Talk:Incel/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

TFL

There seems to be a pretty big gap in the history section between 1997 and 2014. AFAIK the only sentence pertaining this period is the love-shy one. Hence I propose adding the following sentence True Forced Loneliness (or TFL) is an incel movement that dates back to 2008 and consists of vloggers who post videos on platforms such as Youtube to discuss their datelessness using the following sources ([1], [2], [3], [4]). Does anyone object to this?. Thylacoop5 (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

"are members of an online subculture[1][2] who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one, a state they describe as inceldom". Well TFL meets the latter criteria. For a while on this page people were reverting edits because the people referenced weren't explicitly self-identifying with the verbatim term, "incel". Now it seems that also includes people that don't say incel, but just "involuntary", but now with the inclusion of Cruz in the murder section, they don't need to self-identify but maybe just reference someone who used the word incel once and/or is talked a lot about in incels.me. The standard for inclusion is wonky and everchanging, you can try putting it in. My standard of inclusion has always been if they are someone is "unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one" but can't find it", are then celibate (and then if they need to self-identify for inclusion, if they make a big deal about it). The wiki decision to make involuntary celibacy not a thing, but a "subculture: based off of (what many editors consider) a non-coherent or non-real thing (involuntary celibacy), means basically the people who don't consider involuntary celibacy a thing to decide what is a thing and then base their edits off whatever that is, usually just 2018 minassian pieces about 4chan culture. Willwill0415 (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thylacoop5 I can't read the times source, because it's behind a paywall. I looked at the other three sources though, and I can't see anything about it being an incel movement dating back to 2008 - all I could gather was that it was a YouTube movement closely related to the incel movement. Is there anything specific in the Times article that supports the dates? I don't have a view on how much weight we should give TFL stuff. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

"and I can't see anything about it being an incel movement" By your admission it's "closely related", why is it closely related? Because they are incel. They were a group of self-perceived involuntarily celibate (incel) men per just the Huff Post description of them, "another term used by men who believe women are unfairly denying them companionship and sex.". Why does he need to do more work to prove that?Willwill0415 (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Willwill0415 - I couldn't really understand your comment, but please remember that your personal standard of inclusion isn't of any interest to Wikipedia - nor is mine, or any other editor's. We reflect reliable sources, and if they say that incels are an internet subculture, rather than 'a thing', then that's what we say. (FWIW, I'm an involuntary non-billionaire - that's an accurate description of my life circumstances, but it's not really 'a thing' either.) GirthSummit _(blether) 16:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

it's not just my standard for inclusion, it's what involuntary celibacy means as a sociological term. Because your involuntary non-billionaire status has no academic weight for it to be of interest to people, and an intellectual framework about involuntary poverty at least has home in the socialist movement, or movements that see the impoverished as oppressed involuntarily. The involuntary celibacy concept is it's own academic and intellectual framework that is notable, and it's been debated for pages on wikipedia. Donnolly's study taking the concept of involuntary celibacy seriously from an academic perspective (there's a first for everything), while the sample size was extremely small, has been cited at least 62 times in scholarly literature since 2001, including an encyclopedia about family life, a peer-reviewed sociology journal, and various books by accredited sociologists and an accredited athropologist, giving the term, "involuntary celibacy", academic legitimacy, at least as a sociological term. Those who tried to delete that page were the ones trying to engage in social engineering, not my comments here. I'm sorry if you "couldn't really understand" them or how involuntary celibacy should relate to an encyclopedic standard for inclusion to an incel article. In this case TFL's inclusion Willwill0415 (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

No, it is just your standard for inclusion. Consensus was reached that this article needs to focus on incels as an online subculture, and you need to respect that rather than trying to relitigate it again and again. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

What is the standard for inclusion for someone/ a group to be incel for this article? This definition "define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one, a state they describe as inceldom." <--- is more or less the same as the involuntary celibacy definition from the previous article that got deleted. The subculture and/or movement part is wonky. Is it that everyone who meets that criteria online is de facto apart of a subculture? Or the subculture includes some people who can't find sexual partners involuntarily and not others? Is it the culture of the largest forum? Is there an expectation that reliable sources have outlined it as a subculture or a movement in a way that is even remotely coherent for a standalone article? It's not clear and ultimately just administrators will decide who/what is 'in the subculture' or not by readjusting the center of the 'subculture' as they feel. Right now it's sort of centered around Elliot Rodger and incels.me, but has a history section with enormous holes in it that can only be filled by adjusting what the subculture is by choosing this or that article. Willwill0415 (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You are deliberately quoting only a portion of the lead sentence, which reads in full: Incels (a portmanteau of involuntary celibates) are members of an online subculture who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one, a state they describe as inceldom. That should answer your questions just fine, but if it hasn't, I'm not going to continue down this rabbit hole with you. If you insist on continuing to try to shift this article to discuss your view of what an incel is and not the consensus established months ago, I will bring a case for a topic ban. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I addressed the subculture part as the tricky part, I asked you specific questions about what is allowed in this article because you have a monopoly on this page (yes you do, and I have sent your 4-5 month long violation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content to the arbcom mailing list), and the page needs clarification for editing if you are to assume monopoly on the page, and threaten banning people on technicalities. Willwill0415 (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Okay. You should really open up a thread at WP:AN/I if you're really concerned there. I'm certain you'll get the outcome you're looking for.--Jorm (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

As you can probably see from how the case request is going, you skipped a few steps by going directly to ArbCom. And no, I'm not threatening to request a topic ban on "technicalities", I'm threatening it based on your months-long disruption at this page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Girth Smmit. The Essence source published in 2011 claims the movement was founded 3 years beforehand. The Huffington post source says TFL is another name for incel. Thylacoop5 (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Where does the Huffington Post source say that? I'm not seeing it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Simply looking at the reliability, The Huffington Post and The Times are fine. Jezebel is not typically considered to be a reliable source (see this RSN discussion) and I've avoided using it on this page. The Essence page is a dating advice column and should not be used. Now looking at the content of the two reliable sources, neither one describes TFL as an incel phenomenon—both discuss it alongside pickup artistry, which is also not considered to be an incel thing, right? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Willwill0415 you only quoted part of my sentence. If you read it again in full, I hope you'll see that I was taking issue with the date that Thylacoop5 put on the TFL group, not the assertion that it is related to the incel movement. As for the rest of your comment, if you can direct me to an RS that discusses involuntary celibacy as 'a thing' rather than an internet movement, I'd be interested to read it.

@GorillaWarfare: Sometimes it's discussed as it's own thing as well as a discussion of it being a subculture or movement, sometimes completely on it's own, anyway I'll just include a wide range of sources... Kill all Normies Online Culture Wars from 4Chan and Tumblr to Trump and the Alt-Right, by Angela Nagle (used already in the wiki article) pages 98-100 [5] The End of Sexual Identity: Why Sex Is Too Important to Define Who We Are. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press. pp. 132–133. [6] "Gendered Sexuality Over the Life Course: A Conceptual Framework". Sociological Perspectives. University of California Press. 53 (2): 155–178. **from peer reviewed sociology journal [7] The Handbook of Sexuality in Close Relationships page 900 Coauthor John Harvey is a social psychologist with a Ph.D. in Sociology [8] Webmd article on men's health The consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 67#WebMD is that WebMD is considered a reliable source. [9] Family encyclopedia written by sociologists [10] Dewey Rainwater, who people like to quote a lot in the article discusses the academic use and also refers to it as something separate from a movement [11], 10 Things People With Disabilities Can Do Right Now To Be Happier [12], What should women do if they're involuntarily celibate? [13], Where to Get Help if You're Struggling to Find Love, Sex, and Companionship [14], Sexuality Matters: Sexless relationships are common [15] ... and on and on ... Willwill0415 (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Strong consensus was already achieved. Your inability to accept that and your choice to instead continue to try to sway the article away from that consensus is becoming disruptive. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You asked, and now you don't like the answer so you tell me I'm disruptive. Uncivil Willwill0415 (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow, maybe a topic ban won't be necessary if a WP:CIR block will do. You split a comment by Girth Summit and now are trying to play it off like I made the comment. I'm impressed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thylacoop5 I genuinely hate to get technical, but looking when a source was published and working back from there is straying into WP:OR - we can't do that. It this is worth including, there will be better sources that discuss the history and actually provide the dates; if no such sources exits, then the assertion probably isn't worth making. We don't figure things out, we report what sources say. I hope that makes sense? GirthSummit _(blether) 19:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

So the two reliable sources are Times and HuffPost. Jezebel IIRC seems usable only for uncontentious/unremarkable/basic claims.

• The quote from the Times is "The Love-Shy.com forum also attracts men who are "Incel" (involuntarily celibate), who approach potential partners but are constantly rejected. Then there is "true forced loneliness" and "romantic anxiety disorder". (published 2009)
• The HuffPost, in the context of speaking about the (former) incel activist Jack Peterson, says " TFL, another term used by men who believe women are unfairly denying them companionship and sex."

What I gather from HuffPost is (a) since it is speaking about Peterson, the most compelling interpretation is that TFL is used interchangeably with incel due to usage of the term another; (b) Peterson sees this in video format. From The Times I gather that TFL has existed since at least 2009. From Jezebel I gather that TFL is a Youtube phenomenon. Does anyone dispute my assessment? If not, I propose adding True Forced Loneliness (or TFL) is an incel phenomenon that has existed on Youtube since at least 2009 Thylacoop5 (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Jezebel is the only one that mentions YouTube, though, isn't it? I don't think that's usable. Broader context from the two sources show that they are being discussed differently from how those two small quotes would suggest:

• The Times says The Love-Shy.com forum also attracts men who are "Incel" (involuntarily celibate), who approach potential partners but are constantly rejected. Then there is "true forced loneliness" and "romantic anxiety disorder". Many talk about "PUA" techniques, a reference to online "seduction communities" where "pick-up artists" who consider themselves successful with women sell their advice.
• Huffington Post says

  His first foray into online communities came at the age of 11 on the message board 4chan. As a kid who was depressed, anxious and bullied in real life, online he found a community where he felt like he belonged. It was his safe space.
  
  As he entered his teen years, Peterson became reclusive, sometimes going weeks without leaving his home. At some point, he discovered the pickup artist community, watching videos on YouTube on how to seduce girls. He hadn’t had much luck in the dating department, and it was here he got the idea that dating was akin to a game. It was clear he was losing.
  
  After that, he stumbled on videos posted by a user who called himself Steve Hoca. The videos were about his life of “true forced loneliness,” or TFL, another term used by men who believe women are unfairly denying them companionship and sex.
  
  Then, about a year and a half ago, he started reading the Reddit forum r/incels. He’d heard the term incel before, on 4chan, but now ― reading men’s stories of rejections and loneliness ― he was starting to realize that the term applied to him. He was an incel too.

It's clear that the Huffington Post is discussing this person's movement from 4chan to PUA communities to TFL videos to /r/incels. The Times is also discussing TFL as well as PUA communities. It makes no sense to include detailed history of PUA communities in this article, why would it make sense to include TFL? If you want to add a couple of words to the existing sentence in the article, Incel communities sometimes overlap with topics such as Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW),[51] men's rights activism, and pickup artistry,[21][48] although at least one male incel website has expressed hatred for pickup artistry and accuses pickup artists and dating coaches of financially exploiting incels.[62][48][63], I would be okay with that. But discussing TFL as a part of the history of the incel movement itself requires stronger sourcing. You've also ignored Girth Summit's point (which I agree with) about extrapolating the date from the year an article was published. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

As an aside: Willwill0415: Could you possibly learn to make your comments in a single edit? Compose them offline and then cut and paste if you have to. But 7 edits for one paragraph is pretty bad.--Jorm (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

GW. That's a great suggestion. I'll add a concise entry to that sentence later on if there's no interjection in the meanwhile. 06:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Thylacoop5: Works for me if that works for you -- are you willing to have that be the only mention or do we need to keep debating here? GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

No. I liked your suggestion because I didn't realize that sentence was there. Thylacoop5 (talk) 07:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Great! GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

yes, I'm trying to use the preview button more, it's a bad habit of mine Willwill0415 (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Thylacoop5: No major issue with your edit, but did want to ask about the grammar—is that how the term is usually used? That phrasing almost sounds like TFL is a pseudonym or a publication. Would it be more appropriate to reword it to something like vlogs by people who believe they are experiencing "true forced loneliness" (TFL)? GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Politically charged article, used by the author vent about personal experiences

I would request a complete re-write of this article, or just plain deletion. However, since this page is heavily guarded by people with political agendas, we all know that isn't going to happen.

Some years ago, this article was about "involuntary celibacy". Now it has turned into a creepy political piece, claiming that anyone who is a sufferer of involuntary celibacy is closely related to murder, terrorism, misogyny, racism and especially rape. All the original sources and material has been deleted and is vehemently kept under wraps by a politically unbiased part of the wiki community. According to the article, any man who doesn't have enough sex is a deranged lunatic. The sources are cherry-picked sidenotes from obscure, often unrelated, opinion pieces. It is an article with a completely misguided focus, made and maintained on the false premise of a "consensus" between a small handful of people with the same political agenda.

The owner of the article is apparently a feminist who has a history of being harrassed by incel-types online. She is hijacking and using the article as a form of venting, to "get back" at what she believes are representatives of sufferers of involuntary celibacy. It's like if an article about BPD framed all bipolar people as murderers, because the author had an abusive boyfriend with BPD. It is an elaborate excuse to attack a minority of mentally ill incels on the internet, at the expense of millions of regular incels who have not committed any harmful acts.

The whole article should be reverted to it's former unbiased self, and all the weakly sourced smearing should be contained in a single paragraph after the actual content.

"INCELS" ARE NOT TO BE DEFINED ACCORDING TO POLITICAL INTERESTS. If you want to discuss specific instances of incel communities, make separate articles instead of stealing the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.179.191.140 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@188.179.191.140: Are you an incel? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Page protection

Why is this page protected? It's an obscure topic with little objective information online and many of the sources are politically-biased newspapers. This is the first protected page i've ever noticed when attempting to edit, and it seems odd for this page to be so uniquely in need of 'protection'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by lenewo2018 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Lenewo2018: If you look at the history of this page, you'll see that it's been the target of persistent vandalism and edit warring. It's currently protected per this discussion at ANI. If there is an edit you want to make, suggest it here, providing reliable sources, and if it is compliant with our policies then I (or another editor) will be happy to add it to the article. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Unbalanced

A while ago, I proposed to add the {Unbalanced} tag. Why has my comment disappeared? Almost all the sources cited for this article are secondary sources criticising the alleged ideology of incels, while there are no primary sources where incel's voice their opinions. This makes it problematic to claim that a common incel ideology exists, and if such a common ideology does not exist then the whole article is dubious. Yodaclever (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:SECONDARY, we're actually encouraged to prefer secondary sources over primary sources. The idea is that good secondary sources should accurately summarize primary sources. The problem with overreliance on primary sources is that they can be crafted to nearly any narrative; someone could select three interviews with incels saying that they blame their red hair, and write a cited article that says the common ideology of incels includes blaming their red hair. --GRuban (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

That sir us a LIE. "Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. ... Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." That was copied and pasted from the very WIKIPEDIA POLICY STATEMENT you referenced. Each of these sources are biased AND have financial incentive to give the results they chose to give. With the exception of how the word came to be, this entire page is nothing more than an op-ed HIT PEICE on par with the faked page about Peter Manning's father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:b11b:7ff1:213a:73ca:29da:519b (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of GRuban's comment you think is a lie—your cited policy statement agrees that Wikipedia articles typically use secondary sources, which is what he said. I don't think he was trying to say that secondary sources are always unbiased, and you won't find any policy claiming primary sources are either. All sources can potentially be biased—that's where WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE come in. Again, I'd ask you to provide sources that you do feel are appropriate (as has been asked of you elsewhere on this page) so we can productively move forward with trying to address your concerns. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

What part of "reliable" did you ignore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.167.21 (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

If you're unfamiliar with our reliable sourcing policy I've linked to it here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Yodaclever: Seconding what GRuban said. Primary sources are rarely usable on Wikipedia, and secondary sources are almost always preferred. As for your comment, it "disappeared" because discussions on this talk page are automatically moved to an archive page when the discussion hasn't continued for a period of time. You can see your comment and the rest of the discussion at Talk:Incel/Archive 4#Editorializing Rather Than Informing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: The discussion was still very active at 25 August 2018. How does this fit with "discussions on this talk page are automatically moved to an archive page when the discussion hasn't continued for a period of time"? Automatic archiving would have much longer time periods. Yodacl (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Yodaclever You seem to be implying that someone has manually archived that thread. You can see the settings for the automatic archivist bot by editing this talk page - note that you need to click on Edit at the top of the page, not for an individual section. Look at the bit labelled 'MiszaBot'. I'm not an expert on bot config code, but if I read it correctly it is set to archive after seven days of inactivity on a thread. Please don't cast aspersions on other users' actions or intentions before checking - you can always ask for help if you aren't sure how to check. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

For reference, the thread in question was archived on September 1st, by Sigmabot (the successor to Miszabot). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Yodaclever: Agreed with what Girth Summit and Writ Keeper said above. All talk page edits are visible in the page history, so going forward you can check what happened to old threads, etc. by checking the history. I would not classify a discussion that had not been commented upon in seven days as "very active", myself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree that the unbalanced tag should be added. The article basically only says that incels are bad people and does not address any of the other complex issues pertinent to that community. The last time I viewed this article was about 6 years ago, and the text then, I believe, was more neutral and academic. 71.8.96.226 (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The article has only existed since April 2018... Acroterion (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Not fully correct—I created this article in April 2018 but it was first created as far back as 2007. That said, the text from the previous page(s) was deleted at AfD multiple times—just see the record of AfD discussions at the top of the page at Talk:Incel. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Just so, now I remember the hullabaloo in April when you re-created it. To the IP: the sources upon which Wikipedia articles are based have not found much in the way of charitable acts or general benevolent conduct with respect to this particular subject. Perhaps you can point us to some positive coverage? Acroterion (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2018

Delete the section "white, male and heterosexual" as it is clearly a racial statement meant to degrade the image of the average European. This is a very serious request and failure of fulfillment will negatively affect the political impartiality of Wikipedia. Amatheus676 (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime Public (open channel) 13:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

with women at at least half the population, not to mention the other things, {{citation needed}} on whether the average European is white, male, and/or heterosexual. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The articles doesn't contain any mention of Europe or "European". wumbolo ^^^ 14:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

"White." 'Nuff said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B11B:7FF1:213A:73CA:29DA:519B (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

As a white person who's American, I can confidently say that we should not use "white" and "European" as synonyms. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

White people come from Asia now? Or Africa? Or perhaps Mars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.167.21 (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm from America so it would seem we come from all over Although as far as I'm aware the existence of life on Mars has yet to be shown. GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was:  Not done Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Incel → Incel (online community) – As the talk page FAQ states, this article is "not about the idea of involuntary celibacy more broadly", but rather about "the subculture/community of self-identified 'incels'". Instead of simply overwriting the original 10 year old article (which is what has been done), it would make more sense to keep the original article and move the current content to a more fitting page. The two can easily be linked. Similar requests have been made several times by other users. 188.179.191.140 (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

You're right that similar requests have been made by other users. Consensus, however, has not supported their suggestions—the article in its earlier form was deleted at AfD multiple times (see the list at the top of this page) and discussions since then have not supported the move (for example, see Talk:Incel/Archive_2#Requested_move_25_April_2018). GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

In case it's not clear, I oppose the move, although it makes more sense for this discussion to be procedurally closed since it adds no further arguments to move request that last established consensus in April. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Opppose; further suggest procedural close. --Jorm (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose move per WP:PTOPIC, but I would oppose a procedural close as well. There is no rush. feminist (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Opppose 99% of the time "incel" refers to the incel online people, Involuntary celibacy is a better location for the other topic.★Trekker (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wider range of sources?

The article seems to rely heavily on daily newspapers/news sites such as USA Today, NY Times, HuffPo, Guardian. Those are all valid sources, but the article might be stronger (and possibly be seen as more balanced?) if it had citations to other/more substantive types of sources such as academic journals, psychological studies, etc. Or are those considered primary sources rather than secondary ones? Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 18:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and there aren't many of those. If you find some, feel free to add it. Every source is essentially a primary source for its conclusions. wumbolo ^^^ 19:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

All of the sources are extraordinarily biased, and over half trace back to one specific incident which was a pure terrorist attack. (The motive is still "officially under investigation.") Not a single one of these sources would pass muster with a junior college psychology class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B11B:7FF1:213A:73CA:29DA:519B (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

As Wumbolo said - if you know of any sources that would pass muster, please bring them here for discussion. Criticising the sources used in the article, without suggesting any better ones, doesn't really move us forward. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 18:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

You made a claim, you have to be able to defend it. Instead you used the worst yellow journalism plausible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.167.21 (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Still waiting for your sources... GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

A cursory glance yields at least 7 serious writings: Angela Nagles book covers more than what is currently cited in the article, there are multiple academic paper on the German incel communities, this book summarizes them, a WebMD article, Donnelly study covers more than what is currently in the article, peer-reviewed paper on incel forums, including a section that says that the media is probably wrong about incel forums being mostly white, and given love-shy redirects to here, Shyness & love while fringe, it has about the same fringe academic weight as what this article currently covers, with the book being taken seriously by at least two peer reviewed journals, here and here 68.32.115.136 (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for providing some sources. Unfortunately I don't have access to the first two articles (and I can't read German) but I'd be interested to know specifically what you'd like to add/change from those sources, and the other sources you've listed here. The Donnelly study has been discussed at length on this talk page, so it might be helpful for you to review the archives if you haven't.

As for the Online Hatred of Women in the Incels.me Forum: Linguistic Analysis and Automatic Detection source, where was that published?

Also, I'm not sure if you're new to this discussion or just have a dynamic IP address — it would be helpful if you create an account so discussions aren't fragmented across IPs. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The Online Hatred of Women in the Incels.me Forum: Linguistic Analysis and Automatic Detection was cited in a published report at https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.03944. It is also listed on Google Scholar if you look for it under the name Multilingual Cross-domain Perspectives on Online Hate Speech as it was included in a bigger study that was published to CLiPS. I believe these two sources goes against the other news media sources that cite that "incels" are mostly white. As I understand, academic sources have more weight over media sources that can not back up the claim that they assert with any studies. I'm not the person that posted before, but I have posted here before about this but I didn't have the sources to back it up. 68.32.115.136 (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Where was it peer reviewed and published, though? The Multilingual Cross-domain Perspectives on Online Hate Speech study only says "Manuscript submitted". That paper might be worth a read, though, I'll check it out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hm, took a read through the Multilingual Cross-domain Perspectives on Online Hate Speech paper. It doesn't have a whole lot to say about incels, but the only commentary on race would seem to support the statement in this article: "In particular, both perpetrators self-identified as incels or involuntary celibates, a subculture of “angry white men” that blame women for depriving them of sexual contacts, using violent, misogynist, homophobic, and racist vernacular (Ging, 2017)." GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Page 16 directly conflicts what is being displayed in the article about most incels being white. By visually inspecting such clusters, we observed that right-wing extremism mainly focuses on immigration, crime and politics, and that the incel community is ethnically highly heterogeneous, contrary to the popular belief that male supremacy primarily involves white men. Such insights can usually be verified by qualitative analysis, which is more reliable but also more time-consuming. 68.32.115.136 (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, thank you, I'd missed that sentence. Although it is somewhat undermining its own reliability when it says "By visually inspecting such clusters, we observed that right-wing extremism mainly focuses on immigration, crime and politics, and that the incel community is ethnically highly heterogeneous, contrary to the popular belief that male supremacy primarily involves white men. Such insights can usually be verified by qualitative analysis, which is more reliable but also more time-consuming." Also, if I'm not mistaken, this analysis seems to be limited to one incel community? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Cite bundling required

Loads of fours, quite a few fives and a nine.

Might be time to bundle some of these up if its not too much trouble. Cheers Edaham (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Yeah, the lead section's citations have gotten a little out of hand since it's been widely challenged by folks on this talk page. Citation #4 is actually a bundle of sources, but most of the others are separate. It's a bit tricky because many of them are reused throughout the page, which means we'd be duplicating the refs if we bundle them. I'm not sure what the best protocol is for that kind of situation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Usually its the case in controversial articles that the cites which need bundling are reinforcing some possibly contentious word in a sentence like, "X is described as", where it takes many sources to verify unanimous....ness (losing my English).

• In this case I usually just:
  • copy the associated citations to a note pad file first
  • bundle them (thus stripping them of their independent names
  • Add duplicates of the cites, which are defined elsewhere so each of them is a full citation.
  • Publish
  • then three or four refs in the body will start complaining that they can't find their named ref, and thus haven't been defined.
  • Then I re-cite where necessary using a duplicate of the original named citation.

I keep a copy of the original page source open while I do it - or a copy of the full source in note pad to make it easy to get the info back if need be. It's not ideal, but a reader first approach to article maintenance prevents me from not coming over to point and complain. Edaham (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hm, okay. No complaints from me if you want to try to do it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I should add that when ever I suggest doing it like this people often complain about it :)) Nobody has actually reverted me once its done though so I'm guessing that I'm doing a half reasonable job. Edaham (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

We can leave this discussion for a bit longer in case anyone does object, but I'd rather increase readability even if it means adding length to the references section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Concur with GW; I'd prefer readability.--Jorm (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Nobody's complained after a relatively long time (I've been on holiday in Japan). I'll get around to it now I'm back. Cheers. Edaham (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Defamation

Block evasion. wumbolo ^^^ 16:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
By suggesting most incel forums are characterized by violence by exaggerating sources and stating its on the SPLCs list of hate groups, whoever put those in are engaging in inaccurate, defamatory speech against quite a few incel forums, including the largest one, Braincels, which has had a rule against violent speech that has been rigorously enforced even prior to the Minassian attack. This is just a big long article about when incels.is isnt properly moderating. Stating later that there exists non-violent forums does not make up for defamation in the lede.2600:8806:0:9E16:34D0:265B:B2DC:F75B (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC) So, do be careful about issuing legal threats on Wikipedia; it's against the rules around here and simply unhelpful. Furthermore, as a general principle in Anglo-American law systems, groups can't sue for defamation. So, if I were you, I would focus on what you see as inaccuracy and leave the defamation claims to litigious folk off Wikipedia. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC) A group can be the plaintiff AFAIK. wumbolo ^^^ 14:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC) Regardless, veiled legal threats are still deeply inappropriate on Wikipedia and should be avoided. Simonm223 (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC) Wumbolo, you'll note I said "generally." As with anything legal, there is nuance. However, as a U.S. state court put it, "Generally, an impersonal reproach of an indeterminate class is not actionable (Gross v. Cantor, 270 N.Y. 93, 96, 200 N.E. 592), for 'one might as well defame all mankind' (Prosser, The Law of Torts [4th ed], p. 750)." Brady v. Ottaway Newspapers, Inc., 84 A.D.2d 226, 228, 445 N.Y.S.2d 786, 788 (2d Dep't, 1981). [Edited to correct state/federal mistake] Dumuzid (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC) Simonm223, I'm pretty sure IP is talking about the general concept of defamation, and not the legal one. I'm not particularly interested in what they're saying in regard to their complaint, but making a stink about "legal threats" seems a little hyperbolic.HappenedAnd88 (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC) Yeah, I'm not really feeling very charitable toward people who are upset over the treatment of incels. They generally fall into the same category for me as nazi sympathizers. Simonm223 (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC) Cool story. Stick to the guidelines and be WP:CIVIL.HappenedAnd88 (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC) You're having the wrong idea. Anyone can be charitable toward whoever they want to be charitable to; you can't force them to be charitable toward someone they do not want to be charitable to. That attitude is part of the problem, and problematic people are no trivial matter to deal with (see Death of John Allen Chau for the most recent fatal example). Take care, wumbolo ^^^ 16:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC) If our personal feelings about a subject make any difference whatsoever to the way we write an article, then you should probably be writing on a different subject instead. Sources don't care about your feelings and sources are the only thing that should be deciding article content. GMGtalk 16:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Cant find any incel groups on the SPLCs hate group list

Hey, I came across this article, and I think it is good, however I dont see any incel forums on the SPLCs list of hate groups, something this article currently states and links to a Wikipedia list which also doesnt track it. The SPLC currently tracks 953 groups, no incel communities or groups of communities are on them. The source in this article says incels are part of male supremacy which is a category for hate groups on its hate list. Here is its hate group list: https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map, no incels are on it. It reminds me of when a single author from the SPLC came out with a similar article about MRAs, but never included MRAs in its hate group list, only eventually A Voice for Men, which is a single MRA organization. Similarly I expect the SPLC to include certain incel forums in its official list. To declare that all incel communities on the internet are on that list goes against the Wikipedia policy on sourcing as the SPLCs own hate list is a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:140E:83C3:ECEC:FE20:D478:4B39 (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

You aren't looking at the map hard enough - there are two entries: "Return of Kings" and "Voice for Men", which the map key identifies as male supremacist using an upward pointing arrow. The source, which you've obviously read says that male supremacist groups are part of its hate watch campaign. “Incels,” or “involuntary celibates,” are part of the online male supremacist ecosystem. The Southern Poverty Law Center added male supremacy to the ideologies tracked on the hate map this year, because of the way these groups consistently denigrate and dehumanize women, often including advocating physical and sexual violence against them. On the internet, the male supremacist ideology takes a few different forms. One of the newest forms is “incel.” - hope that clears that up. Edaham (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Since we have actual academic sources linking incels to male supremacy, I agree with citing the SPLC in the lead. wumbolo ^^^ 13:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Let's not lump a major, legitimate, and well-regarded subfield of psychological science in with irrational, misogynistic, and racist pseudoscience, please?

Currently the second paragraph of the "Ideology" section opens with the following sentence:

Many incels firmly defend concepts such as biological determinism and evolutionary psychology.

This is deeply problematic with regard to framing one of those topics (evolutionary psychology) for a number of reasons. First off, the general thrust of the sentence suggests that both fields are disreputable frameworks whose credibility is under assault--but which certain fringe communities (such as incels) defend because they happen to align with their privileged views. Now, that description probably works with regard to biological determinism (as that term is used in shorthand today), but it absolutely and without question is an inappropriate implication of the status of evolutionary psychology as a field. Indeed, quite the contrary, evolutionary psychology is a deeply influential subfield of mainstream psychological researc--and a major cornerstone of modern cognitive science and research into the physiological structure of the brain, the processes that result from it, and how each developed through evolutionary processes. It has many tens of thousands of well-respected researchers and scholars working within its purview around the world, and is a significant body of theory and modelling for the nature of cognitive processes and human behaviour. Placing it side-by-side in this context with biological determinism (whose main recognizable features are an association with eugenics and other incredibly flawed and chauvinistic models of intelligence that have been discredited in the scientific community for the better part of a century) creates a deeply misleading implication of similarity between these fields and the level of support that they have in modern consensus science. This is all the more concerning as a matter of weight and neutrality when you consider that this reference comes from one (non-WP:MEDRS) source which mentions the term exactly once in an incidental fashion and then never engages with it in a substantive fashion.

Just to be clear, this is not about what incels do or do not believe about evolutionary psychology; they may very well embrace it--I certainly don't have any reason (aside from general concern about the misogyny and violence against women that emanate from those communities) to particularly care what they think about it. I presume (based upon what I do know about the ideology associated with them, their privileged and chauvinistic perspectives, and I presume a healthy dose of confirmation bias) that they get the science more or less completely wrong. But that doesn't somehow transform the entire scientific field (massive in scope and influence) into junk science itself, any more than geometry becomes a joke field just because flat earth proponents ham-fistedly attempt to use it to support their discredited and nonsensical beliefs. EP has many different researchers advancing many different (and sometimes conflicting) models on a variety of topics (just as with any other modern empirical field), including a wide array of hotly debated perspectives among its researchers on issues of gender, sexuality, and other topics which incels may be deeply obsessed with (and yet have a poor understanding of, in terms of research into psychology and biology). But it is all conducted within mainstream scientific institutions and methodologies for research, publication, and theory. To frame the entire field in the way it is presented here (as merely a darling of an extremist ideology and a bedfellow of discredited pseudoscience) is inaccurate bordering on offensive--and in any event, a major disservice to our readers!

I therefor propose two possible alternative wordings for this sentence: "Many incels firmly defend concepts such as biological determinism." (simply omit evolutionary psychology and side-step the issue entirely), or "Many incels firmly embrace extremist positions predicated on biological determinism and evolutionary psychology." (giving at least some indication that the field is not per se aligned with incel nonsense). I prefer the former over the latter, but could accept either or any re-wording of the statement that makes it clear that EP does not align with the majority of beliefs of incels--which beliefs I think I can say would by met with some combination of bemusement and abhorrence by most scientists working in this field. I very nearly went WP:BOLD on this and changed it myself, but I'm guessing that this article has been the site of a lot of contentious editing, so I decided presenting my concerns in some detail to the editors here would be the most appropriate way forward. I know from spending a fair deal of time working on women's rights articles generally that I can expect that this talk page benefits from the attention of veteran editors who have aggregated here to form a bulwark against vandalism, for which I am grateful: I expect I will be seeing familiar faces who will be able to see the difference between incel support for a scientific field and its (lack of) support for them. So hopefully there won't be much need for fierce debate, despite my long-winded and cautious approach here. However, if anyone feels the issue requires deeper debate, I'm happy to RfC the matter. Thanks for your attention to this lengthy post--I know it's just one sentence at the end of the day, but I just couldn't fathom leaving it saying what it does right now. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

This sounds like a great edit to me and I endorse it heartily. I believe you should feel free to make this change. If you don't, I will, later.--Jorm (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I second what Jorm said! :) Iamextremelygayokay (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion I have changed it to Many incels justify their prejudices using interpretations taken from concepts such as biological determinism and evolutionary psychology. This is a very close rewording of what it says in the Spanish source. Regarding the proposed suggestions:

• Suggestion 1. There's no point omitting what was written in the source, and the removal of the word will probably be reverted based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT
• Suggestion 2. This is the suggestion I used, but with slightly different (simplified wording) I took out extremist as I think they are "morons", not "extremists" (although the two often overlap), however both of those words are a bit POV. My wording also emphasizes the cherry picking idea by simply saying that their delusions are "taken from" rather than "based on", or "predicated from". The source also says that their concepts are "superficially" based on X. This is a word we could use. Edaham (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• I think this makes sense - the issue, as best I understand it, isn't biological determinism or evolutionary psych on its own, it's a combination of biological determinism informed by (bad) evolutionary psych. Guettarda (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• I can get behind something in that vein as well. Honestly, I wouldn't mind omitting the reference altogether--it's all of a single throw-away sentence in that source, an observation of one reporter, not a heavily researched or discussed premise of any sort. But there are are other options to keep the source in, make a meaningful comment about how incels frame their beliefs in this fashion but not do it in such a way that suggests that their application is consistent with the consensus science of the field. The trick in doing this is not allow the interpretation become predicated on original research. I wonder what you all think of something along the lines of: "Many incels root their beliefs in terms of biological determinism and attempt to defend them using interpretations of evolutionary psychology." What the source literally says is that incels are "firm defenders of evolutionary psychology". But the scientific community doesn't need their defense--or particularly wants it, for that matter. And to adopt that errant wording by that one author, unattributed, into the prose in Wikipedia's voice would be entirely WP:UNDUE and misleading, suggesting that what incels are defending actually is legitimate science arising out of evolutionary psychology. I think what we can all agree that what incels defend is their fringe notions about the science of human nature, loosely held together by a misinformed framework of half-understood EP concepts. But that is not how the source frames the issue.

So you see the conundrum: we can't use exactly what the source says, because it misstates the situation in such a way that to introduce that into the prose as empirical fact, based on that one offhand reference in that one mediocre source, would be WP:UNDUE and inaccurate. But correcting the language to get at what we think is what the source was aiming to say is no more permissible. Hence my inclination towards omission of at least the reference to EP. But since there seems to be some support for keeping that mention in, the proposed sentence above is my attempt to balance the original wording in the source against the actual relationship these beliefs have to consensus science. If only we had a better source for this, we could perhaps use stronger language in distancing incel beliefs from legitimate science in this field, but alas--I think that if there is support for leaving the preserving the reference, this is as explicit as we can be about the fact that what incels regard as sound application of evolutionary psychology would mostly get them laughed at by any serious researcher in that field. It's a far cry from putting the matter as directly as we might want, but it's the best balance I've been able to generate while contemplating the constraints of policy here--and I did trial about fifteen variations before settling on this one. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you know what Edaham, my eyes completely glossed over the part where you noted that you had already changed the wording--I shouldn't respond to comments when my eyes are this blurry, but it's the only occasion i ever find the time of late! I can definitely support your variation instead of mine. I think it has the same general thrust, if being more bold in calling the spade for the spade. I support your wording, and we can keep mine in reserve as a possible alternative should there ever be a dispute over the matter. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - yes I saw a relatively unanimous agreement for some type of change. It didn't look like a difficult or controversial piece of information to edit on the whole, so I went ahead and made a change. I would question the idea that the field is muddied by its association with the incel movement, as these kinds of hate groups typically limpet onto pieces of actual fields of study, what needed to be made clearer though is that they do it selectively to support their crack-pot delusions. Something which is referred to in the source. Edaham (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• I firmly oppose any edits. The source clearly says that they support evolutionary psychology, and you shouldn't be engaging in original research, especially in a medicine-related topic. Furthermore, we mention already in the article that incels support the work of clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson, whose work is obviously largely evolutionary psychology.

wumbolo ^^^ 11:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The source doesn't say they "support it" in terms of furthering the field or promoting it. To say they simply support it without adding context would be misleading by omission. The full quote from the source reads: Additionally, many of them are firm defenders of evolutionary psychology, which they use to justify their prejudices - Then a bunch of stuff about "chads" then at the end Their genetic determinism is reduced to superficial interpretations that support their affirmations.

Where precisely is the original research in my rewording of: Many incels justify their prejudices using interpretations taken from concepts such as biological determinism and evolutionary psychology? Edaham (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

With regards to biological determinism, perhaps, your wording better adheres to the source; however, the source says that they defend evolutionary psychology, period. Making the article say that incels have an "interpretation of the concept" of evolutionary psychology amounts to whitewashing – try doing this at Sociobiology or Social Darwinism. The words defend and support mean the same thing, and we want to avoid close paraphrasing. wumbolo ^^^ 12:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not whitewashing by any measure of the word. The quoted article begins with the word "additionally" so already the statement contained therein is additional to the main point of the preceding paragraph. I don't have any familiarity with the subjects of sociobiology or social Darwinism. I addressed an issue raised above, read the source and wrote it as I read it. I'm not even sure what you think is being whitewashed; the Incels or the evolutionary psychology. In any case we are still the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", last time I checked and I will not be at all offended if you revert or edit what I wrote. I'd prefer the latter as I think the source isn't quite so cut and dry as you are stating. Edaham (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Whatever. I've found another source, which supports the new wording. wumbolo ^^^ 13:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Whatever indeed! Well in spite of your grumbling, thanks for doing the digging. Your barnstar's in the post. I'll add the source although getting it to load from behind the great firewall is proving tedious Edaham (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to piggyback on that note of appreciation; reading through the discussion since my last post, I was preparing to write Wumbolo a response saying that I totally understood his concerns but was convinced this was the best of a set of bad options. Little did I know he had already done the work to find us a new one, by undertaking the research that arguably I should have undertaken with my original post. Quality work and devotion to sound editorial principles--well done! :) Snow ^{let's rap} 20:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I've been away from the wiki of late, but just wanted to pile on late here that this looks like a good change to me. Thanks for all your work establishing a new phrasing, especially yours, Snow Rise. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, GW--that's very kind of you to say. :) I'm just glad that we're all more or less on the same page, as I expected and hoped would be the case. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

References

David Futrelle is currently redlinked

I question whether there are really enough reliable sources to sustain a standalone article on David Futrelle, who seems mostly famous for his writings; is there some list that could redirect to?

In the top 10 DuckDuckGo search results for him are Encyclopedia Dramatica and Kiwi Farms entries. He gets cited a little bit in articles linked from Google Scholar, but there's not a lot of content with which to sustain a biography. We have this Time blurb, this Salon blurb, and there's this lengthier treatment in the New York Times, and that's about it.

Maybe someone will create a list of feminist bloggers or list of sites critical of the manosphere, so I guess we can just leave it as a redlink for now. MW131tester (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the redlink. It doesn't really make sense for it to be linked when similarly notable people without articles are not linked in that section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

CBC article

Hi, here is a recent article "Incel threat" and "Video documentary" Thebetoof (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check them out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Peterson

The source on incel support for Jordan Peterson is an opinion piece and only mentions that an unspecified person ("someone") got a tattoo of him. It goes on to say that Peterson is "the pop philosopher of meninism", yet in the same article it states that incel "is distinguished from men’s rights activism". There's no statement that incels in general draw from Peterson.

Furthermore, when I look at incel forums like r/braincels on Reddit, they seem to be largely critical of Peterson due to his views on personal self-improvement. A prevalent view among incels is that they are biologically pre-determined to be ostracized due to their physical appearance and "lookism", that any kind of self-improvement is pointless. I would also imagine that Peterson's criticism of incels contributed to their rejection of his views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6H2HmKDbZA&feature=youtu.be&t=4153  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.182.117.41 (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

This article correctly states that some incels support him. That implies that others might hate him. Please provide a reliable source for any additions. wumbolo ^^^ 13:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

As I wrote above: The source that is currently used does not claim that even "some" incels support Peterson. The article links Peterson to something it calls "meninism", which can only be assumed to mean the Men's Rights Activists (as corresponding to the term feminism) and explicitly states that incel "is distinguished from men’s rights activism". I cannot find any reliable secondary source that either confirms or denies a connection - and as I wrote before, such a connection would not make sense, due to the contradiction between Peterson's self-help advice and incel "philosophy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.182.117.41 (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Srsly? It's kind of obvious. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times article used to be referenced here [16]. I think that it has been removed for some reason. wumbolo ^^^ 21:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I removed the Nytimes article [17] because it didn't state that incels supported Peterson, as the wiki article here states. That article uses the word "incels" only once, and says nothing about incels supporting Peterson. Rather, it quotes Peterson saying that the existence of violent men (including incels) can be prevented through western cultural monogamous tradition. (i.e., a re-phrasing of "family values," the usual Conservative/religious solution to everything from school shootings to childhood poverty.) The reverse--any discussion of how incels feel about Peterson--is not mentioned in the NY Times article.

I also tried, and failed, to find any mention that incels supported 'enforced monogamy.' I could only find Christian family-values-types, including Peterson, stating that 'enforced monogamy' (e.g. Christian-style marriage traditions) would prevent incels from existing. For example, this regular NYtimes columnist calling for the "resdistribution of sex": [18], claiming that "unhappiness and sterility might be dealt with by reviving or adapting older ideas about the virtues of monogamy".

I feel like we're confusing a religiously-motivated anti-incel "solution" with something incels thought of themselves. It feels like confusing the people who are against video game violence "because it causes school shootings" with the school shooters themselves. Both have very questionable viewpoints, but they are completely different sets of people.

Corrections are of course welcome. I suspect incel support of Peterson could be found in primary sources, but I didn't look at those, only secondary sources/newspaper articles. The Guardian article currently referenced was the only source (for incel support of Peterson) I could find that wasn't explicitly an opinion piece. JDowning (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

If that piece from The Guardian is the only supporting cite, then the claim should be removed. It's not strong enough to stand on its own, I don't think. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I found and added this article from Vice's Broadly that supports the claim: https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/d3k3ex/jordan-peterson-enforced-monogamy-incels GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I've found 2 more refs: [19] [20] wumbolo ^^^ 09:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Definition

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I find this article a bit embarrassing. At times, it seems to equate involuntary celibacy with the radical politics, hate and outright acts of violence some people have committed. Or more generally, it seems to pigeonhole all heterosexual men into a subculture. This impression is supported by the fact that involuntary celibacy redirects here.
If you want to know: yes, I live an involuntary celibate life myself. And I have at times indulged in self-loathing and self-pity. But I don't even feel remotely related to people who despise womanhood for that, much less to those who commit terrorist attacks. Besides, there is a lot to say about involuntary celibacy. There have been studies about problems people experience with dating (often related to autism or social anxiety), and quite a lot of people specialise in dating for long-time male bachelors. Can we at least have two separate articles, one about the phenomenon and one about the radical subculture? Steinbach (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

If you take issue with the misogyny described by this article, you would do better to work to eliminate misogyny from the incel community than to complain about the fact that we accurately describe it here. We will not misrepresent reality because it offends someone. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

You completely miss the point. I'm not part of any community. That's just my problem: the online community and the social phenomenon are confounded. Steinbach (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Involuntary celibacy as a sociological concept was purged from Wikipedia as a political goal by veteran Wikipedia and ideological feminists that dominate this talk page. Its a 30 or so person "consensus" that roams Wikipedia engaging in political fights under the pretense of preserving Wikipedia. Involuntary celibacy as a sociological phenomena isnt dependent on the misogyny of the incel boards. Thats utterly ridiculous, and the lack of professionalism of the Wikipedia community continues to astound me. Also, note that love-shy redirects here too. This article reads like an encyclopedia dramatica article. If you keep complaining about it, theyll probably topic ban you unfortunately, even though involuntary celibacy (or incels) isnt fundamentally a gender issue. Its a mental and societal health issue as defined by academic sources. Willwill0415 (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the last sentence of your reply, but not with the rest. I have no fears of getting banned, btw. Steinbach (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Terrorism?

Given the recent spike in violence among incels, it should be categorized as a type of terrorism. A quick search on Google reveals a lot of articles, news and otherwise, have started to use the term "Incel Terrorism" in regards to these attacks against women, given most attacks are motivated by hatred and male supremacy. 2001:8003:AC57:FB00:E1D9:3C85:423A:CF77 (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No, that's original research which we explicitly don't do here. It's also a fairly silly suggestion, akin to classifying Islam or Irish people as terrorism. Just because some notable terrorists were incels does not make the incel community a terrorist organization. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely. Adding one or more categories about terrorism would not imply that all incels are terrorists but would be an accurate assessment of this topic, considering that 1/2 of the lead is about terrorism perpetrated by incel-motivated people. There is definitely not a lack of sources. However, I can only find op-eds suggesting that all incels are embracing terrorism, but I wouldn't be surprised if the mainstream would make this conclusion about the "incel rebellion". Since we are cautious when discussing rebels in international conflicts, we should not call incels terorrists in wiki voice as per WP:LABEL. wumbolo ^^^ 17:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

What sourcing were you thinking of using? Most mentions of incels and terrorism I've seen have been of the sort of op-ed headline variety, meant to draw clicks more than to seriously categorize the group among terrorists. But perhaps there is other sourcing you were thinking of? GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

opinions are not citations for statistical claims

According to the article "Self-identified incels are largely white and are almost exclusively male heterosexuals.[4][5][6]"

The problem is that all 3 citations are actually Opinion piece who don't contain any citations to back their opinion that "incels are almost exclusively white male hetrosexuals". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.173.87 (talk) 08:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

None of the sources supporting the claim (and there are six, if you actually look at the references) are opinion pieces. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

For some reason many editors in these areas claim any news piece that they dislike to be opinion pieces.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I actually think the problem is both more neutral and more pernicious than that: there's an epistemological faction today who believe any human interpretation renders information "opinion," and thus the only news articles possible are purely mathematical. But that's really for another day. Happy New Year, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

These people are welcome to cuddle each other at WP:MNA. wumbolo ^^^ 19:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe you've hit the nail on the head. I think this sentiment is a reasonably predictable (but nevertheless highly problematic) result of the reckoning contemporary society is having with ideological polarization and dogmatic factionalism. As regards the phenomena as it has taken form on Wikipedia, you see very similar sentiments expressed on the talk pages for many articles regarding controversial topics, particular when they involve extremist movements/hate groups, anything perceived to be a part of the "culture wars", and politics broadly (particularly WP:ARBAP2 topics). I answer a lot of RfCs as part of my contributions, and I'm increasingly seeing this "opinion piece" argument at the core of numerous intractable disputes. As you hint at, we're not going to solve the issue in this space, but I nevertheless felt compelled to register my agreement with your observation. And fyi, if anyone here ever sees a potentially productive discussion in a community space attempting to address this trend, please consider giving me a courtesy ping! Snow ^{let's rap} 01:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not an autoconfirmed user, could someone add this part? The source is the subreddit of braincels itself (the information will only be there until the subreddit gets banned). The survey was done to 1267 people inside the community.

2019 demographics survey inside incels community hinted that 55% of incels are white, 17% are asian, and 28% are from other ethnicities, while 52% of them are from North America, 32% of them are from Europe, and 16% of them are from other continents. Besides, 68% of them have between 17 and 24 years old, with 10% younger, and 22% older.

No. This is not an acceptable source.--Jorm (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

How is it not an acceptable source? It is a primary source and the biggest poll amongst that community. Are primary sources not acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melthengylf (talk • contribs) 21:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources are never acceptable about things like this. Ever.--Jorm (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Jorm If primary sources are never acceptable, why are all links currently saying incels are "white heterosexual males" all primary sources to newspapers, in which most do not ever state "white heterosexual males" What the hell? Some say they're heterosexual males(way to be obvious), but none even use the word "white". Certain groups think incels are mostly white heterosexual males, but is that really true? WP:Advocacy The whole fu**ing article are mostly links to New York times, Huffington Post, Vox and The Guardian and other, politically loaded newspapers. What is the point of wikipedia? Again WP:Advocacy. Also See: WP:CHALLENGED WP:Reliable sources WP:SCHOLARSHIP, this article does not satisfy ANY of those. - Konecat (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, a few things here.

1. I am honestly of the opinion that Wikipedia should be less dependent on newsmedia in general, so I won't argue with you about sourcing to the NYT, Huffington Post, etc. However this has nothing to do with WP:PRIMARY. Newsmedia reports are secondary sources. They are not primary sources. And use of primary sources (ex: testimonials, blogs, youtube, social media) would be even more egregiously unencyclopedic than relying on newsmedia sources.
2. I don't think WP:ADVOCACY is at play here. Perhaps thee is some bias; but I don't shed too many tears for oppressed cishet boys who are upset that the world won't hand them a fantasy girlfriend without them even having to do the bare minimum, so I'm not concerned that Wikipedia reflects a point of view that is critical of this misogynistic social movement.
3. Were we to restrict this article to academic work on the incel movement, the articles tone would likely be far more critical; as the main academic disciplines that are interested in gender-specific movements are the same ones where feminism and queer theory have the strongest impact.
4. I fully expect you'll read my derisive tone toward incels and ignore the meat of my argument. But I don't care. Simonm223 (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Konecat: Agreed with Simonm223 that you're misunderstanding what a primary source is; please read WP:PRIMARY for more information. As for none of the sources supporting the statement that incels are largely white, you're wrong there as well. Please just look at the provided sources (source 4: "these are primarily heterosexual white men", source 6: "mostly white, straight and cis men", and source 7: "young white males") and the extensive discussion of the statement in the history of this talk page. You will actually see in those discussions where we have repeatedly had to remind people, as you are here, that primary sources are unacceptable; those are largely what have been provided by folks who are disputing that incels are largely white, male, and heterosexual.

I would love for this article to be based primarily on academic research of incels, but the problem is that fairly little of that has been published up until this point. If you know of more that hasn't been included in this article, I certainly would encourage you to provide links to it so that it can be added. I suspect as time goes by more research will be published, since discussion of incels as a phenomenon has spiked in the recent years.

As for your list of policies you think aren't being followed, can you go into more detail? I believe I've addressed your points about WP:CHALLENGED, but I'm not sure what specifically you're worried about as far as WP:RS—is it that you feel the NYT, Vox, etc. aren't reliable? If that's the case, feel free to peruse WP:RSN (where it's largely been agreed that they are, with some exceptions such as the opinion sections) or start new discussions there to re-evaluate them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, I did thought it was ok if the statement was a merely descriptive one, but good to know, too bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melthengylf (talk • contribs) 21:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Incels: a definition and investigation

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

Here's an (kinda long) article on incels

Thebetoof (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for the link! GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Some incels...

I will admit to knowing nothing about incels until I read this wiki page. I ended up here when I read someone described as an incel in another text. I am fascinated amd repelled by this phenomenon but my comment is as to a statement in “Ideology”:

Some incels justify their beliefs based on the works of fringe[27] social psychologist Brian Gilmartin,[51] author of the book Shyness and Love, and clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson.[59][60]

I found it a bit odd to list what “some” people in the group believed. It almost comes accross as if the group is trying to be painted based on the belief of a few members. Simmilar to saying, some incels are pentacostals or some other descriptor. If it does not apply to the majority of the group then why is it there? Most of my wiki imvolvement is in areas much less emotionally charged than this one so I don’t know if this is the norm but I just wanted to contribute the fact that this stuck out to me. Also, I have very little experience with discussion syntax and formatting so please pardon any faux pas. Surgicus (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Surgicus: No worries, you formatted this fine. As long as there are reliable sources to support statements about "some incels", it's okay to make them (and there are, here). I think people are particularly careful to make broad generalizations about incels just because there are many incel subcommunities, so it's safer to say "some" than "most". In this case it might also be accurate to say "many"—it's not just one or two incels who like these folks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent Incel Attack

https://www.yahoo.com/news/emmanuel-aranda-man-accused-throwing-boy-off-balcony-looking-someone-kill-091741517.html

"The man charged with throwing a five-year-old boy off a third-floor mall balcony told police he was “looking for someone to kill”, according to prosecutors."

"He told police he was angry at being rejected by women."

I think there is a clear motive here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.100.58 (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there any sourcing that directly calls him an incel, or says that he self-identified as one? This article is about the online subculture, so unless he was a member of it we should not be labeling him as incel. There are some folks that the media has described as incels who did not necessarily self-identify as such, and if that's the case here we can say as much, but if the media doesn't label him as such then neither should we. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Source

https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/lgbti-incels-what-its-like-to-be-queer-when-no-one-will-sleep-with-you/#gs.c7t5xk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.198.205 (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Moved this to a section instead of where it was just dropped at the top of the talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Revisiting the "mostly white" claim

I'm making some changes to this article based on the Vox article that Thebetoof kindly linked: https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/4/16/18287446/incel-definition-reddit. Based on it I would like to propose rewriting the first paragraph of the Demographics section to read:

No scientific studies or formal censuses of contemporary incel communities have been performed, which has been attributed to the communities' hostility towards outsiders. However, self-identified incels are believed to be mostly male and heterosexual, and are often described as young and friendless introverts. Some media outlets depict them as unemployed and living with parents. Incels have been said to be mostly white, though informal polls of two large incel communities have suggested that white people make up just over half of the communities. Although members of incel communities mainly reside in the United States, there are also incel communities for people outside the Anglosphere, such as the Italian website Il Forum dei Brutti.

Cites
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

Since this has been controversial in the past, I figured I'd bring it up here before going ahead and making the change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Support. The reworded section is more precise and appears to accurately reflect the sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Broadly support, although I'm not sure about using Toby Young's article to say in Wikipedia's voice that they are mostly in the US - I don't know whether he has any particular expertise in the area that would make his statement authoritative (and he's a somewhat controversial figure himself in the gender subject area). Could this assertion and source be merged with the previous sentence, so that we say 'Some media outlets describe them as unemployed and living with parents, mainly in the United States, although there are also incel communities...'? GirthSummit _(blether) 11:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

That would make sense to me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the change, though I left a note inviting anyone who disagrees to revert and discuss more here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't the line at the top now be changed too now to match? "Self-identified incels are largely white" is now inconsistent with your edit.

I don't think it needs to be. I think the full explanation would be too lengthy for the lead, and there's nothing inaccurate about saying that "self-identified incels are mostly white"—the informal polls support that, as do other sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The top line uses "mostly" while the poll results are "55%". I'd say "mostly" is probably not really accurate, especially when used in the lead paragraph. Galestar (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not understand the usage of though when informal polls of two large incel communities have suggested that white people make up just over half of the communities confirms Incels have been said to be mostly white. No need to adhere to Vox's pseudostatistics. Also, the Vox polls support the fact that incels are mainly in the U.S. and Europe, contrary to the "also outside the Anglosphere" narrative currently in the article. I don't know why the racial composition is the only thing specifically taken from the polls, and it is not taken in whole. And is this 2001 GMU poll not considered contemporary enough? I'm broadly fine with the current section and I think the sources are reliable, but the section is not NPOV. wumbolo ^^^ 10:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hm, yeah, perhaps the phrasing should be revisited. I think what I was trying to express is that the polls suggest it is not the vast majority of incels who are white, but I agree that it's a bit unclear. As for the Anglosphere thing, I'm not sure I follow—the article does say that incels are mostly in the US (perhaps Europe ought to be mentioned as well). The GSU poll is a bit old, but my concern is more that it only has a sample size of 82 people. That doesn't make it useless—it's one of the few available formal studies—but it does mean it should be used carefully. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The article isn't about incels but instead it talks about incel mainstream culture.

Incel is simply exactly what the portmanteau (involuntary celibate) implies, a person or any kind of entity of any sex/gender who is unable to have sex for an extended period of time against its will, the required period of abstinence may vary but that's it, so much so that the term actually predates the existence of any kind of culture based around it, just because the mainstream culture around the concept has been mainly white, male, aggresive and ETC it doesn't forbid the existence of different sub-cultures about it like it did formed in the beggining, so it's the duty the wikipedia and its users to rectify that fact, my suggestion is to rename this particular page as "mainstream incel culture" and create another one less partial about the incels itself. And yes, if you are wondering what's the reason why i would care about this particular distinction besides intelectual rectitude then i'll inform right away that i am volcel, sometimes in my weak moments i become briefly incel but most of the time i don't want nothing with relationships with any type of entity not out of misogyny but simply because relationships of any kind with anyone are source of problems and i want to strings attached, therefore i hope this appeal won't be dismissed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transhumaximus (talk • contribs) 14:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey Transhumaximus. An article on the so called "state of being" was repeatedly created and deleted because of a lack of in-depth coverage in reliable published sources, and substantial topical overlap with other related topics, such as celibacy. Moreover, Wikipedia does not allow the addition of original research, and all content should be based on information published in reliable sources. So if you would like to suggest changes to the current article, you would need to provide such sources in order to support the content you would like changed. GMG^talk 17:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You might be interested in the celibacy article as well, which unlike "inceldom" is hardly a new concept. As for your personal identification and experience, that's not super relevant to the article at hand, as much as I'd like to respond to your comment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

sorry i know it is not relevant to the topic itself but i identified myself since speculations about why i'd care could be used to dismiss the suggestions, i'll collect some sources aswell. 18:54, 5 june 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transhumaximus (talk • contribs)

WaPo

Mainly about general misogyny, but it touches on the subject [21]. Acroterion (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I see it's listed above too. Acroterion (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Q3 of the FAQ

Aren't wikipedia articles supposed to be balanced and neutral? This one doesn't seems to be covering the subject in that regard.95.31.13.204 (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you be specific about a section/sentence/reference you find unfairly negative? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Or unfairly positive. wumbolo ^^^ 18:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

They cited Q3 from the FAQ in the Talk Page tags which refers to overly negative. Britishfinance (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a reminder that what we present is a balanced and neutral view of the reliable sources; if there is a general agreement among them, then that is how the article goes. We do not try to maintain a platonic balance upon which we decide. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Suicide

This is tangentially related, but the incels seem to have a suicide forum which is associated to someone committing suicide.

• https://www.dailydot.com/irl/incel-suicide-forum/
• https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/incels-suicide-forum-woman-killed-herself

Maybe references could be under mental health since that section references suicide the most? Thebetoof (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

There are some more articles

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/local/yoga-shooting-incel-attack-fueled-by-male-supremacy/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2e41a91bd02e
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/men-are-in-trouble-incels-are-proof/2019/06/07/8d6ad596-8936-11e9-a870-b9c411dc4312_story.html?utm_term=.1d30c7d78ee7

Thebetoof (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that that last WaPo article is filed under "opinion", so shouldn't be used as a source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

ForeverAlone listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ForeverAlone. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Lmbro (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Result was speedy redirect to Controversial Reddit communities#ForeverAlone. Britishfinance (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Source: Task and Purpose

Here is a Task and Purpose article about how the military considers incels to be potential threats.--Jorm (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

This article was covered widely, even by Business Insider [22], and others [23] [24] [25] [26]; I also wonder if the becky/stacy graphic could be uploaded onto wikicommons as not being a work that would come under copyright – would be a great graphic for the article? Britishfinance (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

No. It looks like Andrews themselves took the graphic from online. Compare here. So we really don't know at all who the originator is, but it's likely not the USAF. GMG^talk 19:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear, that is a pity. Could we even justify as a low res/single use requirement? thanks Britishfinance (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably not. Nothing uniquely essential about this image in particular. What we could do is recreate the image using free images available online. Compare the image I made for One weird trick advertisements, copying the style of similar ads found online, but using free media. GMG^talk 19:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Sounds fair - nice job on the One weird trick advertisements graphic; I'm guessing given the more controversial nature of this article that any such graphic would be attacked as OR? thanks for your help. Britishfinance (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean, the images of the people seem to just be archetypal, and there looks like there are many versions of this using similar but not exact such images online. You could use the two versions Vox uses as sources for the text, and just attribute where you got the text from in the file description. GMG^talk 19:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

In fact, they visualize how a "attractive sexually active woman" and a "less attractive sexually active woman" look like. Unless there is a WP:RS-supported and verified picture of a "stacy"/"becky" woman and not something random from the Internet, there should be no more visualization of a passing mention than there is at most pictureless articles in Category:Slang terms for women. wumbolo ^^^ 21:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

No, my desire was to use the Airforce graphic and attribute it to them (that is what makes it notable); it is notable that the Airforce is producing graphics like this (and they have RS attached), but it is a pity that we cannot replicate them in this article. Britishfinance (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Why isn't the significant connection between incel and autism being discussed in this piece?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The word "autism" only appears once in the article, and all the incel killers, such as Elliot Rodger, Chris Harper-Mercer, and Alek Minassian were diagnosed with autism. Surely, there must be a significant connection. 139.60.123.102 (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you have an RS that makes that connection? Galestar (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with Galestar. I haven't seen much in the way of reliable sources directly linking autism and the incel community, but if you know of such sourcing it can be added. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The Majority of People who suffer from Autism are no Incels and the biggest part of Incels doesnt suffer from Autism. Elliot Rodger for example suffered probably from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder.--62.225.217.133 (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

He didn't even know how to spell "Narcissistic". [27]. wumbolo ^^^ 13:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

If you can find a discussion of this by multiple third-party reliable sources, you're welcome to add it, subject to the conditions of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. However, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for original research, so unsourced speculation on the matter is not allowed in this article. -- The Anome (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"largely white"

I find this part rather unsupported. Noone doubts that incels are mostly male and heterosexual, but the sources claiming that incels are largely white are pretty dubious.

Additionally, this claim (which is repeated in the demographics section of the article) is contradicted by the examples of incel mass murderers provided on the page. For example, Elliot Roger was half Malaysian, Chris Harper-Mercer was half African-American, Nikolas Cruz was Hispanic, and Alek Minassian was Armenian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonitrus1992 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Please read through the archives of this talk page, where this has been discussed at length. As for the "contradiction", four individuals do not make much of a difference in the overall racial makeup of a community made up of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people—furthermore, that observation would be considered original research. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Completely agree that this has been discussed and is, indeed, original research. I just have to chime in to say that I find the proposition that incel-associated mass murderers are directly representative of wider demographics within "inceldom" is dubious, at best. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I still disagree, for example, a controversial topic of Incels is the Just Be White (JBW) Theorywhich perpetuates the narrative that "any White man can get a girlfriend in Asia or Latin America." Now, while this is definitely exaggerated, it is an important topic of discussion with many Asian incels (Asiancels) and Black incels (Blackcels) arguing that "White men can't really be incel." (On a somewhat unrelated note, the fact that the Incel Wiki is not once referenced in an article about incels reflects to me how little the curators of this page actually care about creating a page which reflects the views of the people it describes. Perhaps it might be worth taking the "Franz Boas-pill" and describing the community in fairer terms. You might even find that the group is more diverse than you previously thought). --Tonitrus1992 (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

We don't reference wikis in any article - WP:UGC, WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR, take your pick. If you can find a reliably published secondary source that supports making some change along these lines we could discuss this further; without that, there's nothing to discuss, other than to direct you to this talk page's archive. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 00:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's One. The full text of this article may be found publically on one of the researcher's, Tom De Smedt's, academic page which I will link to here. The text is a linguistic analysis of over 3,000 threads posted on Incels.me (currently Incels.co) over a 6-month period using automatic detection of certain words. Although it is impossible for the authors to determine the exact racial demographics of the users of the site, they state that "it is impossible to say whether the majority of Incels.me users are white men, but our data implies that this may be less true than expected. . . race is an extensively treated topic on the forum, but primarily in relation to which race has more incels and which race has more (dis)loyal women. There is a general consent that unattractive non-whie men have a harder time than unattractive white men which is referred to as the 'just be white theory'" (Jaki, S., De Smedt, T., Gwozdz, M., Panchal, R., Rossa, A., & De Pauw, G., 2019, pp. 19-20). The authors continue, "There is also consent that 'race is a big part of looks' and that Indian incels (currycels) are most badly off. Other ethnic groups mentioned in this context are Asians, and less often African Americans and Arabs. This may reflect, to some extent the ethnic variety of the forum" (Jaki, S., De Smedt, T., Gwozdz, M., Panchal, R., Rossa, A., & De Pauw, G., 2019, pp. 19-20).

In fact, the authors note that some users of Incels.me have expressed disatisfaction with the way they are characterized in the media. "Incels.me discussion threads related to the Toronto attack show that incels feel misrepresented in the media, being framed as white conservatives: 'I'm sick of these Ameritards trying to label us all as white right-wingers. They don't want to learn about inceldom all they want to do is push their narrative and political agenda." According to another user, the forum is a "community made up of disparate groups ranging from edgy shitposting teens to Salafi Jihadist apologists and Christian Identity white supremacists" (Jaki, s., De Smedt, T., Gwozdz, M., Panchal, R., Rossa, A., & De Pauw, G., 2019, p. 11).

Funny enough, this very same study even mentions this Wikipedia page, "Wikipedia states that incels are mostly heterosexual and white. The former is true for the users of the Incels.me forum (the latter is not) (Jaki, S., De Smedt, T., Gwozdz, M., Panchal, R., Rossa, A., & De Pauw, G., 2019, p. 19).

Another source from 2018 notes that "by visually inspecting such [k-means] clusters, we observed that right-wing extremism mainly focuses on immigration, crime and politics, and that the incel community is highly ethnically heterogeneous, contrary to the popular belief that male supremacy primarily involves white men. Such insights can usually be verified by qualitative analysis, which is more reliable but also more time-consuming" (De Smedt, T., Jaki, S., Kotze, E., Saoud, L., Gwozdz, M., De Pauw, G., & Daelmans, W., 2018, p. 16).

A third source from 2019 which analyzed hate speech on Reddit by doing a critical discourse analysis of 10 incel-related subreddits did not attempt to measure the demographics of the users of these subreddits, but it did note the resentment many of the users of the subreddits felt for white men. For example, the authors note that the architypical nemesis of the beta male, the alpha male Chad, is usually depected as white, attractive, and successful (Farrell, T., Fernandez, M., Novotny, J., & Alani, H., 2019, p. 94). The authors also note that "for incels misogyny appeared to be coupled with racism as well, in particular for women of coulour who are perceived as racially betraying darker skinned men in favor of white men" (Farrell, T., Fernandez, M., Novotny, J., & Alani, H., 2019, p. 91).

All three of these studies were conducted within the last 2 years using linguistic analysis of online incel-related communities. The studies are also available, for free, online and I have included a link to each in the references below. I think that this is the most accurate data we have regarding who incels are, the disparate groups which form the community, and what incels actually talk about (A certainly think these sources are more reliable than some articles by Vox, Huffington Post, and the CBC). I know that a lot has been written about "nerdy white men" or the supposed relationship between incels and white supremacy, but rather than blindly accept the conclusions of mainstream media journos, it is probably best that we base our conclusions on what the best data we have tells us. No one denies that there is a lot of racialized language used in incel communities, however the data we have implies that incels may be more divorce than previously thought and it certainly reveals that within incel communities race is a very complex matter. Lastly, I think it's worth mentioning that this data reflects informal polls of online incel communities. For example, in a survey of the reddit incel community /r/braincels only 28% of respondents self-identified as white and in a poll at Incels.co only 50% of respondents self-identified as white (source). Obviously, the users of these communities may self identify however they wish, but I still feel like it's worth mentioning. I look forward to more empirical research being done on this topic in the future but for right now this looks like the best that we have.

References:

De Smedt, T., Jaki, S., Kotze, E., Saoud, L., Gwozdz, M., De Pauw, G., & Daelmans, W. (2018). Multilingual cross-domain perspectives on online hate speech. Computational Linguistics & Psycholinguistics Technical Report Series (CLiPS). Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1809/1809.03944.pdf

Farrell, T., Fernandez, M., Novotny, J., & Alani, H. (2019). Exploring misogyny across the manosphere in Reddit. WebSci '19 Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science. Retreived from http://oro.open.ac.uk/61128/1/WebScience139.pdf

Jaki., S., De Smedt, T., Gwozdz, M., Panchal, R., Rossa, A., & De Pauw, G. (2019). Online hatred of women in the Incels.me forum., Journal of Language Agreession and Conflict. Retrieved from http://www.organisms.be/downloads/incels.pdf

--Tonitrus1992 (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

This may reflect, to some extent, the ethnic variety of the forum. (emphasis mine) But since the article doesn't state any demographics or polling numbers (except citing a member's recollection of a poll), we can't use it to state as fact that the forum is minority white. wumbolo ^^^ 12:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

And yet the only supposed evidence to support the claim that incels are "largely white" are pieces from the Washington Post, CityNews, Houston Press, The Guardian, and the Atlantic. No one is saying that the article has to say "minority white." That's shifting the goal posts. I just want to see that particular piece of language either is removed or, better yet, I think it would be worth it to mention that the demographics of incels, apart from their maleness and heterosexuality, is complex and hard to pin down. I know this might be hard to believe, but before you make the claim that a group is "largely white" or "largely whatever" you actually have to prove it and, if you can't, you shouldn't include it.

Moreover, I dismiss your claim that the articles' only evidence is from "a member's recollection of a poll." The linguistic analysis of these site is what the researchers base their conclusions on, not on any poll. Please read the research before you dismiss it. Tonitrus1992 (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Fuller Lengthier quote: This may reflect, to some extent, the ethnic variety of the forum. One user believes that only half of the people on Incels.me are white. Other users claim that most incels are not white, and one user substantiates this by referring to a poll in the forum. wumbolo ^^^ 20:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

You are talking about Fuller. Tonitrus1992 is talking about Jaki. GMG^talk 20:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Having said that, Jaki is probably the best source anyone has brought forth in any of these discussions. Fuller is mostly not useful as you point out. LengthierDe Smedt, and the source that he uses both seem to trace back to this book, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with incels at all. GMG^talk 20:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. Plenty of arguments here against it. wumbolo ^^^ 21:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

That seems to mostly focus on the De Smedt article, which I agree isn't super useful, and half the problem seems to be that it wasn't yet published (Jaki was published about two weeks ago). I'm gonna be honest, I'll take a peer reviewed study over any of the best the news sources you can offer me, and even they disagree. What peer reviewed research disagrees with Jaki? GMG^talk 21:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It's telling that the one I put first (because it was the strongest) is the one they chose not to quote.Tonitrus1992 (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it? I'm curious why you seem to think De Smedt is the strongest. The Jaki article seems to have systematically evaluated the text of 100 some odd threads. GMG^talk 00:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I mean that the Jaki article was the one I put in the first paragraph (the References are in alphabetical order by last name). The Jaki article is definitely the strongest.Tonitrus1992 (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry. I would probably add that I find it exceptionally puzzling that Farrell would choose to examine two subreddits explicitly dedicated to mocking incels (r/IncelsInAction and r/Inceltears) as well as r/badwomensanatomy, which... is kindof just dedicated to making fun of people who are wantonly ignorant. GMG^talk 19:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm missing something. The Vox piece does directly address ethnic demography. (...ethnically diverse set of contributors; 55 percent of the site’s user base is white...). What exactly is the content in the Guardian, Fortune, or Vice articles are we using to make a statement about demographics? The only one that seems to address demographics directly is Vice, and they're talking about mass shooters, and not incels (mass shooters tend to be young white men who have a track record of sexual violence and entitlement. GMG^talk 16:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Well. I forget this is one of those articles where people feel the need to cram 60 citations into the lead, even if they're not used in the body to support the same information. It looks like the actual source being used for this is a quote by Ross Haenfler in The Washington Post and a quote by Heidi Beirich from NBC, and an unattributed claim in City News. The source from The Houston Press is also unnattributed in an opinion piece (above the fold from best best for the upcoming dog show), so I'm not really sure I consider that a reliable source for unattributed claims of fact. This is contradicted seemingly by the report from Vox (above), and from NPR, which was pointed out elsewhere in the archives.

So long story short, the source seem fairly split on the issue. GMG^talk 17:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: about the WaPo article, click wumbolo ^^^ 20:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Spitballing a proposal

Sometimes issues like this repeatedly come up because people don't like reliably sourced facts. Sometimes they repeatedly come up because the initial assessment of otherwise reliable sources may be legitimately disputed. After reviewing, I'm beginning to suspect that this may be a case of the latter. I don't have any reason to suspect (see above) that The Guardian, NBC, or The Washington Post are universally more or less reliable than NPR or Vox. They're all fairly good quality sources if we're honest, and yet they seem to disagree. Above also, Tonitrus1992 has provided the article by Jaki, which is (as far as I can tell) the only actual peer reviewed methodologically based assessment we have [edit] specifically about incels. Even in this discussion, Wumbolo and GorillaWarfare seem to have some doubts themselves. So I'm inclined to say that we should simply state the disagreement in the sources, possibly under a level three header, rather than definitively going with one or the other in Wikipedia's voice. When reliable sources disagree, it's not really ours to settle the matter, but merely to document the disagreement. GMG^talk 21:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Do you have wording you'd suggest? I'm not opposed to the suggestion, but would be curious how you'd put it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll try to work up something tomorrow. GMG^talk 00:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources disagree on the ethnic makeup of participants in online incel groups. Sociologist Ross Haenfler was quoted in The Washington Post describing them as primarily white. Heidi Beirich, of the Southern Poverty Law Center echoed this to NBC News, saying they are "young, frustrated white males in their late teens into their early twenties who are having a hard time adjusting to adulthood". Alternatively, journalist Arshy Mann, told NPR that incels were "not just limited to young white men," adding "there are men of all ethnicities who are involved in this subculture." Jaki and colleagues, publishing in The Journal of Language Agreession and Conflict of the forum Incels.me, contended that there was no definite evidence for the group being predominately white, "contrary to what is often reported," and that the results of their linguistic analysis indicated a treatment of racism that reflected some level of ethic diversity.

References

• I would probably go with something like this. But I hate cite bombing, I'm fond of quotations, and I'm a hopeless attributionist. GMG^talk 18:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• @GreenMeansGo: Yes I noticed that it was not fit for the lead and had moved it to the demographics section and made the paragraph non-conflicting (or so I felt), but encountered an edit conflict. If this page is not under 1RR discretionary sanctions or anything, may I offer my adjusted version as a first step to work from? —DIYeditor (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Ooops. Sorry. Didn't mean to screw up your edit. I have no idea if this is under 1RR or not, and I'm not terribly concerned about it. Everyone seems to be getting along fairly collaboratively. GMG^talk 19:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)