Jump to content

Talk:Incel/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Requested move 25 April 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per consensus to Incel. It is clear through consensus here that while perhaps an article could be written about people in general who desire to have sex but fail to consummate those wishes, this article is decidedly not about that topic. It's about the community of men whom our reliable sources actually write about. I should note that there is a strong consensus against making this article (post-move) about involuntary celibacy in general; again, consensus here is that the article is actually about the subculture. I therefore judge the consensus to dictate the following: the article, having moved to incel, is to include only basic contextualization of the broader idea of "involuntary celibacy" in the literal sense, and if there's enough meat to support more information about the literal sense of people celibate when they'd rather not be (which is an open question), then the proper response would be to make a stand-alone article back at involuntary celibacy that only lightly touches on the incel movement. It is worth noting that this article will, according to the consensus I see here (which can change, obviously!), still be about the ideology/movement, not the people - see the first sentence of the move request, which mentions a "specific ideology". (non-admin closure) Red Slash 12:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


Updated: Involuntary celibacy → Incel – This is a specific ideology held by a tiny fringe minority of men, and not the same thing as "involuntary celibacy" defined as wanting sex or love but not being able to get it. Most men who can't get a girlfriend don't subscribe to this ideology, or anything remotely similar; we should not paint them as such. "Incel" should then redirect here, as it is used exclusively in relation to this ideology. We can have "Incel (disambiguation)" for the other possible meanings. -- The Anome (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC) -- The Anome (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 00:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

That might also be a reasonable alternative. -- The Anome (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that "involuntary celibacy" is a potentially misleading term, though. Since "celibacy" is abstaining from sex on purpose, the phrase is an oxymoron. However, "incel" is the WP:COMMONNAME which is why I support a move.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Writ Keeper: Based on the discussion above, I've updated the move request above to move this to incel (move target was formerly Involuntary celibacy (ideology)) -- The Anome (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Updated to a no-vote, then; I think the current title is fine but "incel" is an all right alternative if people prefer that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The notability of the topic derives from the specific "Incel" online subculture and its associated ideologies and/or mass killings, which is what sources cover, not the abstract concept of being involuntarily celibate. Sandstein 20:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
You have captured the heart of the argument I think, and I can see how it unfortunately cuts both ways. That seems evidence enough for a new, unambiguous entry. Aquinassixthway (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I support this article to be renamed to "Incel". We can add a hatnote to the Incel disambiguation page. Amin (Talk) 20:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is the name of the situation; "incel" is a contraction of the idea. Incel is a disambiguation page and that's fine to point to this. I don't think that we need an "ideology" page beyond this; there's no need for one and anything important "some entitled dudes hold ideology x,y, and z" is a sub-paragraph. --Jorm (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Respectfully, you have not responded to my argument in the section above and your reasons are "because I said so." The involuntarily celibate, incels, are by and large NOT associated with the movement represented by Elliot Rodger or his copycats, but these are the bulk of the article and what should be a psychological subject is painted with the brush of mental illness or threat to public safety. Aquinassixthway (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Meh. I think "involuntary celibacy" is a clearer title for those who don't already know what the abbreviated term means. Pretty much all the sources use both terms. I think the potential that people will be misled by the term is being a bit overblown—I don't think people outside of the incel communities who fit the technical definition tend to think of themselves as "involuntarily celibate" any more than I tend to think of myself as "voluntarily non-celibate". That said, I don't think it much matters where the article ends up as long as redirects and disambiguation are handled properly. My only opposition would be moving it to Involuntary celibacy (ideology) or similar as was previously suggested—this is the primary topic. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
    To clarify further, given some of the other discussion, my vote is either oppose the move, or support with the condition that [[Involuntary celibacy]] is redirected to this article and protected. No strong preference between the two. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • conditional support - what is this article about? I support a rename if it is exclusively about the subculture and associated concepts. That would mean ditching other usage of the term (for example, "Involuntary celibacy is sometimes attributed to social factors, such as an imbalance in the sex ratio or financial constraints,[2] or genetic factors, such as inherited unattractiveness.[3]"). That makes sense. If it's about something in addition to the subculture (as it is now, duplicating topics we already cover under different names) then oppose. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • We have already stated and proved in the AfDs that there is no such thing, outside of the subculture, as Involuntary celibacy. As GW said, people don't consider themselves that any more than people who have sex consider themselves as voluntary non-celibate. We have other articles for the other meanings, such as Sexual frustration. Which was also pointed out in the Afds. So no need to move the article, this is the primary topic and common name. Dave Dial (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I understand. Nonetheless, at every stage of every version of the article including this one it has reached out to other ~"official" treatments of the term. So I suppose that should be removed regardless. Fine with me. To the more immediate point, I opposed in the section above but on reflection I think incel may make it much clearer that we're not talking about a real thing outside of this subculture. I.e. it could not be mistaken for a concept that extends beyond that community. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Meh. Covering the incel movement seems to be the only reason to have the article, but since the name has to be explained either way, it's fine where it is. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support renaming to "Incel". Perhaps the majority of non-sexually-active humans could be described as "involuntarily celibate" but are not "incels". Meanwhile, incels themselves and anybody talking about them use the term "incel", not "involuntarily celibate". As for the general concept of involuntary celibacy, I don't think there's any need for an article about the concept of not being sexually active but wanting to be. --ChiveFungi (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
There's an article for that already: sexual frustration. -- The Anome (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons outlined above. We almost always keep a title at the phenomenon, not people with the phenomenon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose-- If the term is only a neologism, there shouldn't be an article for it. If it is used in sources(and the full name definitely is), that the full name should be used. There are more than enough reliable sources for the full name. And we aren't Reddit or 4chan, or even Wiktionary. Dave Dial (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support For the reasons stated by The Anome. The article's current title involuntary celibacy should reflect the concept as it applies to all humankind. The loose online community known as incels, as perceived lately by publications, are something else. Aquinassixthway (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
    Disagree here. From what I can tell, the term really isn't used outside of discussing these communities. It would be extremely difficult (probably impossible) to find sourcing on it as an actual phenomenon. The research that does exist should live in Celibacy or Sexual frustration, not its own article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Per the #Lead sentence section below, the term is not used solely to refer to online communities. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Probably should have put "widely" in there, above. But per the #Lead sentence section below, I've not seen that to be the case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

*Strong support, I already indicated support before, but didn't explain. The current name is more ambiguous. Also, using the term "involuntary celibate" to me seems like forcing a designation upon people. Its akin to calling a Palestinian an Arab. Although both are correct, many Palestinians prefer to be called Palestinian rather than Arab. Similarly, most incels call themselves incels, not involuntary celibates. 92.2.72.27 (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

"The self-identifying “Incel” communities are not individually notable." A large body of news articles published about "incel" communities says otherwise Amin (Talk) 22:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Give an example of one then. I expect we’ll find it is just mentions establishing existence, not actually coverage of the community. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Over 150K results on Google News for incel. Amin (Talk) 23:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
And as I said, from the top "Incel is short for “involuntarily celibate," and each story is about the general phenomenon, and never of any depth about any single community with reliably sourced self-identification as "incel"s. Involuntarily celibacy is a broad phenomenon that features unhappy informal ostly-online communities who self-label as incels. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, there is coverage of individual incel communities, which I added to the article. Also, the distinctions between individual incel communities is important for an article about inceldom or involuntary celibacy, whatever we decide to name it.
  • Support, involuntary celibacy isn't notable (as established in previous deletion discussions); the fringe subculture is, however (as of recently). Kaldari (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. Are we trying to change a page that people have been trying to take down since 2006 because of sensationalizing related to a singular event? A move to incel would further this page's degradation from an unbiased look at a specific and important phenomenon to a big long complaint about 4chan related spaces. But agree with the general rationale, just not the naming or moving. Thing is that "incel" is not an ideology, the blackpill is. Incel is just short for involuntary celibacy. Love-shy.net does not advocate the blackpill but uses the term 'incel'. Incels.me does advocate the term blackpill. It is dependent on the community involved. I moved the blackpill forums under one section in the article. You are basically arguing for blackpill ideology to be it's own article, which is fine, but please keep this article existing and titled as it is. Involuntary celibacy also does not apply to such a large swatch of people as to be meaningless or not worth having it's own article, as in my estimation about 5-10% of the adult US population based on how many adults have had any sexual contact in e.g. the US. Take a look at the "Never had contact with the opposite sex in the last 12 months" columns by age here: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf Willwill0415 (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
    That source does not mention "involuntary celibacy" or "incel" anywhere. Would probably be a great addition to celibacy or sexual frustration, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Rather obviously oppose - proposed alternate title does not adequately meet WP:UCRN or WP:PRECISION. I see no evidence that there is consensus that the scope of this article is limited to the 4chan aspect of the subject, or that the neologism that is the proposed move location passes the WP:TYT. VQuakr (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unless or until, possibly in the wake of Toronto, the terms "involuntary celibacy" / "incel" gain the potential of engendering two separate articles with sufficient non-duplicating content for each concept, incel / incels should redirect to involuntary celibacy, rather than the other way around.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Move to Incel. Persuaded that the common-name/primary topic argument supports "incel" as the title. (see, Google trends showing international heads above for 'incel', also as of this writing 'incel' is used like twice as much in our article - in particular, 'incel' is used throughout the sources section of our article). The arguments against are unpersuasive. It's claimed that "involuntary celibacy" is unambiguous, which makes little sense, given that according to the article, "involuntary celibacy", is a neologism that was created at the same time and regularly used synonymously with "incel" for the past almost 25 years - and when we have synonyms, we choose the one more common for title (here, 'incel'). It's somehow claimed "involuntary celibacy" is more encyclopedic, which is unsupported, and appears untrue, because while we do have RS encyclopedia that mention "involuntary celibacy", at the same time they mention "incel", they do not do it in encyclopedia title, they do it in articles entitled something else, entirely (which is part of the reason we previously covered this in other articles) so the 'more encyclopedic' claim has to be rejected. It's claimed that 'incel' is somehow personal, but 'incel' is, at the least, a thing, too, and it's the thing (and the persons who claim it) that are covered here, so 'incel' is the title that is best supported by policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I can't stand the Google Trends comparisons given as a reason for a page move. It's been proven that sources refer to the subject as both involuntary celibacy & incels. We, usually, prefer to have the correct descriptive name. As seen in the Google Trends for ISIS, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria & Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIS or ISIL have far more searches than the longer, full names. Yet our article is at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, not ISIS or ISIL. Dave Dial (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's good then that we don't choose titles based on what you can't stand -- why you prefer one neoligism over another makes little sense but personal like or dislike is not how we decide - we choose based on what's most common and ordinary and the topic, all of which points to incel, which the very reliable sources section of this article demonstrates (20 references to incel, 3 references to 'involuntary [something]'. You think this topic is encyclopedic? Then its primary and common name is 'Incel'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
As Alanscottwalker (talk · contribs) correctly shows the current article is about the subculture Incel, not the historic topic which has over a 100 years of research. In the early 20th century the sociological topic was called Involuntary sexual abstinence. Valoem talk contrib 15:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
You keep pretending that's true, Valoem. It was decided by the community and a three admin panel that your arguments didn't hold water. Be sure that even if this article was moved, we would not be moving your pet project here. Dave Dial (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
That's not true, almost every source that mentions incels also mentions involuntary celibacy. We don't decide common names by headlines of sources. Wikipedia prefers the descriptive name, not a contraction or shortening of the name. We have Coup d'état, not coup, Oprah Winfrey not Oprah and Franklin D. Roosevelt, not FDR. So it's not because 'I do not like it', it's because it doesn't effect the naming of the article. Google trends, that is. Dave Dial (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Also Alan, as you can see by Valoem's post here and his comment on another editors page(trying to get him to support a move), he and some others support a page move so they can create the old article here that was deleted. Dave Dial (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I am informing an editor of a possible error. Multiple discussions regarding this subject have appears on talk pages. As you should know I believe the deletion of the original article is still incorrect. Valoem talk contrib 16:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't see why I should care what Volem is doing, probebely if he tries to create an article, he will again be told it's not a stand-alone encyclopeidc topic, just like the RS encyclopedias don't treat it as a stand alone encyclopedia topic. As for your claim, that what matters is incel is in RS titles, that would just make incel title material, and the common-name and primary-topic. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - creating articles for made up words, simply normalizes these misogynistic terrorists. Perhaps a better article title would be Misogynists or simply redirect this entire article to a short section in Misogyny. The New York Times is pretty clear that Incels are misogynists who are deeply suspicious and disparaging of women. So it's pretty clear that we have sources showing it's a subset of misogynists. Nfitz (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Most incels aren't terrorists or misogynists. Most terrorists and misogynists aren't incels. Jim Michael (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
What makes you think "involuntary celibacy" are not made-up words in this topic (see, neologism a phrase), when they are? And in fact, words attempting to normalize? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
The sources I've seen User:Jim Michael do use incel as a subset of misogynist - even the foreign media, as I linked above. Terrorist is perhaps a bridge too far I'l admit - though the comments I've seen from women, sound like the views of these misogynists do terrorize them - so who knows, but I haven't really searched for a source for that. Alternatively, do you have a source that indicates that those who identify using this term aren't generally misogynists? Nfitz (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Not all incels self-identify as such, because it will make them even more unpopular and hated - more so now that ever. This article is about involuntary celibacy, not restricted to those who self-identify as such. Most aren't activists, don't use violence and aren't part of a subculture or related organisations. The recent sources will disproportionately link them mith misogyny, violence because a) the media like to sensationalise to gain viewers/readers and because a high proportion are in relation to the reporting of the Toronto van attack. Being involuntarily celibate doesn't necessarily lead to violence, hatred etc. The fact there are so few incel-related attacks - despite there being millions of incels - shows that only a tiny minority of them are involved in such things. Jim Michael (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
What makes you think anyone who does not identify as an incel is an incel? Are you going to go around telling people, you're an incel or an involuntary celibate, whether you like it or not? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah incels are almost entirely misogynistic; they generally hate all women for supposedly denying them , per the sources too. However indeed as Alanscottwalker says, both involuntary celibate and incel are neologisms, so this isn't really pertinent to the move. It'd be way too undue for misogyny , and I don't see having an article on the topic overtly normalizes them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
You are confused @Jim Michael:, this article is most definitely about the subculture. There is no "Involuntary celibacy" people who do not identify with the subculture. At least not any of any notability. That notion was proven several times, most recently in this AfD. So we aren't dealing with some made up condition that doesn't exit outside of the subculture that claims it does. Dave Dial (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not confused. The article is called involuntary celibacy, not incel subculture, so it should cover the condition, not merely the subculture. I know for certain that there are incels who aren't part of the subculture, because I've heard what some of them have said (both in person and online) and they weren't part of any subculture, group etc. The condition isn't made up - I've heard people be suicidal over being involuntarily celibate. They weren't violent, didn't express hatred and didn't want revenge - they just wanted normal sex lives. They had no paraphilias and didn't want any rape, vehicle-ramming attacks etc. against anyone. I added food critic Wilkes McDermid as a case of suicide of an apparent incel - and there's no indication that he was part of any subculture. Jim Michael (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
You think you know why people want to commit suicide or do commit suicide? Really? It appears you claim to know cause and effect that there is no way, you can know. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
I've heard incels say that they are suicidal because they can't get sex with women. I've no reason to think they aren't telling the truth. Jim Michael (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
You've heard? So, those who identify as incels are suicidal but that would still not mean 'can't get sex' causes suicide or suicidal thoughts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
They've explicitly stated that they are suicidal because they can't get sex. Jim Michael (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Psychiatric analyzing over the internet is bogus. The factors for suicide and suicidal ideation are multiple, and again you have no idea of cause and effect. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Not sure the point of these comments. I provided a source. None of the rest you have. Please provide one, or take this somewhere else. Nfitz (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Why restrict the scope of the article to an ideology? Many incels are nothing to do with that, and their don't all have shared goals. The ideology, subculture etc. can be in sections of the article. Jim Michael (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
The ideology is notable enough for its own article. Sexual frustration in general can be explained in that article. If this article was just about sexually frustrated people, then it would overlap and have to be merged.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. Besides the black pill ideology is already just a single section. The remainder ideology fixation is supported throughout the article and the sources, even the academic study shows that the important thing is self-identification as incel - the ideology of self, here, is involuntary celebacy/incel. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
There are millions of sexually frustrated people who aren't incels; incels are a subset of the sexually frustrated. There are many instances of WP articles overlapping, so that's not a reason to restrict the article to the subculture. Self-identifying as an incel doesn't mean that a person has an ideology or is part of a subculture - it merely means that he acknowledges his problem. Jim Michael (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
That is an ideology of self, he can make it a self-problem or not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Not being able to get sex with women isn't an ideology - it's a problem. Some incels develop or join an ideology, but being an involuntarily celibate isn't an ideology. Jim Michael (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
And there is an ideology: "not being able to get sex with women isn't an ideology - it's a problem" It's a problem because that is the ideology. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I take it that you're implying that involuntary celibacy isn't real. Jim Michael (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
It's not real as a term outside of the people who identify as part of the incel ideology. Yes, there are people to whom those words could apply that aren't part of the ideology, but we don't actually call them that. It's exactly the same way that probably most people are generally not in favor of fascism, but we don't say that most of the population is part of Antifa. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
That's a good analogy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Being in Antifa means being an activist. Being an incel doesn't, although a minority of them are. I'm talking about all incels, not just those who play a part in the incel community. That's why I think that the article should cover involuntary celibacy in general. If the article is to be about the incel community only, then the article title should be changed accordingly - otherwise it implies that all incels are part of the incel community. Jim Michael (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "involuntary celibacy" outside of the community. If someone doesn't identify as that, they are just sexually frustrated and hostile toward women. It's a neologism created by a community, not a scientific term, so it shouldn't be used as a catch-all.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
How about those who do identify as incels, but aren't part of the community/subculture? They're not merely sexually frustrated - they've tried for years to get sex and have always failed - hence they're involuntarily celibate. Sexually frustrated people include those who are impotent, ejaculate prematurely, or not getting sex as frequently as they want to. Jim Michael (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
If they buy into the self-identification as an involuntary celibate they have bought into the ideology of involuntary celibacy/incel - they have specifically made their claim that they are unable to volunteer, having conceded their agency to their ideology. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
By your logic we'd have to rename BBC to British Broadcasting Company. Incel is the correct WP:COMMONNAME. Amin (Talk) 17:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the article is about the "subculture", which is more commonly known by the abbreviated term. It's possible to imagine there being a separate article about "involuntary celibacy" as an descriptive anthropological term (perhaps also discussing people forced into joining the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages or something), but that's not what this article is currently about. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support "Involuntary celibacy" has clearly been the cause of a fair amount of confusion, with commenters here and elsewhere mistakenly assuming this is simply about people who would like to have sex but cannot find partners. "Incel" specifically refers to the community and ideology being discussed in the article and is (slightly) less prone to this misunderstanding. Moreover, it is clearly this community's primary identity.

Move Request Administrator Comments

  • Administrator's comment: I was considering closing this RM, but there are a few things that bear clarification here. Valoem has material in their sandbox here that suggests the concept of "involuntary celibacy" may be notable outside the subculture that is mostly discussed here. If that's the case, then it makes sense for the present title involuntary celibacy to be kept as an article (either an expanded on covering both general involuntary celibacy and the "incel" culture, or two separate articles, with present history moved to incel). Can others weigh in on that?--Cúchullain t/c 13:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure. First the article research you link does not actually support that, it says: "Modern involuntary sexual abstinence has coined the neologism involuntary celibacy and has grown into a small subculture associated mostly with men,[25] misogyny, and pickup artistry which has been criticized for objectifying women as "brainless automatons".[26] The term distinguishes between "incel", men actively attempting to engage with women, but are constantly rejected, and "love shyness", men too shy to engage.[27]"
Second, as has been noted, we are not a dictionary, talking about terms, we cover the issues concerning sexual abstinence at its common name and quite logical name sexual frustration, or at its common and logical name sexual abstinence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • (ec) Involuntary celibacy should be a protected redirect to this article after it is moved to Incel. Numerous AfDs have determined that the concept of "involuntary celibacy" in general is not notable and/or already covered in existing articles such as sexual frustration. That has not changed. Only the Internet subculture using this label for themselves has now become notable after media coverage in the wake of mass killings. Sandstein 14:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the above reply by Sandstein. The terms "frustration" and "deprivation" are not synonymous. If the article sexual frustration was titled "sexual deprivation", "sexlessness" or "sexual inactivity", you might have a point. However, what you are currently arguing for is akin to saying that the article homelessness should be deleted because the article poverty exists. Sexual frustration for example includes the topic of "delayed ejaculation" which is usually associated with people who have very active sex lives, i.e. the antithesis of incel. I personally think that the topic of "sexual frustration" and involuntary celibacy" are oxymoronic to one another - completely different. 79.67.92.178 (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
No. "Sexual frustration" completely and in context covers the topic -- we are not to make particularized POV forks from established common topics like sexual frustration, let alone based on what you personally believe. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Do you have any sources that state the non-subculture topic of involuntary celibacy and sexual frustration overlap? Furthermore, sexual frustratin concerns itself only with sexuality - involuntary celibacy does not. For example involuntary celibacy also conerns itself with romantic validation (source). So, do sources exist that sexual frustration concerns itself with romanticism? 79.67.92.178 (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Again, we do not want a POV fork of loneliness because it's common and logical to discuss the issues of loneliness there. At least you seem to now concede "sexual frustration" has a plethora of sources on these desires you want to cover and "physical, mental, emotional, social, or religious/spiritual barriers." Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
There's no reason to allude to blocking people here.--Cúchullain t/c 15:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with that, and it should be prominent that supervoting a 3 admin AfD that was Delet & Salt should be a blockable offense. BD2412 just relisted the MR yesterday, and the "Administrator's comment" you made as an administrator seems premature and poisoning the well. Dave Dial (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC) Making comment less aggressive Dave Dial (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Reply I believe that Cuchullain's comment was entirely logical. The precedent on Wikipedia seems to be that culture and associated demographics can be grouped together in one article - see for example Arabs, and sometimes they are separated. Totally ordinary sentiment given by Cuchullain. That 2015 article was written by an novice and plenty of new sources since 2015 are available. 79.67.92.178 (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about by "poisoning the well". Just as this was relisted, I was considering closing the discussion as no consensus. Considering there hadn't been new comments in several days, it seemed unlikely that a different outcome would occur without further comments, despite the fact that there's clear confusion as to what the article is or should be about in comments both sides. There are participants on either side who expressed that "involuntary celibacy" should cover "love shyness" in general rather than the involuntary celibacy/"incel" subculture, and that it's a (potentially) viable article topic. If that's the case, it's worth clarifying. If it's not the case, then at least it would be clearer to participants that we're only discussing which title an article on the subculture should be located. A no consensus close wouldn't resolve that underlying confusion; it would just kick the can down the road. An no, no one's getting blocked for adding, or simply discussing, viable material.--Cúchullain t/c 18:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean love shyness is a potentially viable topic? And if it were, why would you not call it 'love shyness', but do you mean social anxiety? And what makes you think it's not in the subculture? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm talking about the various participants who felt the article covers/should cover involuntary celibacy as the condition of, well, involuntary celibacy, rather than only the "incel" subculture. The confusion was on both sides of the !votes.--Cúchullain t/c 19:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Separate from the sub-culture? 'Involuntary celibacy' is a neologism of the subculture? Who said, it's not? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Various participants on both sides, with several others alluding to the confusion.--Cúchullain t/c 19:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Who? I don't see anyone saying involuntary celibacy is not a neologism of the sub-culture. Moreover, practically everyone in this discussion no matter what side of the move they are on, says involuntary celibacy and incel are the same thing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The nomination's whole point is to reduce confusion between the subculture and "'involuntary celibacy' defined as wanting sex or love but not being able to get it", and several comments expressly support that aim. One opposer says "involuntary celibacy" "is the name of the situation; 'incel' is a contraction of the idea", while another says "The current title is clear... The self-identifying 'Incel' communities are not individually notable." Meanwhile other opposers said "I see no evidence that there is consensus that the scope of this article is limited to the 4chan aspect of the subject..." and "We almost always keep a title at the phenomenon, not people with the phenomenon." At least 5 commenters mentioned the possibility of two articles. One person had to ask, "what is this article about?" There's a lot of confusion, and it has resulted in a confused RM discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 20:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of whatever confusion there was by the nominator, after the first support the nominator agreed incel is the common name and primary topic for involuntary celibacy. 'Contraction of the idea' just means the same idea is in a contraction: involuntary celibacy/incel, the contraction is patent and yes, it's the same idea. No one is proposing having articles on communities individually, and never have. As for seeing no consensus for just covering 4chan, no there is no consensus for just covering 4chan and neither incel nor involuntary celibacy do that, nor does this article. Sure, it's been mentioned several times there are other articles, we don't cover those articles again, we link to them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
@Cuchullain:I don't think there is confusions by those who are well versed in the AfDs or the subject. There are a few(mostly new accounts & IPs) who conflate the fact that the subculture is what is notable while the word "Involuntary celibacy" is used in passing in some sources to mean a Sexless marriage, Sexual frustration Erectile dysfunction or other aspects of Celibacy/Abstinence. Most, whether Support or Oppose, definitely are not confused or believe there should be a separate article. Which is what it sounded like you were proposing. Dave Dial (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Further. If the article is moved to "incel" then considering the current projection of the article, it may need to be titled Incel (black pill ideology) since there are plenty of incels who do not adhere to the black pill, who may be tarred by the same brush. 79.67.92.178 (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. The last AfD was started in 2015 and it is now 2018 so it is not binding. Furthermore, if you do a search on IC from the end of 2015 to now without the words "online" or "subculture" you get tens of thousands of results, indicating new sources. Furthermore, the last close was flawed since it conflated the topics of "sexual frustration" and "involuntary celibacy". These are distinct topics since SF does not deal with romanticism - IC does. Also SF literature largely focuses on sexual dysfunction - IC literature perceives incels as physically healthy. Also the term "frustration" ignores the fact that some incels are content with their inceldom. Also, the first search return on SF is in the context of "couples in long-term relationships" - again, antithesis of incels. 79.67.92.178 (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Cuchullain:, or whoever closes this RM: If you haven't, I'd recommend closely reading the previous AfDs, the versions of the article as they existed when the deletions occurred, and the rest of this talk page before making any decision on how to move forward with renaming the article (or not). The handful of previous AfDs resulted in deletion because the article tried to discuss the concept of "involuntary celibacy" as a "condition". That is really just not supported by reliable sourcing. I was the one who recreated this article over the protection (and there are certainly a few folks here not so thrilled with me for that) but my rationale was that the topic covered in this version of the article is the online subculture of folks who self-identify as involuntary celibate/incels. That subculture has received quite a lot of coverage in reliable sources, particularly since the Isla Vista killings and the Toronto attack. 79.67.92.178 makes the point above that the last AfD was started in 2015, and so does not apply, but my opinion is that that would only be the case if folks could show sources published since then that show "involuntary celibacy" is a) a condition, not just the subculture, b) actually widely discussed using that term, and c) notable enough to be forked from similar articles such as celibacy, sexual frustration, sexual abstinence, etc. Furthermore, the folks here who do want to discuss this as some sort of psychological condition should consider they will need to meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@Cuchullain: I really didn't want to beat a dead horse, but since I've been drag into this "involuntarily" I'll give a little history. The fact is I never heard of this concept until after the 2014 Isla Vista killings. At the time I found an article located in ReaderofthePack (talk · contribs)'s sandbox, I did not write the article credit goes to her. During the discussion at the 4th AfD cunard (talk · contribs) posted the strongest argument for inclusion which I will repost here:
His sources were never refuted, in fact prior to the triple admin deletion they discussed on a page their intention to delete the page without researching the discussion. The fundamental pillar of an encyclopedia is NPOV. We are never suppose to be political, yet it appears the reason for deletion are entirely political. By this action we no longer have an encyclopedic article. Furthermore, it should be noted that there was a wave of editors favoring inclusion after Cunard's post. Then an unknown IP claimed I canvassed two editors I've never heard of skewing the discussion in favor of deletion. An investigation was done it was confirmed the accusation was false. I cannot see a stronger example of bias editing than this.
For those looking for WP:MEDRS sources @GorillaWarfare:, they are not necessary, but they do exist. This is sociological phenomenon not a medical condition. Here are two sources from PubMed not included in prior discussions This and this. Both these sources shows that only a small percentage of people who are involuntary celibate identify with the subculture incel. FWIW, Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) supported the inclusion of the original article on his talk page. Valoem talk contrib 12:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
First of all, not only were those afd arguments including the misconstruing of policy and sources refuted in the afd, they were positively rejected, leading to SALT. As for the two sources you bring now, the first is about loneliness - we already have an article on loneliness. The second says its key-word is abstinence, we already have an article on abstinence. Read those Wikipedia articles, they already deal with the exact same things you would want in a new article. Once again, we don't need or want a POV fork. (see also WP:ONUS just because we don't include something here, does not mean we might not include it elsewhere). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
No they are definitely not. A proper close would be to analyze each source provide and explain when compared to an article such as, say Toxic masculinity, and explain while they are weak. Frankly, if involuntary celibacy does not cut the muster neither does Toxic masculinity. Your argument can be applied to anything the keyword in Toxic masculinity is "masculinity" so just redirect to that. The keyword in "Sexual frustration" is "frustration" so just redirect to that, do you see how ridiculously the argument is? Both sources never used the word "loneliness" alone, they are always accompanied by "romantic" or "involuntary singlehood". This studied concept is clearly not the same thing as loneliness or abstinence. There is a close called no consensus, one can always disagree with a close. To say be a few people say the topic is not notable does not mean its the decision was correct, nor is it improper to question the close. We've all seen this before, historically this manifests itself as prosecution of minorities for religious or other reasons. It took hundreds of years for Copernicus to be accepted hopefully it not the same thing again. Valoem talk contrib 14:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
You already made clear you disagree with the three admin close, it does not change anything when you insist, "they most definitely were not", -- they most definitely, were, by the whole body of Wikipedia editors. As for your "otherstuff exists" argument, that is already long rejected. If you think "sexual frustration" should be deleted, go ahead and nominate it. But it's ridiculous to claim sexual frustration does not already cover sexual frustration from whatever POV you wan't to push, including whatever social or other causes there are. Since you admit that loneliness is covered, whatever adjective, we already have an article that covers exactly that. As for your Copernicus claim, it just shows you are definately not promoting perspective on what you are discussing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Being I did not create this article and I have sources for backing the concept which are neutral and pass GNG requirements, I am curious to know what POV you think I am pushing. I was not the only person who voted keep in the 4th AfD, in fact 19 editor favored inclusion. Valoem talk contrib 15:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
You have sources, which in context are discussing things like loneliness and sexual abstinence, none require another article, we already cover exactly what you want. It's already covered. Apparently, you are now pushing the POV that this topic is somehow like Copernicus's theory of Heliocentricism. I know you disagree and disagreed with the close, the consensus was against you and the others.Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@Valoem: That... is absolutely not how closes on Wikipedia work. See WP:CONSENSUS. AfDs are not a place where people provide sources supporting their arguments, which the closing admin(s) reads and evaluates in order to make a decision. It is a place where all participants review the sources and arguments, and the closing admin(s) establishes consensus based on the discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare:, AfD is exactly as you said it. Editors all review the sources provided by those favoring inclusion. Those favoring deletion then have to refute sources provided as invalid. Then the closer determines which argument is stronger that is WP:CONSENSUS. I never said any differently, what did you think I thought AfD was? The question is where did you see the sources provided by myself and Cunard be refuted, DGG continued toward the end of the discussion says the source has not been refuted, other editors than claimed that there was fringe POV pushing despite Cunard clearly refuting that as well. I just provided you with two PubMed sources. Did you see the 1916 source though it was formerly known as "involuntary sexual abstinence". There is a source from WebMD which is considered reliable. There is a new source from Psychology Today that says Centers for Disease Control calculates 27.2% of men and 28.6% of women are sexless in the 15-24 age bracket which suggests the number of "involuntary celibates" is much larger than those involved in the subculture. The article states that women can be affected as well. The source also states it is men who express the dissatisfaction, possibly due to skewed Western societal views that equate sex with masculinity, success, and relational happiness. So involuntary celibacy can affect women, but those who identify as "incel" are all men. Can you genuinely say that "involuntary celibacy" is confined only to the subculture? Valoem talk contrib 06:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@Valoem: Great! I'm glad to hear you've changed your tune from your previous statement, A proper close would be to analyze each source provide and explain when compared to an article such as, say Toxic masculinity, and explain while they are weak. It sounds like you understand how AfD closes work much better now.
I've had a long day at work and so I don't particularly want to try to dig through the sources you've mentioned above right now, though I do want you to know I very much appreciate you providing them; that's somewhat of a first for the folks on this page who've taken issue with the current version of the article. I will be sure to try to look at the sources you're referencing tomorrow. In the interest of expediency, there are hopefully other folks watching this talk page who can take a look and evaluate the sources for addition; they might be quicker than I. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
That 1916 source covers sexual abstinence. It's telling that you argue this thing is called sexual abstinence because we already have an article. We do not need another one to cover any of your sources. What do you want to do with the Webmed article? It discusses the Donnelly study of an incel online community. This article already uses Donnelly. The Psych. Today op-ed statistic about all people 15-24 does not suggest your POV of making claims about all or any percent of them. I am not sure what you mean by "confined" - "involuntary celibacy" and its more common contraction "incel" are words popularized online, they were then studied by examining those online. Commentary about it invariably refers to online. This article does not even make the claim that it's only men. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
At this point if you don't like the subject and don't want it on the encyclopedia you are entitled to that opinion. The subject is on page 249 of the book we might be looking at different sections and clearly uses "involuntary abstinence" where does the term use abstinence without "involuntary" in front? Terminology can have very vastly different meanings when you add or remove words. Historically the terminology abstinence generally referred to sex. I've used "toxic masculinity" as an example, do you believe "toxic masculinity" should be redirect to "masculinity". What about gender feminism do you believe it should be redirected to "feminism"? The Psych Today article is taking about involuntary celibacy not incel subculture. It is other sources in this current article that says the incel subculture is only isolated to men. Do you understand my argument? Involuntary celibacy is a historic and academic subject studied in sexology, the current version speaks only of the incel subculture. I do agree that this current article does cite Donnelly once, that is undeniable. Valoem talk contrib 15:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you want to cover a form of sexual abstinence with attendant sexual frustration, when those are already at their common logical name, so go cover them at their common logical name, no need to POV fork. Indeed, the AFD'd article said in it's first line it was covering a POV fork of sexual abstinence. The very sexology encyclopedia that's been discussed does not POV fork it like you want. The Psych. Today article discusses what this article already gives information on, including the connections with depression, autism, and social anxiety, which the op ed suggests are causal, and of course the op-ed discusses the sub-cultural issues around those, and how the sub-cultural issues interact with those. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
In the 4th AfD Cunard stated: WP:POVFORK and involuntary celibacy

Wikipedia:Content forking#Point of view (POV) forks (WP:POVFORK) says:

POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies.

Involuntary celibacy is not a "POV fork" of another article because it not "another version of the article" or "another article on the same subject" as an article where "contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page". Involuntary celibacy has been treated as a distinct social concept by the seven sources I listed above.

This point was never refuted by editors in the discussion. Every source provided showed involuntary celibacy is not the same thing as sexual frustration nor abstinence. Valoem talk contrib 16:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Relying on the mere assertions of Cunard, and pretending they were not rejected by consensus is just false. You have not even read those other articles if you don't think they are covering exactly what you want to cover - they do, in spades. You even have called it a form of abstinence. Your very claim was contradicted by the sexology encyclopedia, that you just had to have another article on that, was proven to be false. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
There is no doubt involuntary sexual abstinence is a form of abstinence saying otherwise is ridiculous. However the two concept are distinct enough to have separate articles. Perhaps a better way to look at this is do you feel that gender feminism is a form of feminism? Do you believe that is a POV fork and should be merge? Just to note, after Wales reviewed the discussion he agreed that deletion votes were a form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so administrative override ... yes, but consensus to delete ... no. Valoem talk contrib 16:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
You should know by now that JIMBO SAYS, and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are logical fallacies, practically universally rejected arguments on Wikipedia. No they are not distinct enough, that was overwhelmingly decided, not in the form you argued for. What's left is the current form of this article where it has come to prominence, and where we can refer back to sexual abstinence and sexual frustration and the other related articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
He clearly stated this is not the case here. Do you believe that gender feminism is a POV fork of feminism? Valoem talk contrib 17:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Don't tell me irrelevancies after I've shown you they're irrelevant, and don't ask me irrelevancies after I have shown you they're irrelevant. You can't be serious to ask about other topics with different sources, it is literally a nonsense question. As far as Jimbo was concerned he rather baselessly argued an assumption he made about liking/not liking the culture, and he wanted focus on culture. So, focus away on culture now seems to be your argument. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Valoem To answer that question, one would have to be in that discussion and know the background. If one article has sufficient reliable sourcing to distinguish itself from the other, then you would move on to other factors to make a decision. But that question is irrelevant to this discussion. I could ask why there is no Involuntary heartbeat to go along with the Heartbeat article, or Involuntary Miscarriage to go along with the Miscarriage article, or Involuntary breathing or Involuntary hiccup articles. Which probably has almost as much relevance. In other words, we are getting sidetracked here I think. Dave Dial (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I will add that some of the sourcing may be relevant in adding sections to existing articles. I don't think everyone is saying there is no sourcing for the symptom of what some refer to as Involuntary celibacy, outside of the subculture, just that it is not a condition, but it is a symptom of other factors. To imply it is a condition in itself can by dangerous. In the medical and psychological aspect. Dave Dial (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@Dave Dial: All heartbeats are involuntary so I agree we cannot have an article about that. There is a fringe theory though that claims people can control their heartbeats, I don't know if that is notable or not. I implore you to look at the concept in my sandbox I believe those sources are all reliable and pass every guideline we have. Unfortunately I cannot control IPs and inactive editors who stalk my account due to my history with the subject and make bias claims. In fact I believe if they did not jump into every AfD discussion I opened the outcome may be different. I think Jim Michaels is here in good faith, he has an extensive editing history and has made valid arguments. However I strongly disagree that this subject does not intertwine white supremacy. Valoem talk contrib 18:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Valoem, I was mostly being facetious with the red linked articles I listed. But I did look at your sandbox. I don't put those other editors and you in the same category, I know you edit other articles and such. In any case, this thread is about to go off the page with the amount of indentations. So if anything new happens, perhaps start a new thread? Dave Dial (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
What the heck, Valoem? First of all, you're not supposed to copy & paste entire comments made by other editors. You give links to their comments, don't copy & paste them into other discussions. Much less produce a giant wall of text from an AfD to a MR from another editor. Then you ping editors who have not commented here, when you believe they would be editors that support your position. How many times have you been told that is canvassing is against the rules? You continue to do the same things over and over, even when told not to. That is disruptive and tendentious editing. Dave Dial (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed) And for the record Flyer22Reborn already pinged all of us into the discussion, and Cunard is involved when mentioning him it is actually proper to ping him. None of that is relevant(Personal attack removed) Valoem talk contrib 14:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Good luck convincing an editor posting what you actually said is a personal attack. I am sure you understand the relevance to this discussion. Valoem talk contrib 15:52, 4 May 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.

Chris Harper-Mercer

There are no sources linking him to a community or that he is an incel or that his attack was any more incel related than Vester Flanagan, Adam Lanza and others he listed as idols. The sources don't support inclusion of his murders being incel related. Is there any sources that go beyond his response to a question about whether he was saving himself for someone special (he responded that the "saving" was "involuntary" on a dating forum, not incel forum)? He was an anti-religious Aspy that sought attention[4]. Friendless loner w/ no girlfriend and anger issues can't be the inclusion criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:102D:F1B4:EEBD:9A50 (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

question would be if he wanted a girlfriend but couldn't find one for a good amount of time and if he gave that as a reason for his shooting. I don't know the answer cuz I don't know his story, I never fought for his inclusion of exclusion. Willwill0415 (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
His statement 'involuntarily so' qualifies him for inclusion. I'm not aware of Flanagan or Lanza having said anything about being celibate, let alone involuntarily celibate. Jim Michael (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Really? That's not what the article says 'incels' are and he didn't give it as a reason for the murders. He did rant about organized religion and asked his victims if they were religious before executing them. The source doesn't make the claim that he was motivated by incel ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:950C:C113:D6B9:3587 (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The heading of that section is List of mass murders by self-identified involuntary celibates. It doesn't specify that they did the murders due to being incels. In comparison, there's no evidence that Flanagan or Lanza were incels. Jim Michael (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Mercer didn't identify as being an "involuntary celibate." This article is about the membership in a movement not a state of being. Half the editors on Wikipedia are "involuntarily celibate" and "single but looking" isn't the criteria. Mercer's comment on a dating site that he was looking for a g/f is not self-identifying as being part of the "ivoluntarily celibate" culture. It's even less associated with the murders. Elle and others make no connection other than a dictionary. Yes, he was a lonely, angry, Aspy that blamed religion for ills of the world. He was mentally ill. --2600:8800:1300:16E:D56A:A243:7756:4805 (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Here's his manifesto praising black, Indian and Asian women. Praising Asian men. Racist rant against black males. Motive is to be a mass murderer. Lists a number of mass murderers as inspiration. Uses "involuntary" but as agent of evil, not celibacy. [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:D953:EB6D:2BC6:AFB0 (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

[6] GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

non peer reviewed blog with no evidence that he is member of incel community. Not being able to get a girlfriend is not enough. He is not "self-described." He used the word "involuntary" in two writings. One was a dating site. The other his manifesto. The dating website referenced virginity, the manifesto referenced being an agent of evil. How is his common use of the word "involuntary" being used in one place (not in incel forum) as "self-identified member of incel community?" There is no proof he visited or posted even though there is speculation. Do you not see how weak the sourcing is for "self-identified?" It's a convenient label for an agenda against that community but it's not rigorous. Read his manifesto and sources and tell me how you extract "self-identified" from it. The lack of rigorous sourcing opens up the list of incels to an overly broad category of people whose mental illness precludes personal relationships at any level. By the standard being applied here, half of Wikipedia are "incels" which is a huge issue with conflating mental illness with an ideology. There is only tenuous connection between Mercer and the incel community, most of it comming from ideation of Mercer. The community apparently idolizes a number of violent actors regardless of whether they were incels themselves and it explains Mercer citing "Flanagan, Columbine kids, Adam Lanza, and Seung Cho." It's already been established that being celibate, not by choice, is insufficient criteria and not what this article is about. Then list Mercer as an incel despite the only evidence being he was celibate, involuntarily. He didn't even hate women but seemed to hate Black men (and only black men) and religious people. [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:C593:90D2:5C60:7152 (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for that—that's my bad. I hadn't realized that portion of Psychology Today was blog content until I noticed it in the URL after you pointed it out. I'll replace. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Should be all set now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The WaPo source that we use to link r9k to incels says: Whether or not the poster was actually Harper-Mercer — a question we don’t have the answer to yet — other self-identified incels have taken it as a call to arms, threatening violence at half a dozen other schools around the country.[8]. Hardly rock solid affiliation (Adam Lanza seems equally revered despite a direct connection). Other googled sources seem to dispute whether r9k is an incel community at all (I'm not sure what the difference between beta male and incel is, but they seem adamant they are different).
Yep, see the wording I added. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: Unfortunately, the move to "Incel" (which I disagreed with, of course) and emphasizing that "Incel != Involuntary celibate" now means that since Mercer didn't identify as an "Incel", merely as an "involuntary celibate", having him in a list of self-identifieds is not appropriate. He becomes more like Sodini, someone who is used as an inspiration, but not a self-identified incel. So the list goes down to 2 members. So the list might as well be deleted. Honestly, I think moving the article back might be better. --GRuban (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
First, no one has to accept that "involuntary celibacy" and its contraction "incel" are not the same thing in order to call this article, incel. But on this particular matter, Wikipedia did not connect Mercer to this topic, regardless of what you want to call it, see eg. [9] Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
@GRuban: Yeah, I disagree that "incel != involuntary celibate" thing. Basically every source referring to incels uses the full version of the term. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Move review

I have initiated a move review. Not only was there not clear consensus to move the page, which is required for a non-admin close, the move was relisted less than 6 days ago, and even an admin should have waited until the 7 day period was over before closing the requested move. Dave Dial (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

To balance this non-neutral notice: our guidelines on RMs explicitly state that being a non-admin close is not reason to undo the closure, and that discussions can conclude before the relisting period expires. Was a NAC ideal? Nah. But consensus seems pretty clear. Even moving past the clear numeric majority, there's the simple fact of the strength of arguments based on how reliable sources say that the name of the subculture is "incel(s)" -- as this is an article about the subculture, it should probably be named after the subculture rather than the words the subculture's name comes from (words which are easily misunderstood to mean something that is not this subculture). More detailed comments left there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I have never initiated a MR, so did't know the announcement was supposed to be neutral. Dave Dial (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, don't mean to give you a hard time. To be fair, I'm really just thinking about RfCs and notification best practices. I'm a little embarrassed to say I didn't know MR existed before today... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

White supremacy

As seen here(1,2,3,4,[10]) by Magnacartalibertatum removing the reference and continued here(1) by Jim Michael placing a {{cn}} tag next to the reference. Yet right after the mention is a dearth of reliable sources that clearly state the subculture is aligned with white supremacy.


First already in the article:

  • The Guardian:

    ...[T]he community seems to be largely white. And that’s evident because race comes up, a lot. Sometimes, in the form of a kind of racial pseudo-science that advocates use to explain the dynamics of heterosexual relations. The age-old racist argument – that black men are “taking our women” – is made regularly. Racist slurs are chucked around casually. There seems to be a significant overlap with organised white supremacy....Reading through the posting history of individual aliases, it’s possible to chart their progress from vague dissatisfaction, and desire for social status and sexual success, to full-blown adherence to a cohesive ideology of white supremacy and misogyny. Neofascists treat these websites as recruitment grounds. They find angry, frustrated young men and groom them in their own image. Yet there’s no Prevent equivalent to try to stamp this out.

Much has been written about financial hardship turning afflicted white communities into breeding grounds for white supremacist politics

  • Vox

    The recent disruptive violence of incels — a shortened form of “involuntary celibates” that refers to an online enclave of extreme misogynists — may seem like a lone outlier with little connection to the racialized politics of white supremacists. But in fact incel culture, the “men’s rights” movement, and their focus on what they perceive as belittled masculinity have more in common with the broader alt-right than you might think.


Second, there are others already in the article, but these can be added- USA Today

Misogyny can be a precursor to other forms of extremism...What starts as sexual entitlement can, in the right echo chamber, lead a man to become "radicalized" into a "culture of entitlement and grievance," with implications for racial, ethnic and sexual minorities. "Where this merges with broader far right, and particularly the alt-right and the white nationalist communities, is we see a lot of people pass through this men's rights community, or at least engaging with this type of material and ideas, before they go on to participate in other forms of bigotry," Hankes said. SPLC considers incels a subsection of the men's rights movement, which claims that men are discriminated against, often using anti-women rhetoric.

There are many others. At this point, removal of the description or the {{CN}} tag could almost be considered vandalism. Edit warring needs to stop and be discussed, at the very least. Dave Dial (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Only the first source links them strongly - and even that says 'seems to be largely white'. The others merely say that there is an association of some sorts. That's not enough to state that the subculture is white supremacist. There are incels within the subculture who are of various ethnicities. Jim Michael (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The article stated(before it was changed)

Discussions in incel forums are often characterized by resentment, misanthropy, misogyny, white supremacy and the endorsement of violence against sexually active women and more sexually successful men.

All of the references back that statement up. To say otherwise is just plain wrong. Dave Dial (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I made this change before I saw this section, because of the sources cited at the end of that sentence, two of them refer to the incel subculture as racist (but not specifically "white supremacist"). However, now seeing this discussion, I've undone that change pending a decision here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Either one works, both racism & white supremacy are sourced. But the removal and CN tags are wrong. There are many sources that refer to the discussions on the forums as racist & white supremist. Dave Dial (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
There's a lot of black and asian white supremacists then I guess looking at the userbases of even the worst forums. And I guess Elliot Rodger and Minassian were white. What a joke article.Willwill0415 (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@Willwill0415: Cite. Your. Sources.
How many times do I have to ask you (and others on this page) to provide sources supporting the changes you're asking be made? Without providing sources, your posts are wasting everyone's time; just look at the template at the top of the page. If you feel the need to spout your opinions on "involuntary celibacy" or what have you without providing usable sources, maybe try a blog, journal, or /dev/null. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Willwill0415, if you're not going to contribute positively toward the discussion and toward consensus, please don't add your own commentary here and make it harder for others to do so. This is a discussion page, and this is a discussion - not a political radio talk show or a place to rant. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll also add that if GorillaWarfare hadn't reverted your revert citing a supposed talk page consensus (which has clearly not been reached), I would have. Keep the discussion here, and don't start the path down edit warring. It's disruptive and against Wikipedia's policies. Resolve this dispute properly. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 06:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • According to the following source [11] : "there is a large non-white, or “ethnicels” participation on these forums. A significant number of these people who self describe as Incels identify as non-white, says Mann. I see a lot of South Asian and east Asian men and boys — or people of south Asian and east Asian origins." There are also some paywalled citations that suggest incels have a large ethnic minority dmographic. This suggests that to me the addition of white supremacy is incorrect. 92.2.78.81 (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That doesn't preclude the other sourcing stating:

    Discussions in incel forums are often characterized by resentment, misanthropy, misogyny, white supremacy and the endorsement of violence against sexually active women and more sexually successful men.

    Also, for those watching this page one of the main "incel" forums(incel.me) have multiple threads concerning this article, telling members to "fix" the article.One such thread. If you look at that thread, one member has a profile picture of Josef Mengele, with another thread that pretty much shows the mindset of that forum, another user icon is Richard Spencer. Original research, but letting editors know to expect some ips, "new" and/or sleeper accounts. Dave Dial (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@Dave Dial: Ah, that explains it. I suspected as much. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@92.2.78.81 can't ping IP. Incel subculture definitely has roots in white supremacy, that cannot be disputed. Just because there are non-whites in the group does not reject the idea that white supremacy is among their ideals. Rodger the "poster child" of incel explicitly stated his hatred for other races. Valoem talk contrib 15:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@92.2.78.81 That is an opinion piece, not a reliable source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: I would recommend a page protection of the article. Valoem talk contrib 17:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
You can request it at WP:RFPP if you want, though I doubt it'll go through. Either way, I can't be the one to protect the article per WP:INVOLVED. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 Done. Valoem talk contrib 18:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Just goes to show what I know, looks like the page was protected after all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Firstly, Elliot, Mercer or Minassian being poster children for incels is not an argument in favor of their white supremacy; it is an argument against it since the former two are mixed race, while the latter is middle eastern. Secondly, I oppose a page protection. As you can see from my recent contributions, I am a content creator; why should I be blocked from editing merely because I am an IP? Is there an anti-IP witch-hunt on this page? If so, I would advice them to read WP:IPs are human too whose summary states "Unregistered users can edit articles and participate on talk pages in the same way as registered users. Their input is just as important in building consensus". 88.104.32.185 (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Even though I'm never going to open an account since I do not wish to get wiki-addicted, I will also defend newer accounts; the summary on WP:BITE states "Do not be hostile toward fellow editors; newcomers in particular. Remember to assume good faith and respond to problematic edits in a clear and polite manner." So, GorillaWarfare, Dave Dial and others, are you going to live up to these guidelines that asks you to treat newcomers and IP's favorably? 88.104.32.185 (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    I said above that I was not going to protect the page—it would have been against the admin policy for me to protect a page I wrote and have been deeply involved with maintaining, just as it would be against the admin policy for me to unprotect it now. WP:RFPP is the place to discuss the protection, or bring it up with the admin who protected the page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
The fact that there are some white supremacists on some incel forums doesn't show that white supremacy is an ideology of the community. The fact that there are many incels on the forums who are black, Asian, mixed race etc. whom are welcomed, indicates otherwise. Jim Michael (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Once again, we base Wikipedia articles off of what information is available in reliable sources, not your opinion of the racial makeup of incel forums. If you can find reliable sources verifying what you've said, please add them to the article as a counterpoint. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
The three incels who are in the grid, i.e. Mercer, Rodger, Minassian; the first two are mixed race, the latter is middle eastern, and yet somehow this is a white supremacist movement? How does that make sense? 88.104.32.185 (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Rodger openly wrote about his hatred of other races particularly Asians, then proceeded to kill his Asian roommates. Minassian hailed Rodger. I don't know anything about Mercer. I am sure not all members of the Incel communities are racists, but some certainly are. Valoem talk contrib 09:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

REMOVE THE WHITE SUPREMACY TAG, it is not relevant to the discussion. I don't care what "it seems like" according to The Guardian's op-ed. Here's a poll straight from incels.me, which is much more reliable than any "journalist"'s thoughts on the matter:

[12].

The only reason I can see you guys keeping that in is because of some deepseated agenda. Magnacartalibertatum (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

This there really only 61 people that identify with this subculture? Valoem talk contrib 16:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
No, of course not, but whatever it "seems" like to The Guardian is not concrete enough to merit adding a white supremacy tag to the article. Much of the movement is mixed-race, and this is reflected not only by the race of the killers, but by the polls they hold on their websites. It would be more accurate to remove the tag altogether, because it has no grounds. Magnacartalibertatum (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Some weird internet poll on a forum is most definitely not a reliable source. Even if it were, it would't trump the many sources for article for this:

Discussions in incel internet forums are often characterized by resentment, misanthropy, misogyny, white supremacy and the endorsement of violence against sexually active women and more sexually successful men.

The fact that you believe some kind of internet poll on a message board is a reliable source should make it clear you should not edit this, or any other article. At least until you have a better grasp of Wikipedia policies. Dave Dial (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
You don't know anything about this subject, Dave, and I'd prefer if you stopped injecting your personal politics into the articles onto this widely-disseminated site.Magnacartalibertatum (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@Magnacartalibertatum: If anyone is injecting personal politics here, it's you. You need to familiarize yourself with the reliable sourcing policy. An informal poll on a message board is not a reliable source. It won't be added to the article, and it's not useful to reference in this discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
The way the article is framed gives off an incorrect perception of the group, and I'm the one who has the personal bias? Give me a break. Magnacartalibertatum (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@Magnacartalibertatum: If the article is inaccurate, please provide reliable sources that portray it more accurately. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
The sources provided do not prove that the group of involuntarily celibate people are white supremacists, so it's more that you need to remove the reference than I need to provide sources. The Guardian says they "seem," not that they are. Read the sources that Dave Dial provided.Magnacartalibertatum (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
The Guardian says they seem to be largely white. It is unequivocal about the racism within the communities. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
The Guardian says they seem to be largely white. It's kind of silly to try to collectively describe people based on their skin color alone.It's even more problematic in case of Guardian which is published in UK that host several ethnic groups with different culture and identity, some of which face racism, and some having privilege despite all having the same white skin color. Why obviously Guardian is a reliable source, it has its own biases and such ideological statements and generalizations should be avoided in Wikipedia articles I believe.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
This discussion is perplexing (on the other hand, I am not that committed to this particular language in the article). There are two reasons though this discussion is perplexing: 1) the article statement does not say all incels are white supremacists -- but for some reason the criticism above seems to contend that it does, and 2) whatever your definition of "non-white", it's certainly possible for "non-whites" to espouse white supremacy (but again, and more importantly, the article does not seem to be saying all, anyone, are white supremacists.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Call them mixed-race white supremacists then, because this group is not exclusively white.Magnacartalibertatum (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Again, that makes no sense, no-one is being called white and all are not being called anything. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
incels.me's rules include a prohibition against race-baiting, and the site is clearly welcoming of all ethnicities. Jim Michael (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
That's great, but the rules page of one incel community is not a reliable 3rd-party source, nor do they speak for other communities. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
incels.me is the primary incel community, and it isn't white supremacist because they are mixed-race and do not advocate white supremacy, which is noted by the site's polls and the race of the killers, including a West Asian and an East Asian. Magnacartalibertatum (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
You can repeat that as much as you like, and it may well be true, but it doesn't change the fact that we need reliable, third-party sources to verify. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree, some feminist blogs have started to admit that the Incel Community is pretty varied(https://wonkette.com/633072/awww-the-incels-have-a-new-nazi-friend) and another investigator that have researched the community (https://medium.com/@joelhill/hope-cope-and-rope-the-sad-truth-behind-the-incels-movement-a7dc8955ceaf) agree, one single outlook at Incels.me or r/braincels can tell that non-whites seems to be majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.198.119.239 (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Two blog posts and some original research of two incel communities are not sufficient for the reliable sourcing requirements to be added to the article, nor are they useful for discussion here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Oddly enough that Medium blog appears to confirm that many incels of whatever race have bought into white supremacy as a form of self-hatred or just hatred. Same with the other blog post. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

information Note: I've merged the below from a separate section discussing the same. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

To highlight in the lead that some incels also happen to be racists is as stupid as to write in the lead of the article on homosexuality that left-handedness is a bit more common among gay than among straight people. Textbook case of POV pushing and red herring, meant perhaps to demonize this group. Does anyone here have an issue with incels? Miacek (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

  • There are a number of reliable sources showing a/some crossover between incels and white supremacism (or at the very least obvious racism), so whilst I wouldn't call it "often characterized as...", it probably needs to be mentioned somewhere. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Right now, I can't see any sources for that assertion. And even if there were, this does not address the issue of due weight. We do not mention in the intro on homosexuality that homosexuals are found to be more often left-handed than heterosexuals, that they are found to have more often hair curled counterclockwise than heterosexuals and similar fun facts supported, by the way, by more credible evidence. Let alone that these are 'neutral' factoids while associating incels with racism can be seen as demonizing this miserable group.Miacek (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
more than the misogyny, endorsement of violence, and male supremacy? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Two things:
  1. As the lead summarizes the rest of the article and "white supremac[y/ism]" is not mentioned outside of the lead at this point (nor even the word "white"), it shouldn't be included -- at least not with that wording.
  2. I've looked at all of the sources we cite following the connections with "racism". Despite there being six citations to five sources tacked on the end of those two sentences, collectively, only one makes that connection at all. Guardian doesn't mention racism or white supremacy, NYT talks about racism...but doesn't even mention incels, this other Guardian article does not mention racism or white supremacy, Vice mentions racism but not in connection with incels. Only NBC does, in these two quotes: "Self-described incels congregate mostly online, meeting in forums and message boards like Reddit and 4chan, and its offshoot site 8chan, to discuss their hopelessness with women in posts that are peppered with racist and misogynistic rants.", "“They’re young, frustrated white males in their late teens into their early twenties who are having a hard time adjusting to adulthood. They’re the same kinds of people you find in white supremacy writ large,”.
In other words, while it may be that it's appropriate to mention somewhere, based on a single source it should not be prominent and doesn't belong in the lead (unless more are added). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Saying that they're the same kinds of people as in white supremacy isn't stating that they are white supremacists. White supremacy shouldn't be in the lead. Jim Michael (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Following my comments above, I've removed white supremacy from the lead. I have not touched any mentions of racism in the body, but they should be evaluated and sourcing bolstered if they're to remain. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Sure, why use sources at all? Let's go by the feelings of sympathetic editors who tell us there can't be racist comments in the forums because incels aren't all white. Let's also forget that I started a thread here already listing the reliable sources and their quotes describing the incel forums as white supremacist & racist. Adding a couple more to the thread I already started above.
  • LA Times --

    Involuntary celibacy is part of a larger male supremacy movement that denigrates women and threatens violence against them. Racism also is a common theme in male supremacy discussions.

  • NBC --

    Self-described incels congregate mostly online, meeting in forums and message boards like Reddit and 4chan, and its offshoot site 8chan, to discuss their hopelessness with women in posts that are peppered with racist and misogynistic rants.

    There is definitely reliable sources that describe the forums as full of racism and white supremacy. The article did not say that all members are racist, but that the forums and many of it's members that post there make racist and white supremist rants. Dave Dial (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
You're responding to an analysis (with regard to this usage) of all of the cited sources for a given claim with "why use sources at all"? I mentioned the NBC source above as the one among the citations that makes the connection. The one you've added here, LA Times, doesn't support the claim either. I.e. "incels are part of male supremacy; male supremacy also includes racists" does not logically yield "incels are racist". I'm not saying they're not, but it's a contentious label and we're citing sources that do not support it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
No-one is claiming that there aren't some racist / white supremacist posts on some incel forums. That doesn't mean that the forums or the subculture is racist or white supremacist. There are some posts and some members who are racist on all sorts of forums. Most incels aren't white. Jim Michael (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jim Michael: some unsolicited advice (not just about this comment): arguments that sound like anecdotes or personal knowledge aren't typically very persuasive on Wikipedia. The question is not whether there are racist incels, how many of them there are, what race they identify is, etc. -- it's not even whether the claim that incels are associated with racism is true. The only relevant question is "how do reliable sources describe this subject?" If reliable sources characterize them as racist, verifiability, not truth, is what determines content. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I've re-added "racism" to the lead, and supported the bit in the body with a couple more sources. It's quite well-cited.

  • "The incel community exists in a dark corner of the internet, infamous for its sexist, racist and homophobic language, where cyberbullying and posts normalizing rape are common." - The Globe and Mail
  • "Self-described incels congregate mostly online, meeting in forums and message boards like Reddit and 4chan, and its offshoot site 8chan, to discuss their hopelessness with women in posts that are peppered with racist and misogynistic rants." - NBC News
  • "Friedman also notes incels are frustrated they aren't receiving attention from a specific type of woman. 'If you look at Elliot Rodger's rant, his aggrievement was not that he couldn't get anyone to sleep with him or anyone to love him. It was the women that he decided were 'high-value, she said. 'So, for example, I wouldn't count, because they would see me as fat, and old and some of them would see me as too Jewish, because there is a lot of racism involved in this. Really what they're talking about is men's entitlement to young, white, conventionally attractive women's bodies.' - USA Today
  • "On top of its hatred for women, the incel community also uses plenty of racist language as well." - Fortune

I could really go on. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To update what I wrote above, GW's more recent additions satisfy any outstanding concerns about the racism connection that I had. When the dust settles, at some point, it would be good to go back through everything and evaluate some of the more contentious claims for weight (including aspects that should be expanded), but for now I see no problem (i.e. the connection seems well enough grounded in the sources we cite). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Was there consensus to move this?

I don't agree that there was consensus to rename at this time. I think there is a lot of new information and additional changes to the article, perhaps better for an admin to close? FWIW, given the high level of participation in the discussion I think it is best for the discussion to continue. Valoem talk contrib 20:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

This came up at ANI and the closer's talk page. I believe the outcome was (paraphrasing) "meh, NAC wasn't ideal here but also isn't disallowed. WP:MRV is thataway for anyone who wants to challenge it". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Frankly, the history was restored, and a majority of that history is certainly not talking about incel. I think it is better for the closer to just reopen it. It is the friendly alternative compared to using force. Valoem talk contrib 20:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
"Incel" has 15 times more Ghits than "involuntary celibate".Miacek (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
After @Dave Dial:, linked me thread discussion from their forum, but would rather not deal with this article at this time. Whatever is fine I guess, but I don't think that was the only argument opposed to the move. Valoem talk contrib 20:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
@Valoem: Whoa now, please don't go saying the history was restored because there was the belief there was anything of value in there. It was restored because you asked it be moved to your sandbox, and the stewards haven't completed that second step yet. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I was discussing on your page that the perhaps the history remaining in tact is a case study of this encyclopedia in itself. Articles from neutral sources may be written about the topic possibly even referencing its changes over time. Well, in fact such article came out today. How ‘Incel’ Got Hijacked released today from Politico should cut through all the muster, the tagline What started as an empathetic term became a rallying point for violent men. Here’s what the word’s coiner wants to do about it. Update: This article has some information which conflicts with the page. It says the term was coined May 1997. Valoem talk contrib 07:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Huh, interesting it has a separate date. I'll update the article to reflect this new source, as well as see if there's more from it that can be added. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Update: Added that change, but I'm not sure there's a lot else to add here. The article agrees that involuntary celibacy/invcel/incel is an invented term, and distinguishes "people who are lonely, having trouble with dating" from current-day incels. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Russian incel Dmitry Vinogradov

Please add Russian incel Dmitry Vinogradov. Link 1, link 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.164.246.204 (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

See my comment below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Canadian incel Marc Lépine

Please add Canadian incel Marc Lépine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.164.246.204 (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Source? We can't declare people "incels" post-hoc based on no more than your say-so. Kleuske (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, more or less what Kleuske says. If good sourcing exists, some text could be added to the article about how the incel communities discuss Lepine and Vinogradov, but a quick Google search only really returns a couple of articles (mostly about Lepine) that mention the men and discuss the incel communities, without really connecting the two aside from shared misogyny. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed edits

While I do appreciate that a lacuna has finally been rectified, with an article on this important subject created, to my dismay it is a highly tentendious and selective collection of anti-incel anecdotes. Moreover, all attempts to sanitize it - be it by MyMoloboaccount at this talk - or my edits, were either met with silence or got blindly reverted in no time.

  • "Source not viewable" - a lame pretext. Of course it's viewable, just scroll down, the book simply had no page numbers I could not add them.
  • "unclear how this relates to the incel subculture" - how is it not related to incels, if the scholarly source expressly points out incels is a phenomenon either created by the sexual revolution or at least influenced by it?
  • a reference I made to a novel [13] - Whatever (novel) got removed for no explanation whatsoever. I recall, it's a novel that advances the view a new sexual subclass has emerged (like incels, though the term is not used in the novel) and where one of the main characters is a typical incel. Again, highly relevant but removed, may-be because it is neutral information and does not fit with the agenda some editors are pushing here.

Miacek (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This page is about the online subculture, not about the "phenomenon" of involuntary celibacy. Previous incarnations of this article attempted to treat it as a phenomenon and were deleted several times (see the list of previous AfDs at the top of the article) because of lack of sourcing and because the concept is more appropriately covered at other articles such as sexual frustration, celibacy, etc.
If you want this article (or a new article) to cover the phenomenon, you're going to need much stronger consensus in the form of a formal discussion.
Read through the other discussions on this talk page/in the archive—this conversation has been had multiple times.
As for the book you tried to add to the page, I imagine that was removed because you didn't provide any reliable sourcing showing that it's relevant or notable enough to be mentioned here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, Miacek, the heading and descriptions you've made are not really correct. The source cited in the edit that was removed is "Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars from 4chan and Tumblr to Trump and the Alt-right", by Angela Nagle. But the quoted text from the edit:

It has been pointed out that with the decline of monogamy, an elite of men have acquired more sexual choices while celibacy has become prevalent among men at the bottom of the pecking order

is from an excerpt of another book by F. Roger Devlin, an alt-Right White Nationalist who writes his rantings at VDare. The author(Nagle) then goes on to describe the claim in a much different fashion than the removed edit. It's false context made it seem as if those words were Nagles, not an Alt-Right White Nationalist who is hero to racists, MGTOW and other anti-feminists.
As for the second point you make(Whatever (novel)), that's completely original research and synthesis. The words Incel or involuntary celibacy are nowhere in the source you provided. Dave Dial (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
RationalWiki is hardly a RS for any claims, in fact, it's as ridiculous as to use Encyclopedia Dramatica.Miacek (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
That's your response? Seems to me that it is you being ridiculous. So Devlin is not "an Alt-Right White Nationalist" that writes for VDare? I also gave a link to the SPLC, but I think you might disregard them too. He is only noteworthy for being a white nationalist who promotes fear and hatred. I think this example should alert other editors to why editors would try to disguise words made by such a reviled sexist and racist as Devlin as innocuous writings from Nagle. Dave Dial (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I mean, the Angela Nagle book that we're discussing calls Devlin an alt-right writer, a white nationalist, an MRA and anti-feminist, so challenging RationalWiki doesn't really seem germane to the discussion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Angela Nagle was clearly speaking in her own voice when she expressed the views I summarized, not reflecting Devlin. also, if controversial left-wing institutions like SPLC are given so much space I cannot see why alt-right must be completely omitted.Miacek (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Because the SPLC's publications are reliable sources (and their decision regarding male supremacy has also been covered by other RSes). I've not seen alt-right sources that are meeting reliable sourcing requirements, nor have I seen reliable sources that discuss them much (and when they do, certainly not with any legitimacy). Shocking how hard it is to find reliable sources for viewpoints like "women are subhuman", isn't it... GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Stop attributing to me shocking viewpoints I've never tried to insert into the article such as "women are subhuman". What I wanted to add were simply some basic facts of changing human sexuality such as extinction of monogamy and the emergence of the incel class among males. Is that really forbidden?Miacek (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
When you refer to the SPLC as a "controversial left-wing institution" while trying to give credence to someone like Devlin(who definitely holds the view that women(and non-whites in general) are less than(Untermensch). Regular people don't subscribe to the Untermensch theology. The SPLC is oft cited by the mainstream, while the Alt-Right rightly is not. Dave Dial (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
An organization that labels the courageous feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, too, as a "hater" is hardly uncontroversial. Also, I pointed out that it was Nagle's views that I was summarizing, why no comment on this by either of you? Can I expect an answer?Miacek (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
@Miacek: I'm not attributing shocking viewpoints like those to you, I'm attributing them to the alt-right and incel sources that people (including yourself) keep discussing adding to the article.
If "either of you" includes me, I'm not sure why I'm expected to rebut an argument made by someone other than myself. However, after looking into it I actually agree that your quote summarized Nagle's perspective (though she was providing it in the context of discussion of Devlin's writing). My argument against the inclusion of the sentence is quite different. See above, and look for my signature—I do realize that the indentation might have caused the two comments by me and Dave Dial to run together a bit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, "extinction of monogamy" is a shocking viewpoint, and we certainly have not seen the kind of multiple strong sourcing such a viewpoint would require and it could never be represented as a fact. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
+1. I'm in a monogamous relationship, feel free to send the scientists my way so I can reassure them my partner and I are alive and well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I see where Nagel does write about Devlin's claim, while making the same assertion herself(although in a different context), and expounds on the natural hierarchies bringing them pain and humiliation. Then comparing it to the Nazi's facination with Nietzsche's fetish for physical male strength. In any case, it certainly doesn't belong in the article, especially out of context. Dave Dial (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

So anyone agrees the initial allegations I was citing an "alt-right" author were wrong. Yet no-one supports reinstating this material. Why is that?Miacek (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Because it just seems like spitball speculation of one person, and it is definitely not fact, it is not even research. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
What you're saying simply makes no sense. Angela Nagle is a serious researcher. And all evidence is she's right. I will add more sources in due time. Miacek (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
It's plain you don't know what research is, if you think that is research. Perhaps it's tied to your prior edits demonstrated inability to know what facts are. And of course, researchers throw out spitball thoughts all the time, especially in a longer pop audience book that's done by a publisher, who is distinguished for turning out books written fast in conversational pop style (there is nothing wrong with throwing out thoughts, but it's still just throwing out thoughts). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This is all about this removed material, right? If so, we don't need to get into who the author is, etc. First, regarding the novel, that a Wikipedia editor was able to find a subject we cover in some other medium does not mean we should include it here. If it is a connection worth making, it will be covered by a secondary source that connects the two (not just mentioning off-hand that "incel" is mentioned in the book, but covering that connection to some degree). With some topics there's a little more leeway to throw in random trivia, but not with a contentious subject.

Second is the text "It has been pointed out that with the decline of monogamy, an elite of men have acquired more sexual choices while celibacy has become prevalent among men at the bottom of the pecking order" -- you are stating someone's idea in Wikipedia's voice. (taking for granted the "decline of monogamy" and the perks of being part of the "elite of men" as something that "has been pointed out" -- rather than "some guy you shouldn't really listen to about such things threw this idea out there"). More importantly, I don't see that quote directly tied to the incel subculture. Nagle seems to be talking about a broader subject (or constellation of topics) related to "sexual politics", including MRA, anti-feminism, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Now that's really curious! That some incels have gone crazy and developed oddball ideas (indeed, I've seen some justify the Holodomor, too) is highly relevant, but factors leading to the development of this class/subculture are suddenly "not directly tied". I suspect it might be your anti-incel prism hinders you from seeing these things.Miacek (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
When something is tied directly to the incel subculture (not any of the other similar subculturse, not to MRA, not to antifeminism, not to people who are sexually frustrated, etc.) then it is relevant to this article. If you have to connect something by way of a general sense of the meaning of "incel", that's going to be controversial here. The source seems to present incels as one part of a larger subject, and includes that quote regarding the larger subject without an explicit connection to the incel subculture. Hence, not relevant. If there is other material with such a tenuous link, you would have my support in removing it. If there is an explicit connection that I am missing due to a "prism", please point me to the page/text. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Odd removal

His views as relevant to this article and covered in reliable sources, sure. this primary source carries no weight, though. that's odd more stupid things like racism and encouragement of violence are 'relevant', but seemingly more likely statements get removed in no time.Miacek (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If you don't understand why using a primary source and using some screenshot hosted on "sluthate.com" is unacceptable, you really should not be editing Wikipedia. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
There is no reason why primary sources could not be used per se. It's still better than adding stuff with no sources whatsoever. E.g. in the article on 2014 Isla Vista killings, Rodgers' manifesto is quoted in quite some length. Is it OK if I use his manifesto instead of his postings at PUAHate?Miacek (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Have you read WP:PRIMARY? Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources (emphasis mine). The issue is not whether Rodger held these views (it's pretty clear he did). The question is whether they are so germane to the incel subculture that they should be included here, rather than in the biography of him at 2014 Isla Vista killings. It's quite possible they are, but that's why we need independent sources discussing them in the context of the broader incel subculture. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Can't speak to what happens at that article, but at this stage of this article, we shouldn't be including anything that isn't covered in reliable secondary sources. Primary sources are well and good for sourcing things when those things are covered elsewhere, but we shouldn't have anything that is only based on a primary source like this -- let alone some forum post. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I concur; see also User talk:Miacek#Arbitration discretionary sanctions alert. Sandstein 21:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Tomohiro Kato

I have attempted to add incel Tomohiro Kato to the list of incel mass murderers but the changes have been unjustly reverted by DaveDial and GorillaWarfare. These two are attacking information and facts. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incel&type=revision&diff=841325266&oldid=841324505 He was clearly and undeniably an incel. He said, "“It is raining today. Couples are walking together under the same umbrella. I'm just playing sex video games alone.” It reminds me of Elliot Rodger. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em5nzkag4nY If George Sodini is mentioned in this article, why can't Tomohiro Kato? [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enemyofjokes (talk • contribs) 04:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Enemyofjokes: George Sodini is mentioned in this article because reliable sources have discussed how he is embraced by incel communities. The article is careful to not classify him as an incel, because he did not identify as such (at least, not so far as reliable sources can tell, I didn't know the guy).
The list to which you added Kato is for people who self-identify as incels according to reliable sources, not for people who Wikipedia editors infer to be a member of the subculture. "It is raining today. Couples are walking together under the same umbrella. I'm just playing sex video games alone." could just as easily be attributed to someone who felt lonely but did not consider themselves a part of the incel subculture; without reliable sources saying they did, classifying them as an incel is original research. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://japantoday.com/category/features/kuchikomi/blog-shows-insight-into-akihabara-murder-suspects-mind

Sub-culture vs community

The term incel with "online community" gets 4,870 google search returns; in contrast "online subculture" gets 417 returns. Per WP:DUE the lead sentence should be changed to "online community". Does anyone object to this change? Thylacoop5 (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The article should point out involuntary celibacy is a much wider phenomenon than incel forums. That's what Russian wiki e.g. does. Miacek (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I have implemented the change per BOLD. Thylacoop5 (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure seems like "subculture" (i.e. subculture) is the more precise term to use in addition to being prominent among the reliable sources. Aside from Google hits (which includes untold numbers of unreliable sources), what is your reasoning for why it should change? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
If there are reliable sources that use both terms, then per WP:DUE you should use the term which is in wider usage. Thylacoop5 (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
DUE is about NPOV with regard to reliable sources, not Google hits. Precision also matters. "Subculture" and "community" are not synonyms such that we should use whichever term pops up more often. "group" or "people" might appear more often still. Subculture implies difference with the broader culture and a particular set of norms, values, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTTRUTH, "preciseness" or truth doesn't necessarily matter. Also, the term "subculture" is probably incorrect since the definition of "subculture" usually defines it as a group of people (with a parent culture). There are reliable sources that specifically claim that incels are loose-knit rather than a unified group. I can list them if you want. Therefore "subculture" also goes against some sources, whereas zero sources go against "online community". Thylacoop5 (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Obviously when I talk about precision it is based on what reliable sources say. When reading the body of literature about a subject, what is the most precise way to describe it according to those sources. That is not the same as "I googled it and there are more hits for this less specific word so we should use that." And now you are arguing that "subculture" means there's a group of people, "community" does not mean there's a group of people, and that reliable sources say there is no group of people? This is getting silly. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Subculture means incels have a parent culture. What is the parent culture of incels? Thylacoop5 (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Incel/Archive_2&oldid=1090562461"