Talk:Incel

What about autistic people?

Whoever is writing all of this is extremely prejudiced against autistic people, people with social anxiety, and otherwise socially awkward people. This article is blatantly insulting to innocent people and it has no right to exist on Wikipedia or anywhere. I DEMAND THAT YOU CEASE AND APOLOGIZE!!! 37.0.88.17 (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

What about autistic people? This article has very little to do with them. They're mentioned in passing in the Mental health section, in the context of saying that some members of the incel subculture are autistic, but it says nothing about autistic people as a whole. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

"what about autistic people?"

They are almost all involuntarily celibate. Incel is not a label that is only self-applied. It is also an epithet used on socially awkward and/or unattractive people. This use of the word is not discussed in the article, which repeatedly uses the phrase "self-identified". Most of us were not self identified. We gave in, accepting the title. No one chose this. 2601:47:477F:F240:6935:9FE1:C756:EC1D (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

That is not what the reliable sources say; the reliable sources say that "incel" is a subculture, and while its members may or may not have chosen their state of "wanting a sexual partner but not being able to find one", they certainly did choose to associate with this subcommunity and make this a part of their self-identity. Nobody forced people to create and post on r/incels or whatever. To reuse my old analogy, "not being able to find a sexual partner" doesn't make you an incel--in the sense that reliable sources and therefore this article are talking about--any more than "generally not wanting fascism" makes you a part of Antifa, even though the literal denotation of the term "antifa" is just a contraction of "anti-fascist". If you find yourself using the word "incel" to refer to yourself, but find everything that this article describes about the beliefs and behavior of incels repugnant, then congratulations--you're a decent human being, and you should start considering whether you should find something else to refer to yourself instead, because this is what other people will infer about you when you use it for yourself.

Anyway, if you want this article to discuss the intersection of the incel subculture and autistic people, you will need to find a reliable source that explicitly connects the two. If you want the article to talk about the word "incel" as an insult specifically used against autistic people, you will need to find reliable sources that explicitly discuss that specific subject. You would certainly need a reliable source to support the assertion that "almost all autistic people are involuntarily celibate". Even then, this article might not be the right place for it--the word "gay" has a long and storied history as an insult that is not discussed at all in the LGBT community article. But regardless, without reliable sources that discuss and support these claims, there's really nothing further to discuss. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Personally, I think it's a little presumptuous to assume that autistic people are incels. GMG^talk 14:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  Definitely, as one of the Autistic People, would prefer if we don't add "Autistic people are incels" to the article, I do sincerely apologise to the original poster though. commemorative (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

🙄 Roxwye (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

as an autistic person I think autism has some kind of relationship with incels: being introvert, excluded, having little social skills with people you are interested to etc, and it doesn't mean autistic people are bad, it's just that they tend to fall for those extremists trap more easily Avistemp (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This is definitely true, autistic people are going to be more likely to be lonely, and lonely people are more easily radicalised, but I don't think that's the sort of thing that needs to be put into the article unless there is sufficient sources and it fits due weight. commemorative (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The article briefly mentioned autistic people but I agree that it needs to be elaborated on more. At least it's stated that autistic people are at a disadvantage in some way, even if it's just socially. I do not think the people writing this article would maintain a neutral tone since society has always had nothing but scorn for them. I don't have any respect for the mental health industry and what it stands for. Look at how they handle the whole "loneliness crisis" thing. I don't believe in magical thinking. 2D Is Better Than 3D (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Incel As a Form of Sexual Slander

Incel is self-evidently a form of sexual slander, used to attack rather than discuss. It is a sex-based slur, since it is oriented towards men only, and also discriminates on the basis of relationship status. It's core claims about some amorphous unfuckable menace are obviously incorrect on their face, since basic criminology 101 is that violence is highly correlated with reproductive success. It has even been postulated as a reproductive strategy. This is very clearly a politicized term, with zero consensus about that to which it refers, if anything. It is associated with far-left extremist ideology and groups which typically support cross sex hormone use, forced race training, and intensified discrimination in hiring/legal system.

This is a core problem with this sorry excuse for an article. It is an exercise in elaborate contempt for reality and the obvious competency crisis afflicting our institutions.

If you want to contest this specific criticism that this article is itself a form of biased, sexual, political henhouse behavior with no academic value please do more than assert, lazily, that my concerns are too "general." That is extremely specific.

This article is predicated on political lying. It violates Wikipedia's tenets of neutrality. You can't dispute this, so you have to exclude the topic from the debate. 2603:9000:E700:6050:7D54:9757:72A0:AB00 (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2024‎ (UTC)

I mean, I can certainly dispute it, from the fact that it is often a self-given label to the fact that the first person to use the term was female. Your critiques will be more effective if you cite to reliable sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dumuzid I'm completely ignoring the IP's comments, but it can happen. TERF was a self-given label that was later claimed by the same group to be a slur. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair point! But I still think it is evidence contrary to the idea that is a self-evident form of slander. Have a nice weekend! Dumuzid (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: This is probably a little off topic, but I'm not sure I understand how TERF is a self-given label. GMG^talk 12:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess it was coined by a radical feminist, though not necessarily one who is anti-trans. But it did come from with the radfem groups EvergreenFir (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense Dumuzid. However, WP:RS do indeed assert that 'incel' is used as slander, and unfortuneatly to a "ubiquitous" extent. Often against men who arent in a relationship, but not involved with the sub culture. While most of those WP:RS have been purged from the article, a few remain – see "Incel" has also come to be used as an insult against people who do not necessarily identify with the subculture, but who are perceived to be sexually inexperienced, undesirable, or unpopular in the Lexicology section.

It may be worth pointing out how "incel" has came to be such as impactful slur. Pior to the creation of this article back in 2018, the few quality WP:RS using the term incel invariably did so with the literal meaning (i.e. synonymous with "unwanted celibacy" , a term scholars are increasing using now incel has became such a pejorative.) As such, pre 2018 use of the word incel in the high tier WP:RS (there were admittedly exceptions in lower tier sources) often involved looking at incels sympathetically. Just as intended when the term was originally coined by Alana.

It was this article that redefined incel to refer to a self identified member of the sub-culture. As has been forensically demonstrated on this talk page, the 2018 sources that were cited in support of the term being used primarily to refer to members of the subculture did not actually contain that usage. But the article still redefined the term that way anyway. Due to Wikipedia's influence and the articles high ranking in search results, the new meaning was swiftly adopted by journalists & academics. This led to the creation of many thousands of WP:RS reflecting the then new useage. Which in turn allowed the development of the long standing sentence in the lede introducing incels as characterized by deep resentment, hatred, hostility, sexual objectification, misogyny, misanthropy, self-pity and self-loathing, racism, a sense of entitlement to sex … If one manages to read that full sentence there are over a dozen dehumanising nouns and other intensifiers that are liable to evoke repulsion against incels. It's arguably the most expansive demonising sentence in the history of humanity.

Such a lede might be more understandable if Incels really were largely comprised of misogynistic alt-righters. But they're not. His Majesty's government has just published findings from the worlds largest & most rigorous study of incels to date. (Which has been widely reported both state side & in UK, hence the recent influx of IP interest) It emphasised incel's "very poor mental health” and the fact that incels are politically centre-Left on average. ( But the "5% who agreed that violence against individuals that cause incels harm is often justified were politically centre-right”)

Getting back on topic , even back in 2020 sources were reporting that incel was used as a ubiquitous online insult against less romantically successful men. Sadly according to a 2023 finding from Pew Research, almost 70% of US young men are now single (showing that "Incels aren't even a minority group anymore" as another source put it.) That's an awful lot of young guys in the cross hairs for the ubiquitous insult, which many will internalise with all sorts of adverse consequences. Such as the unprecedented recent finding that Gen Z males are now more anti feminist than their older peers. And sadly, with so much distress in the male half of the youth population, young women aren't immune to contagion effects. Among young women, indicators of poor mental health, suicidal ideology & actual attempts have risen sharply since 2019. (Much more sharply than among men, and mostly due to reasons unconnected with incels -cf. Jean Twenge -, though it is a factor.)

Its not all doom & gloom. The 2023 result found only about 30% of young women were single – far less than less than for young men. The discrepancy is in part due to polygyny. And partly the welcome fact that women who lean that way are now more free to form Lesbian pairings. But a far bigger factor is parings with senior men. At least on a secular & individualist level, the benefits when a heterosexual middle aged man pairs up with a new young women are considerable. There can be a months long surge in testosterone, which among other benefits is anxiolytic & often promotes good sleep. With other pleasure inducing hormones, the overall long term effect is better than is possible with any recreational drug. Nothing lasts forever, but with the competition from young men much reduced thanks to the ubiquitous, confidence destroying "incel" insult, it's easy for a senior man of even moderate desirability to find another interested young women. And once again all is groovy.

Still, as a member of that demographic myself, Im confident that only a minority are selfish enough to welcome the help of Wikipedia here, given the impact on less privileged groups. Accordingly, I suggest re-writing this article from scratch. As per my offer back in 2020, I'm happy to do all the work myself, if that's agreeable? ( Im not though up for is engaging is lengthy talk page discussion as happened back then. After many hours of discussion, consensus for most of my proposed changes to make the article more sympathetic to incels was finally achieved on this talk page. Only for most of the improvements to be reverted a few days later! Despite having rewrote many controversial global scope articles, usually the hundreds of hours of research I put into article improvement result in my work remaining in place even more than a decade later. So I'd like to have a plurality of 3 admins agree to my rewrite proposal, without having to further discuss. ) If that's not possible and admins prefer to address the issues here themselves, I'd respectfully suggest they consider going for greater fidelity to what the quality WP:RSs actually say, and closer adherence to WP:OR and WP:NPOV. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Speech aside, let's look at your sources:

• this study draws a distinction between incels and people experiencing "unwanted celibacy", yes, but since does specifically use the word "incel" fairly freely, I don't see how one can resonably conclude that it's drawing a distinction because "incel" is pejorative. Rather, it's doing so because it, like this Wikipedia article, is drawing a distinction between "people experiencing unwanted celibacy" and members of an online community whose main stated grievance is that they desire to have romantic and sexual relationships but are unable to do so. In fact, it says explicitly that we use the term unwanted celibacy rather than involuntary celibacy because the latter term is sometimes used to refer specifically to Incels (e.g., Moskalenko et al., 2022), whereas we posit an association between unwanted celibacy and misogyny that applies generally. It's doing the same exact thing this article is doing.
• You use this study as an argument against incels being misogynistic and alt-right. It certainly supports the idea that incels aren't exclusively alt-right, but funnily enough, the Wikipedia article never actually disagrees; the most it does is say that there is overlap with right-wing groups (usually attributed, not in Wikipedia's voice). It does say that incels are misogynistic, but so does this source: Participants perceived high levels of victimhood, anger and misogyny. They also acknowledged a shared worldview among incels which includes identifying feminists as a primary enemy.
• the source cited in this edit you linked is from UnHerd, which is not a particularly reliable source. ref
• this does not directly discuss incels, and so isn't relevant (and is a blog).
• this is a blog hosted on Medium, making it an unreliable, self-published source.
• this isn't relevant.
• this isn't relevant.

So, I'm curious what *actually* reliable sources you're intending to base any rework of this article on, because none of these seem to be both reliable and supportive of your intended changes. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The proposed rewrite would still prominently feature the fact there's much misogyny on incel forums. Inline with what you say, that not something even the most incel-sympathetic quality sources deny. Sorry for giving the wrong impression there.

The re-write would be based partly on the collab between Austin & Swansea universities. Per it being hailed as the biggest and most rigorous study of incels to date, its more compassionate and realistic take should supersede much of the older, low quality sources used in the article. (Though I concede this argument will be stronger once it completes peer-review and is published in a reputable journal.) I've about 35 academic & quality journalistic sources in mind for the re-write. But if admins dont buy the case that this article is harmful due to the way it intensifies the incel insult, I'm not sure it would help to list them out. The sources could be dismissed as cherry picked, and in a sense rightly so; they're outnumbered > 10:1 by less compassionate WP:RS (albeit that wasn't the case prior to the redefinition of the incel term by this article, soon after its creation back in 2018.)

The source for the insult being 'ubiquitous' may have been published in unherd, but it's author is James Bloodworth who has impeccable left wing credentials. He's been featured by Bernie Sanders and hailed by Nick Cohen as the "best young leftwing writer Britain has produced in years". In the last few days alone, multiple IPs have complained about the insult being "used on socially awkward and/or unattractive people.". A large majority of young men experience at least short periods of social awkwardness. The article currently has other sources about the slur being used on non subculture men. I'm not seeing how it can be disputed that it's a thing. As per sources above, there's evidence over 10 million American young men haven't had sex once in the past year, with a much higher percentage who are single. That's a huge number of targets for the incel insult! Which per basic sociology since the time of Goffman risks being internalised, with devastating consequences for the youths self esteem. I'm not claiming that Wikipedia is mostly responsible for this phenomena, not even 1% responsible, but we are but we still moving the dial in that direction.

If admins dont approve the rewrite I hope they'll at least consider addressing the "characterized" sentence that opens the 2nd para of the lede. Don't think there's any one source that comes anywhere close to packing so many dehumanising and contempt inducing nouns in their introduction to incels. Granted, as an encyclopaedia it's often a good thing that we offer more comprehensive descriptions than any single source. But in this case the lede is acting as an attack on a group, with collateral damage including intensifying the world's single most confidence destroying insult against non subculture but romantically unsuccessful men. WP:BLP does in part discourage attacks against groups (Albeit it's complex, can need in depth discussion; I'm not claiming there's a blatant violation here, just that it should be a consideration.)

Look, no reasonable progressive could fail to understand the good faith reasons for any activism behind the 2018 redefining of the incel term. Many would see it as a good use of WP:IAR, per the potential to oppose the alt-right. But surely it's now clear the article is somewhat missing the mark in that regard, and may even be self defeating to progressive causes. So it would be nice to have a more do no harm, NPOV approach. I'm still happy to be the one that does the work for this, if it's agreeable. But I've already given the reasons why I'm not up for a repeat of the extensive source based discussions I had here back in 2020. I'm going to return to this page in a week's time. If I don't see a plurality of 3 admins approving the re-write proposal, I've going to leave this topic for at least another year. End of conversation. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Look, the first sentence in the summary of your purported (unpublished) best source says: Incels are a sub-culture community of men who forge a sense of identity around their perceived inability to form sexual or romantic relationships. If you're expecting that to support your desire to "reverse the redefinition" or whatever, I don't think that source is going to help. If you want to rewrite this article to be about "unwanted celibacy", you're going to need sources that actually discuss it in those terms. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

(I am Vidauty but lost my password. Sorry.)

I see three substantial concentric groups, and a sterile debate over labels.

1. All who are reluctantly celibate (FeydHuxtable's focus).

2. Those who commiserate about it online (a small subset).

3: The Single Issue Fanatics that the current article describes (Writ Keeper's focus).

Maybe the solution is 2 (or 3) separate articles? Maybe most of Group 2 are in Group 3, but presumably Group 1 deserves attention, and that is what FH wants to write. 2A02:C7C:566D:2E00:5093:D3BF:D89B:D404 (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "deserves attention" is not an inclusion criterion for a Wikipedia article. The article involuntary celibacy used to exist along the lines you suggest, but it was repeatedly merged into other articles or outright deleted (even to the extent of being salted) by community discussion and consensus due to inadequate coverage in reliable sources. That inadequacy needs to be addressed before any other articles could exist. One or two of the above-cited sources might be helpful in that regard, but it'll take more than that for an article to be warranted. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

(Vidauty again.) Thanks. I now see how the page (broadly speaking) makes sense as a description of Group 3, and that the absence of a Group 1 page is true to your general approach. But would it not be good to insert at the top (or in the Disambig) a line to warn other visitors against misconstruing it in the same way that FH (and I) did? Or are we too eccentrically outlying (if that's not tautologous) to be regarded? 2A02:C7C:566D:2E00:5093:D3BF:D89B:D404 (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, to have such a note in the actual mainspace would go against the guidelines on hatnotes and disambiguation pages, both of which are intended to help guide readers to other Wikipedia articles that they might've intended to go; both explicitly disallow entries for things that aren't actual articles. (And I think that's fair, to avoid things getting too navel-gazy.) However, there is an FAQ at the top of this talk page that covers this very question pretty definitively, although it does get a bit lost in all the other stuff at the top of the talk page. Here's a direct link. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

(Still Vidauty.) Thanks again! That all three FAQs are along similar lines suggests that this concern is more than idiosyncratic, but I guess it's just one of those cases where a system is simply not capable of common sense, where everyone can see it's bad and nothing can be done. It may even be a price worth paying for the benefits of consistency etc, but I hope you will not blame me for being disappointed. 2A02:C7C:566D:2E00:5093:D3BF:D89B:D404 (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Often white

Main article: Race and crime in the United States

Just look at it this way: what if you went to an article on violent crime and said that violent criminals in America are “often black”? Hmmm? Alexandermoir (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

So you are equating incels to criminals? Dumuzid (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

pretty sure it was just an example SawKyiv (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

And I am pointing out what I think is a flaw with the example. Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The point is that a stigma is attached to both. And that the user was alluding to a supposed double standard.

A better example might apply to "antisemitism in the US". In the US, it is notably more common among hispanic/black people, ergo one could say most antisemites are non-white. Thus one could lead with that and be just as innocuous as in this article. 2605:8D80:483:4E79:951B:72AA:266D:294F (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, the often white should be removed. There are a ton of incels in South Korea also for example. 66.44.95.66 (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Possible article to add to section on criticism

[1]https://pt.icct.nl/sites/default/files/2024-03/Research%20article%20template%202024_Kelly_0.pdf or [2]https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/en/publications/victim-violent-vulnerable-a-feminist-response-to-the-incel-radica

"Victim, Violent, Vulnerable: A Feminist Response to the Incel Radicalisation Scale"

Thebetoof (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

What's with the sidebar

While incels are typically associated with right-wing political beliefs, it seems kind of silly to add the sidebar with the conservatism series to it considering most of the articles listed in it are about intellectual and political movements and not about internet subcultures. It just objectively seems very out of place. Tucc1988 (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Any overlap between incel and conservatism seems tangential at best. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Also agreed, the sidebar was a new addition in the last day or two. I've removed it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: “mostly white”

please remove all mentions of self-identified incels being “mostly white,” being involuntarily celibate, and thus some people identifying as such results from sexual frustration from frequent rejection or a supposed mental/physical impairment.

https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/english_editorials/1161072.html

https://www.counterterrorismgroup.com/post/executive-summary-prevalence-of-incel-ideology-in-east-asia

https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n12194/pdf/04C_huang.pdf

incel ideologies are very prevalent around several south east asian countries and limiting this community to “mostly white” people is an unfair and biased generalisation Big Mocc (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done There are several sources in the article confirming that the subculture has more white men than men of other races. Your sources only prove that Asian incels exist, which the article does not dispute. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The study group from the source in the article included a significant portion of participants from the United States and other english-speaking countries, and because of this the racial demographic skews towards being mostly white.

Additionally, mentioning the racial identity of the individuals in the study is extraneous to the article's main focus. The racial background does not significantly contribute to the understanding of the study's findings or its implications.

Moreover, the article for gun violence in the USA does not clearly mention in the lead that they are committed mostly by African Americans, if race is deemed irrelevant in that context, why should it be included here? Big Mocc (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I’d recommend reading the multiple discussions on this topic in the talk page history so we’re not retreading old ground. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The one, singular discussion you are referring to did not come to any conclusion Big Mocc (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with Big Mocc here. The lead sentence implies that incels have a higher proportion of caucasians than the general population, but the cited source says the proportion of whites is lower than expected. If you're going to sample a majority-white population, it isn't surprising to find majority-white sub-groups like incels, but it is surprising that this majority is smaller than expected from the surveyed population.

This little factoid isn't relevant for the lead sentence. The section on demographics goes into more detail about the subtleties, but the lead doesn't adqueately summarize it. I agree it should be removed or clarified. Simply saying "mostly white" isn't an acceptable summary. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a whole group of cites for that particular claim. I’m not particularly familiar with the newest cite that you seem to be referring to (I think it was added since the last time we went over it), but if I’m understanding it correctly, it’s not describing the proportion of incels who are white, but rather the proportion of white people who are incels. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

What "newest cite"? It's in the first sentence of the article. And what that sentence is describing is ambiguous, as you just demonstrated by your reading of it: the citation does describe the proportion of incels who are white, and goes on to say that this proportion is less than expected. The sloppy language in the lead sentence can be interpreted different ways, and it comes across to me as implying that incels are disproportionately white. The demographics section gives a better discussion of this. Remove it from the lead, or summarize it better to comply with WP:LEAD, which is currently does not. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The term “white” here serves no purpose other than to be weaponised against people of that race, nowhere else on Wikipedia is race mentioned so blatantly, and where it has absolutely no effect on the outcome of the study’s findings Big Mocc (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that anything is being weaponized. Rather, I have two concerns here, both regarding our content policies: A cited source is being misrepresented, and WP:LEAD is being violated by failing to provide an adequate summary of the body text. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Understandable, although that was my very first impression upon reading the article Big Mocc (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. I have no opinion on the matter, but given the contentious nature of the topic and the disagreements between editors, it's clear that this would need some kind of consensus before it could be implemented. M.Bitton (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)