they use the term 'incels' plural, which makes more sense as a subculture... brand, as that's the brand Lamarcus, and earlier, whoever ran r/incels clearly went with. The pluralized word, not singular. Second is a New York Times article which calls 'incel' an 'ideology which is the manifestation of a movement'. Third source calls it a movement that has subcultural elements. So, the sources there do not establish 'incel' as a subculture. All it does is show disagreement on the meaning, or, the presence of multiple meanings, none of which, using those sources establishes 'incel' (singular) as subculture. Bashfan34 (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Spending a lot of time with the 3, 2018 news sources of WP incel lede, I found that Taub says 'incel is an ideology', Beauchamp says 'incel is a subculture', Beauchamp and Mezzofiore say 'incel is a community', and Beauchamp says 'incel is a terrorist movement'. Given those were the sources for subculture, and that's not what the sources all say, edited it to reflect the sources present in the sentence. Bashfan34 (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC) — Bashfan34 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Willwill0415 (talk · contribs).

U.S. Congress getting further involved in trying to take down and/or limit Galante/Small network + "feeder sites"

Including Chair of the House Intelligence Committee and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/schiff-durbin-demand-google-and-youtube-crack-down-on-dangerous-incel-content

2600:4040:403C:F300:A96A:58FC:BBB:FAB6 (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

New article published in Current Psychiatry Reports

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11920-022-01382-9.pdf GMG^talk 17:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion: change title to “Incel (ideology)”.

No person should be identified by sex status, i.e. being celibate or not celibate. Public discussion of sex status of a person should be considered a form of psychological abuse and violation of human rights. Therefore in my opinion this term is derogatory. In different cases the destructive ideology is separated from people who follow this ideology. For example, nazism or jihadism. This emphasizes the fact that a person can change their beliefs. Whether the "incel" is a permanent identity and cannot be changed, or a form of antisocial ideology is not clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.214.59.33 (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is being identified here by whether or not the are celibate. As the first sentence of the lead section makes clear, incels are defined by their involvement in an online subculture. That is what this article describes. Also, there is no need to disambiguate it in the way you suggest because we have no other article called 'Incel (something else)'. (This is discussed at WP:DISAMBIGUATION.) Girth Summit _(blether) 18:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Then make a separate article for involuntary celibacy ILoveHirasawaYui (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Involuntary celibacy is not a thing. It is a belief of the people that subscribe to the "incel" subculture. Wikipedia is not here to sanction a set of beliefs. 2603:7081:6300:249C:7D3E:F8FE:C18E:BA41 (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Correct, unless it is somehow enforced coercively, which I’m not sure is a notable topic. Dronebogus (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

There's a non-insignificant amount of academic studies on forced celibacy in prisons and the mental health ramifications of such. Some even use the term 'involuntary celibacy'. I can link them if you want Bashfan34 (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC) — Bashfan34 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Willwill0415 (talk · contribs).

That’s actually interesting, possibly article-worthy, but “involuntary celibacy” as in forced celibacy is not the same as “inceldom” (undesired sexlessness as a self-identification) at all. “Incel” means an ideology and subculture based around that label, case closed. Dronebogus (talk) 09:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Iconic photo

The article needs a photo to illustrate its subject. I propose that we use a photo of Elliot Rodger. Many people think of Rodger first when using the word incel; the first image on Google when searching 'incel' is of Rodger. In addition, the ADL, a reliable source, has its own encyclopedic entry on incels and also uses a photo of Rodger. I see no reason not to do so ourselves. --TheWikipedian05 (talk) 6:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with this choice, it seems too much to select one person to represent an online subculture. It's also not a great image, it looks like a mugshot. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I also disagree with using this photo this way. I am the exact opposite of an incel and have been happily making love with various women for 52 years, including and most notably my wife of almost 41 years. But the overwhelming majority of guys who identify with this incel group are not guilty of killing six people and injuring many more. It is as if we decided to illustrate our article about Hippies with a portrait of Charles Manson. Not neutral. Cullen328 (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Many people think of Rodger first when using the word incel – do we have a reliable source for this statement? Not every article needs a photo to illustrate its subject, and in any case a simple photo of Rodger is incapable of illustrating an abstract concept like "incel"/"involuntary celibacy" and so fails WP:IMAGERELEVANCE. We should also consider whether making a notorious murderer the face of the subculture will serve to amplify a cult of personality around him within said subculture. I've removed the photo in light of these concerns. The article already links to Rodger's bio for those who wish to learn more about him. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with Girth Summit and Sangdeboeuf; this article does not need an image, and certainly not this one. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

You three make some good points. I looked at other articles dealing with abstract concepts and not all of them feature an iconic photo. It would be unfair to use a photo of one single person to represent an entire subculture. --TheWikipedian05 (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Elliot Rodger did a lot to kick off the incel movement, but he never self-identified as an incel. The inclusion of his picture would be suspect.

I think the most appropriate image to use for the article would be this one - it's the most iconic image of the incel community.

However, I am not entirely sure about its copyright status. KarakasaObake (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Elliot did self-identify as an incel in some of his puahate posts I💖平沢唯 (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Virgin vs Chad, very funny but a bizarre choice to represent incels as it’s usually just used to mean “loser” thing vs “cool” thing in a tongue in cheek way; the original image with captions was also an obvious parody. Dronebogus (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Given the first rule of wikipedia is to ignore all rules

And most people here presumably care about accuracy, would like to also amend the second sentence of the main article (after the lede). The first sentence after the lede was factually wrong, when it said 1993. Now it's slightly more accurate. The second sentence says Alana's last name wasn't known at the time. This is incorrect. She used her last name to advertise her forum every time she did, you can see that by going to Google Groups and searching her name, as Google Groups have archived all the relevant Usenet posts. When the first two sentences of an article are inaccurate, it's ok to do original research. That or delete the article for being a premature take on a topic, where facts are not currently a concern for journalists 2600:4040:403C:F300:494C:D5CE:66A2:C454 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Just one example of how even the first two sentences of this article are provably wrong https://groups.google.com/g/alt.support.shyness/c/qsZKuUTf2dk/m/h3zK9DUEf3QJ 2600:4040:403C:F300:494C:D5CE:66A2:C454 (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is not that the last name was unknown in some absolute way, but rather that she was known only by her first name on the relevant website. If you would like to propose better wording in accordance with the sources, please do! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why you're asking me to consult secondary sources when they refused to even fact check the date of creation of the "movement". The reason the secondary sources say no one knew her by her last name is because she requested journalists not associate her last name with the subject. She says that on her LoveNotAnger website. If the sources on this subject don't care about facts, then they are awful and not worth buildling an encyclopedic article over. I mean good god they leave out more than two thirds the history and then get it wrong 2600:4040:403C:F300:F7A:E246:2476:2C4 (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Also the third sentence is also factually wrong. 2600:4040:403C:F300:F7A:E246:2476:2C4 (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Look if all Wikipedia is is a Google aggregator, you can get an AI bot to do that in 10 years or so. I assume part of the reason of the ignore all rules rule, is to deal with water is wet type stuff, that an AI bot would miss. And even the first few sentences are saying sky is green type stuff. 2600:4040:403C:F300:F7A:E246:2476:2C4 (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Not all reliable sources are reachable via Google, but that is the general sort of idea. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Every source is in this is reachable via Google search or Google Scholar. The first few sentences of this article are wrong or misleading or obfuscating obvious facts, Wikipedia should fix it imho. Then should fact check the rest or delete the article for being a premature take on a topic. 2600:4040:403C:F300:F7A:E246:2476:2C4 (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Difference between AI bots and humans are humans care about accuracy 2600:4040:403C:F300:F7A:E246:2476:2C4 (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand the article is protected and requires autoconfirmed access, but why not simply achieve that and fix it yourself (in accordance with Wikipedia policies)? Dumuzid (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Because everyone who tries to fix it gets banned through lies. The only accurate stuff in this article is in spite of the active moderation, or because that which was written was about people the moderators didn't like 2600:4040:403C:F300:F7A:E246:2476:2C4 (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay then. Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Avant-garde musician Henry Flynt coined the term "involuntary celibate" in 1974 after being called a "creep" by Helen Lefkowitz in 1956

Former and temporary Velvet Underground member Henry Flynt was a philosopher, musician, writer and activist connected to the 1960s New York avant-garde, he coined the term "involuntary celibate" in a 1974 manifesto entitled "Blueprint For A Higher Civilization" after being called a creep by Helen Lefkowitz in 1956, he called it the "creep theory" and gave a lecture on it in 1962, the manifesto contains early examples of the ideology of incels. http://www.vasulka.org/archive/Artists2/Flint/Blueprint.pdf Aradicus77 (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Aradicus77 (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

You would need reliable, secondary sources connecting Flynt's writings to this subculture for it to be included, otherwise you're in WP:SYNTH territory. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

calling all communities related to the manosphere misogynist is inaccurate

Father's fighting for access to their children and men's rights activists in general are not by definition misogynistic and that word should be removed. 108.52.223.8 (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The best place to discuss that would probably be at Talk:Manosphere; there appear to be scholarly sources there which characterise the manosphere generally in those terms. We defer to the sources. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Classification of those on the autistic spectrum in the context of Incel.

Quote from Wikipedia Incel description: "Some people who identify as incel have other physical disabilities or psychological disorders such as autism spectrum disorder, and body dysmorphic disorder." I strongly object to the outmoded description of the autistic spectrum 'disorder' as either a physical disability or psychological disorder. This is hugely offensive to those of us on the spectrum. Please rephrase the quotation to remove the offensive description. it is derrogatory and for many of us, completely untrue and smacks of prejudice and lack of understanding. Thank you, from a 61-year-old gifted, independent, educated woman on the autistic spectrum. 95.147.247.115 (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I also concur on making this article Szaszian or Antonuccian, as the idea of mental illness itself is bigotry and often promotes maltreatment of those who are neurodivergent 2600:4040:4030:5000:DCBD:E737:E7C5:E288 (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

This sort of change seems reasonable to me as long as we aren't hiding material. Would something like "neurodivergence" work? I guess the statement is "this relatively rare construct is present amongst incel'" Talpedia (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

"diagnosed with the label of x", rather than "have x mental disorder" etc etc. 2600:4040:4030:5000:96F8:E747:4BF3:77D1 (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmm "label of x" feels a little value-laden. But yes, the diagnosis construction before, and used elsewhere are you happy with "autism spectrum disorder" which is presumably what the source uses? Talpedia (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Neither myself or the OP think it makes sense to pathologize mental states. Especially in the complete absence of reliable biomarkers in the brain to establish existence of any disease. The word disorder is a bit better than illness but is still used to pathologize 2600:4040:4030:5000:96F8:E747:4BF3:77D1 (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Like I'm not disagreeing. The issue is that you've got a phrase with formal diagnostic criteria (albeit applied in a social setting) so if you change the name you potentially disconnect the thing you should be pointing at. I was hoping I could avoid a bunch of reading by asking you because you might be informed on the matter, and for example be able to tell me that "diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorder" is identical to "autistic" or "diagnosed with autism", or you might say no these things are quite different. From a precision standpoint "diagnosed with autitic spectrum disorder" feels like good trade of between not accepting that the diagnosis is anything more than a label with some criteria, while not changing terminology or introducing the term label which feels potentially distracting and value-laden - I'm happier with construct.

I have no particularly desire to pathologize mental state merely accurately reference literature in a way that does not argue one way or other about "realness" of the label is that is to people's liking Talpedia (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Mental disorders, even including to the lead editor of DSM-IV, are all just social constructions at the moment. They're a collection of labels used to manage or identify individual behavior, and nothing more. 71.171.90.218 (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Elimination of the words "disorder" and "illness" from Wikipedia articles making statements about alleged mental illness makes the most sense. Eg as the aforementioned lead editor of the DSM-IV said "there is no definition of a mental disorder. It's bullshit. I mean, you just can't define it." 71.171.90.218 (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I've adjusted the wording: Some people who identify as incel have physical disabilities or psychological disorders such as depression, anxiety, autism spectrum disorder, and body dysmorphic disorder.

However, I think if you want Wikipedia articles broadly to stop describing autism as a "disorder" that would require a much broader consensus. At the moment, Autism spectrum describes autism as a "neurodevelopmental disorder". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Incels primarily white?

Incels (in the original sense as involuntary virgins/non-sexual actives) are very much more common in Japan and South Korea. So get the racism out of this article. 2A01:598:B184:2B4:35C8:92D0:62E6:C67D (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

They actually are not. Informal polling of the incel community has reported 55-60% identify as white. Zaathras (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Once again, this article is about the internet subculture, *not* about the "original sense", so your concerns are misplaced. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

yes hikimori is a large part of that culture. Or else change the title to (US-centric view on incels) or something similar. (-- me being not from the US) 2A01:598:B184:2B4:35C8:92D0:62E6:C67D (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

As this is the English Wikipedia, a focus on us is kind of expected. Zaathras (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Since the idea of that sentence was added, there's been plenty of (primary academic) sources which challenge the implication put forth by trumpeting 'incels are mostly or primarily or often white' as if it's notable. The implication being the forums are unusually white, and with respect to larger parent platforms that the forums were on or derived from. That's the implication by putting it in the lede of a digital journo article or Wikipedia. Academics challenged that, among those who made it a point to research race on the forums. If you want to find the academic sources that challenge that, go ahead, but I don't really care about this debate. There were talk page wars over that sentence before the academics challenged it, because a few journalists said 'mostly white' after browsing incels.me's selfie thread from 2018 or something, is what I remember. Bashfan34 (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

In general, most of this Wikipedia page is anchored by 2018 news articles on Minassian, and related commentary. There's been a lot of writing in reliable sources since then. The framing of incels in media has stayed about as negative, (with some exceptions) but there's been updates, and this subject is among those updates. Bashfan34 (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC) — Bashfan34 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Willwill0415 (talk · contribs).

If these originating forums were mainly white, which is likely, that may still be significant to this particular subculture, or it might not be. It's still up to sources to decide this, and journalism can still be reliable for this kind of thing. If you know of specific research that explains this, please point to it. Just saying that there have been updates in broad terms is not enough. Grayfell (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The incel communities are mostly white, or at least the self-described ones (some sources here say a tad over 50%). Hence not removing that sentence. The updates are about whether this is unusual ie notable, considering that the USA is mostly white, and Reddit clocks in at almost 70% white. And the incel forums focused on in this article are the Reddit offshoot ones in English and reportedly ran out of the USA. This is what the Sylvia Jaki source already in the article partially gets at, which alone is enough to alter the lede should the IP editor choose to make an account and do so with. As far as others, sorting through academia on incels now takes hours, and considering I haven't edited that sentence yet, don't feel like doing anon IPs work for him. Bashfan34 (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC) — Bashfan34 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Willwill0415 (talk · contribs).

So a half-truth? They're technically across the midway mark to qualify as mostly? Why not describe exactly what percentage of people are 'mostly' and let the reader decide! 193.119.44.239 (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

If it were 56%, or even 70% corresponding to a similar percent of the population in North America, the emphasis also strikes me as dishonest. The article is emphasizing it as something irregular, something notable. You qualify this 'remarkable' fact about the demographic of the community when at worst, it is probably inline with the expected racial demographics of the community as a whole. 193.119.44.239 (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The 55–60% percentage being mentioned above is from "informal polling"—as far as I'm aware it's not mentioned in the article because there isn't a sufficiently reliable source that begins to try to take a stab at percentages. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Really? I always thought the sources that mentioned the percentage were fairly reliable Trade (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm white and REALLY DAMN tired of seeing in media "white" and "incel" when the statistical reality is arabids are actually per capita the most spree shooters read below

Faisal Hussain was an Arabcel of Pakistani origin who is responsible for the 2018 Toronto incel spree shooting that occurred on Danforth Avenue in the Greektown neighbourhood of Toronto, Ontario. According to The National Post, Faisal Hussain had a "dark obsession with death, violence and 'incel' ideology". Police on searching Faisal and his property found a copy of a manifesto by Elliot Rodger, images of him, as well as stories Alek Minassian.

Biography

According to The National Post, "Hussain’s dark obsessions started early." As a child was found drawing a man being cheered by a demon for decapitating a woman, and vocally admiring the Columbine school shooters . Faisal had no criminal record but had several interactions with police before the doing his incel shooting. He was 29-years-old at the age of the shooting and police say the "Hussian's family did not 'even know him that well and what he was up to.'" He has a twin brother.

Description of the Shooting

Search warrants unsealed two months after the shooting showed that Faisal had stood over a woman and shot her four times during a incel shooting rampage that ended with Faisal shooting himself in the head. Faisal has twin brother had tried to persuade him to turn his life around several hours before the incel shooting spree, but by the time his twin brother made his arguments Faisal had already tuned him out.

There was an Indian witness to the shototing, a man named Jaspal Singh. Hussain said to Jaspal, “Don’t worry, I’m not going to shoot you." After that Hussain killed 18-year-old Reese Fallon and 10-year-old Julianna Kozis Thirteen other persons became victims and were injured but where not killed, ranging in age from 17 to 59, as Hussain fired at pedestrians and businesses.

Stats on Arabcel shooters in the Anglophone Americas

Faisal Hussain is a notable Arabcel (arabcel is a portmanteau of "arab" and "incel") . The angolophone americas (countries in North and South Americas that are majority English-speaking) include the United States, Canada and other countries like Belize and Dominica. It is a statistical reality and fact that a higher percentage of Hussain's ethnic group (arabs, berbers, libyans, iranians, ect.) become incel shooters, which occurs at a higher frequency and rate in Hussain's ethnic group than any other ethnicity. One can caluclate this figure by gathering data on all the incel spree shooters (i.e. every incel shooting that has ever happened in the anglophone americas) and categorizing the shooter by their ethnicity . After gathereing data on the ethnic makeup of the anglophone americas (i.e. population sizes for each ethnicity in countries part of the anglophone americas), one would divide the number of shooters into the total population size of each ethnicity to yield the per capita number of incel shooters per ethinicty. Conducting this statistical analysis will yield the result in which of all the ethnicities in the world, the one most statistically likely to become incel shooters is the Arabcel. Faisal Hussain was of course an important part of this statistical truth and reality, and is part of a growing global growth in Arabcel populations. DroppingInNotONe1 (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that ethnicity is unrelated to the ideology, though be careful with using the word "arabid".

Unless you're trying to say it should be changed to often Arabic, which would just cause more problems. commemorative (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Please see the Wikipedia policy on no original research. If you have high quality sources that contradict the existing sources on overall demographics, feel free to present them, but pointing to one incident in which an attacker was non-white, some material from the "Incel Wiki", and some original research is not sufficient to make changes to the text. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Confusion with source.

“Originally coined as "INVCEL" around 1993 - 1997 by a queerCanadian female student known as Alana, to explore her involuntary celibacy” source?

I’m a newb, please be gentle.

Nevermind, found it buried below.

New study published in Current Psychology

https://www.psypost.org/2023/04/incels-tend-to-have-a-desolate-social-environment-and-are-more-likely-to-internalize-rejection-study-finds-76985 GMG^talk 12:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

DHS has been allegedly defunding grant-based incel research due to alleged civil liberties concerns

See https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/11/15/dhs-mayorkas-domestic-violent-extremism/ 72.86.42.248 (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Could someone please add something about this into the article? --Trade (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Add to the article that the DHS has allegedly beendefunding grant-based incel research due to alleged civil liberties concerns. Didn't i just said that couple of hours ago? @M.Bitton:--Trade (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2023

The "Portrayals In Fiction" section has a possible addition: Since March 2022, The British soap Hollyoaks has featured an incel storyline, which has included violence and online grooming. StellaSBSG (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 03:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

FBI has recently chosen to use "IVE" to refer to what this page is about

Short for 'involuntary celibate extremist'. Rather than 'incel' or 'involuntary celibate'. The FBI report seeks to separate the violent ones from the non-violent ones through the main terminology itself.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/04/05/heres-fbi-glossary-for-flagging-violent-extremism/

72.86.42.248 (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

In other words, American federal law enforcement is preferring "IVE" to "incel", or "involuntary celibate" to signify extremism. Because even they don't bully on this issue anymore. 72.86.42.248 (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Could someone please add something about this into the article? --Trade (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: It isn't entirely clear what you want to be changed. It doesn't seem to me that this article is exclusively about the group the FBI uses the term IVE for, there's simply more content to cover when there are numerous important events related to that extremism. Tollens (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The FBI report choosing "IVE" as a subset of "incel" uses the subculture definition that this Wikipedia page describes all of "incel" as. The IVE definition shows no material difference in description based on current Wikipedia article lede as of this month, May 2023 72.86.42.248 (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Ida Takes Charge, Ida Tar Ansvar, Nordic TV series for "Portrayals in fiction"

https://nordicdrama.com/viaplay-releases-trailer-for-ida-takes-charge/

"Ida moves away from home to study psychology at the University of Oslo. She is worried about most things in life, but her greatest fear is that an act of terror will take place. And when she meets Aksel, a lone wolf who is repeating high-school classes to get into the university and spends his time on dark incels (involuntary celibates) forums on the internet, she starts to think he's a potential school shooter. She tries to squelch the terror-related thoughts, but the more she learns about him, the greater the fear gets. Gradually she realizes that she needs to do something drastic to stop her escalating fear, but how far is she willing to go to save Aksel?"

https://www.avclub.com/tv/reviews/ida-tar-ansvar-2022

https://www.tvmaze.com/shows/57102/ida-tar-ansvar/episodeguide "Ida moves away from home to study psychology at Blindern. She is afraid of most things, but her biggest fear is terror. It does not get better when she meets Aksel, who spends a lot of time on incel forums online." "Ida is introduced to the idea of sleeping with an incel to prevent a terror attack." "Siri is newly single and looking for a rebound, which gives Ida an idea that could benefit both Aksel and Siri."

72.86.42.248 (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The show was nominated for an award, so think it deserves mention in the Wikipedia article 72.86.42.248 (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Link Incels.is

Please change "The largest of such forums was founded in 2017 and had 12,000 members as of March 2021" to "The largest of such forums, [[incels.is]] was founded in 2017 and had 12,000 members as of March 2021".

Please link to incels.is the article has been recently created. 128.6.36.94 (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 02:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Source for being the largest website:

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/4/16/18287446/incel-definition-reddit

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08912432221128545

Anyways, the source already at the end of the sentence I want to get changed.

Article on Wikipedia: incels.is

Consensus was to include it when the article is created, much like the related website Sanctioned Suicide which is included in this article too because its article was created. 128.6.36.94 (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Callmemirela 128.6.36.94 (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: the Vox article does not mention incel.is and the Halpin article does not support the contention that incel.is is currently the largest site as of March 2021. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incels.is. small jars tc 11:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Just a heads up that the Allen, TX shooter may end up relevant

See NBC News for why I say that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Already done by Liminal8bits. See [3], Incel#2020s. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Excessive citations

Numerous lines within this article contain four or five citations at an abnormally high rate of occurrence.

I understand that this article has been the subject of extensive prior discussions, so I have refrained from hatting the article itself as I feel is warranted under WP:OVERCITE. If no justification is provided, however, I'm keen to consider several of these instances superfluous, at the very least appending notices to the body text, if not rooting out several instances manually. Doughbo (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Often when I look at sentences with a lot of cites I find that one cite is "contained within" another (for example you might have a systematic review that also mentions a particular primary study), also sometimes some cites are clearly of better quality (e.g. advice to patients on webmd versus advice from a health body). In these cases if feels appropriate to remove the less valuable cite with little harm. Talpedia 15:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Mm, you're probably right. This has been a contentious article, which I think has led to some overkill. If you want I can take a pass through to bundle some of the cites in statements that have been contentious and are liable to be challenged again if cites are removed, and remove some of the cites in less contentious statements where they've just accumulated but are not really needed. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

How does the merge look?

I've taken a swing at merging incels.is, per the outcomes of the AfD and DRV. I've attempted to pull in the most pertinent facts at Incel#Forum without making the section overlong. I have omitted some portions that I notice use sources that don't explicitly name the site, as in my view it strays into WP:SYNTH territory to suggest they're all referring to the same website when they don't explicitly say so. Let me know if there's anything else that looks like it ought to be brought over from the old page (see permalink), or feel free to just add it yourself.

Regarding naming the site explicitly, I'm opening a separate discussion below on that topic. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Naming the incel forum

Prior to the creation of the incels.is article, this article didn't explicitly name the site, and rather just referred to it as "the largest incel forum". Now that incels.is has been through AfD with the decision to merge, we should probably revisit that question.

On the one hand, there are sources that do name the site explicitly (either under the .is TLD or its previous .me or .co TLDs). Most of the ones currently used in the #Forum section name it directly.

On the other hand, several high-quality sources carefully avoid naming the site — in particular the Center for Countering Digital Hate report, which explains:

To avoid promoting the websites investigated in this report, we refrain from naming incel-dedicated forums and websites to the best of our ability. The main forum we researched for this report is referred to as “the incel forum” or “the forum”, whilst adjacent forums and websites are described according to their main focus.

Other sources used in the previous article take the same approach, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Gizmodo. Looking broadly at RS coverage of the forum, many RS avoid naming it, such as the BBC Cosmopolitan, The Guardian, etc.

Finally, there is some precedent for not linking to sites that are known for illegal or at least extremely objectionable, for example 8chan (discussion) and Kiwi Farms (discussion). Given the reporting from the CCDH on the prevalence of pedophilia-related content on this site, and the change in site rules to apparently explicitly allow for sexualization of some minors, that would seem to apply here.

I won't be surprised if this winds up needing an RfC, given how contentious this page and the recent deletion discussions have been, but let's give it the ol' college try and see if we can't come to a consensus without one. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Omit site name per my reasoning above. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment: What is the purpose of this discussion when you have already gone ahead and censored the site name without any consensus? --Trade (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  To determine what the content ought to be long-term. The page needs to be one way or the other in the meantime, so I returned it to the status quo as it was prior to the creation and deletion of incels.is pending the outcome of this discussion. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  None of the examples that you brought up have had their names censored Trade (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Should we be attmpting to define "incel", or just documenting its use?

Starting this topic per WP:BRD. I made an edit to the lede to the effect of recasting the topic of the article as a subculture with the following edit summary (a bit weirdly written because I squished it into the char limit): this article is about a subculture. it is not about a term and the lede should not be shoe-horned into seeming like it is. the claim that "an incel is a member…" is poorly sourced. [2–4] each start by defining an incel movement, and in as much as "incel" refers to any kind of person, it is described as doing so only in the mouths of those identifying with it. we can avoid legitimising the meaning of the term given to it by the subculture without needing to OR-up a bogus alternative definition. The referred-to sources are [4][5] and [6]. User:GorillaWarfare reverted my edit in good faith asking for consensus. If you can chew through the BLUD from some keep-voting IPs !voters, I think that there is a general consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incels.is that the topic of this article is a culture and not "incels" as such, as stated in arguments made by myself user:PriusGod that incels.is belongs within the scope of this article, which have been affirmed by a few other contributors. Separately, I cannot find any direct verification of the definition given in the lede in the sources it is cited to. small jars tc 03:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking through the talk archive's as I've been asked to, it seems that this has long been the consensus. I have to say I am confused that the article has stood with a lede sentence that does not properly reflect this. small jars tc 03:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Heads up that if you edit a comment to fix a ping, you need to re-sign the comment or it won't actually send the notification. I have this article watchlisted, though.

I'm a little confused by your concern with the current lead, which states that "An incel... is a member of an online subculture of people who define themselves as unable to get a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one" and is not trying to claim that the article is about the word "incel". You're correct that the consensus has long been to describe incels in terms of the subculture, rather than as any person who is unable to find romantic/sexual partners regardless of if they self-identify (see Talk:Incel/FAQ). But that is what the lede is currently doing.

I'm also confused about your concern about the verification — are you saying that you don't believe that the cited sources verify that "incel" is used as a term to refer to the people within the incel subculture? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

is not trying to claim that the article is about the word "incel"

Okay. It would be unfair of me to compare it to something like "incel is a term that has been used online to refer to blah blah blah", but by insisting on giving a definition of "incel" rather than introducing what the article is actually about, “incel movement/ideology/etc.”, it definitely moves towards that territory.

I'm also confused about your concern about the verification — are you saying that you don't believe that the cited sources verify that "incel" is used as a term to refer to the people within the incel subculture?

they sometimes use it as such themselves, but usually only after establishing it as a self-dubbed moniker (nyt The recent mass killing in Toronto by a man who once called for an “Incel Rebellion” has drawn attention to an online community of men who lament being "involuntarily celibate"), or as a movement/ideology (vox This is not an organized militant group but rather an ideal developed by the so-called “incel” movement), and never define it as such as far as I can see. I think this usage comes about as a shorthand later on in some articles simply because saying "self-identified incel" becomes repetitive. The assertion in the lede is both OR based on extrapolating from contextual usage, and undue weight on the importance of the term as referring to a certain kind of person (which is exactly what the incel community itself tends to do), rather than to an ideology/subculture (which corresponds to the mainstream view). small jars tc 04:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I much prefer the phrasing given in the FAQ you linked "This article is about a particular misogynistic online subculture of people who self-identify as "involuntary celibates" or "incels" based on their inability to find a romantic or sexual partner. It is not about all people who are unable to find a romantic or sexual partner or all people to whom the phrase "involuntary celibate" could be applied, but only to that subculture." small jars tc 04:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I think I'm understanding your concern now — is it primarily about the ordering of the lead sentence, which you think suggests the article is more about the individual members than the subculture? I think it's mostly because it's the least awkward wording. In my view, the important bit is really the last part ("subculture of people who define themselves as unable to get a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one"), which remains the same in both versions.

I have two main issues with your suggested wording, but perhaps there's a resolution that would be agreeable. The first is that it really is a subculture rather than a "movement", which suggests some sort of coordinated group working for a goal. Similarly I'm not sure the whole thing is best described as a "community", though that's at least better than "movement". There are incel communities (mentioned in the subsections), and one of which we've been discussing at AfD, but the article is about the subculture as a whole rather than one specific community, and also covers people who self-identify as incels without having any signficant connection to one of the communities. Similarly, "ideology" is something that the subculture has, but is a subtopic of this article rather than the main thrust of it. My second concern is that stating that incels are a "subculture of people who identify as 'incels', and define themselves as unable to get a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one" reads to me as though those are two different things, rather than the latter phrase defining the first.

Something like The incel subculture is an online subculture of people who identify as "incels" (/ˈɪnsɛlz/ IN-sels, a portmanteau of "involuntary celibate"): people who define themselves as unable to get a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one. is at least accurate in my view, but somewhat awkward to read. (Citations removed for brevity, not recommending removing them in the final version). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You're right, the individual/group distinction seems like a clearer way of describing my concerns than what I had been saying about terms. I tried to take the words I used in my suggested wording directly from the sources cited, but I don't particularly mind if they are replaced with "online subculture" as the problematic impression that "incel" is a mainstream term for a certain kind of person is avoided either way. Your suggested version looks good to me but I would replace : people who define themselves with something like and who define themselves or , defining themselves for readability. small jars tc 05:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

My only remaining issue would be with the repitition of the assertion about the meaning of the word in the Lexicology section. small jars tc 06:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done with respect to the lead sentence, and I've incorporated your wording change.

Regarding lexicology, it is accurate and sourced that self-identifying members of the incel subculture are described as incels/involuntary celibates. I understand your concern with the lead sentence, since it seemed to frame the article as being primarily about the individuals rather than about the subculture as a whole, but I'm not sure I follow the lexicology concern. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. As to § Lexicology, it's quite likely that I just didn't look carefully enough for verification. If so, can you quote a source giving the term roughly the same definition to put my fears to rest? small jars tc 01:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm still not 100% sure which bit you're looking for a citation for: that individuals belonging to the incel subculture are individually described as incels? That incels are self-identifying, rather than the term being used to describe anyone who isn't having sex but would like to be? Or the definition of the subculture? The "inceldom" and "incelibacy" neologisms? To try to cover all bases:

• Individuals within the incel subculture are themselves described as "incels"

• Some self-identified incels, as they call themselves... – Vox
• Tough to quote directly, but each of the sources uses the term "incel" as a noun to refer to individuals within the movement as well as an adjective being applied to the subculture. For example, users laud Elliot Rodger, a self-identified incel who killed six people (NYT). ...became a forum for incels..., Some incels hail Rodger as the martyr of an armed rebellion – or “beta uprising” – waged by sexually frustrated incels against the “Chads and Stacys.”, And “Stacys” are attractive women who reject incels. (CNN). ...incels feel the same sort of reverence toward Rodger... (The Cut)

• "incel" refers specifically to those within the subculture, not all people who would like to be having sex but isn't

• When we talk about “incels,” we are not talking about all men who are not having sex. Instead, we are talking about a specific subculture of people in various internet forums – Vox

• The subculture based around the inability to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one

• “incel” movement — an online community of men united by their inability to convince women to have sex with them – Vox
• It’s a movement made up almost entirely of men who claim they “can’t have sex despite wanting to,” according to incels.me. Central to incel ideology is the notion that members have been unfairly denied sex by women because they’re unattractive or socially awkward. – CNN

• The neologisms

• inceldom – Vox, CNN
• incelibacy – The Cut

If you can clarify which portion you think is insufficiently cited, I can pull up other citations from the article to verify if need be. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

"incel" refers specifically to those within the subculture, not all people who would like to be having sex but isn't

The "those within" part is what bothers me. Clearly it's used that way frequently enough in some of these articles, but I put that down shorthand, because the term almost always first appears drenched in quote marks and other signs of in-text attribution. The difference between these sources and a wp article is that they do not assume that readers will jump past the introduction, so they can get away with settling into using "incel" instead of "self-identified incel" after the reader has been made fully aware of the context. Because we can't make this assumption, we should use incel as an adjective all the way through, and only ever mention it as a noun, which is what prefixing "self-identified" achieves. We don't want to get mixed up with the main nominal usage, which clearly belongs to the incel community and carries all sorts of baggage. IMO the vox quote doesn't support the given definition either. They reject the usage of the term which directly refers to an "involuntary celibate" man (specifically when we talk about incels, which does not imply that it does not carry the other usage elsewhere, namely within incel communities) but what they replace it with is a definition that refers to a subculture, not to any other kind of particular individual at all. Finally, from an ethical point a view, I feel like any way of talking about "incel"-related issues that suggests that they are primarily the result of an essential characteristic belonging to certain people, when they are more accurately due to a social process in which vulnerable people may end up entwined, descends onto the same level as the rhetoric of despair that fuels these issues in the first place. small jars tc 18:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I think I understand your concern. I have no objection to replacing "incels" with "members of the incel subculture", or "self-identified incels" if appropriate, throughout. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll just try to get over myself about the claim in the lexicology section for now then. I feel like this the kind of topic I could start to loose my common sense over if I'm not careful. small jars tc 23:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Just my input (40-year-old virgin here).

First, the article for Celibacy states that celibacy is voluntary. This makes "involuntary celibacy" a contradiction, though it can be salvaged by treating it as a simple noun phrase that acquired its own meaning.

Second -- and in support of referring to Incels as a subculture rather than a type of person -- "voluntariness" is a controversial notion. A decision to refrain from jumping into a stream of freezing water may be physically voluntary, but psychologically involuntary if deemed foolish or impractical.

Third, I see no reason to restrict the definition of Incel to an *online* subculture. Incels could just as easily meet up in person. Their restriction to online subcultures may be contingent on the way our particular society currently operates. Scott Hoge 2601:4C3:300:470:3084:B119:9358:2DE4 (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The timeline image should be updated

there are many missing attacks from the list, i would like to help. StrongALPHA (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Such as? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

George Sodini in 2009, the attacks in April, May, and August of 2021. StrongALPHA (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)