Talk:Incel/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

"The term "involuntary celibacy" was first used in 1993."

Google books search gives results for this term beginning from 1807. Other search does state as per "Understanding sexuality Adelaide Haas, ‎Kurt Haas "Sometimes psychotherapy or counseling is needed to help people cope with involuntary celibacy (Brown, 1980)" So it seems that the term is definitely older than that. I have to add that a cursory review of search results shows a decent amount of coverage on the condition both in historic and psychological publications. I am really perplexed why there is such opposition to have an article on this subject.It should at least be a sub-section in Celibacy article. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it can't be covered in sexual abstinence? It's not that there is opposition to covering the various issues of not having sex or the lovelorn, it's that we should put them in common-name context. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It does seem to be older as a phrase ([1]), but does not seem to be used in the same way. I think it was first used in 1993 in the modern understanding of incels and entitled heterosexual masculinity. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The term "involuntary celibate" was used in that sense by Henry Flynt, 1975, "Blueprint for a Higher Civilization" 2600:1:971D:7513:B73D:4072:C958:893B (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Interesting point you make, IP. Add it to the article?Miacek (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The book states" The involuntarily celibate include people who are physically or psychologically handicapped, or socially rejected. Women and men who are imprisoned may also be prohibited sexual relations for many years" "in the modern understanding of incels and entitled heterosexual masculinity." As I understand incels come from all backgrounds and the term is not defined as "entitled heterosexual masculinity"(whatever that is)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

"re you suggesting it can't be covered in sexual abstinence?"

Abstinence invokes the possibility of choice, the term involuntary means lack of such choice. In any case where the condition is described the authors use the term involuntary celibacy not involuntary abstinence. There definitely is such term, it is decently covered.Why shouldn't it be described or have paragraph about it in celibacy article? Also it will need explanation in this page as well since the term incel comes from it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

What? "Involuntary" is well attested with sexual abstinence, at least since 1919. I'm fine with it being in the celibacy article, too, but others seem to have a problem with it preventing the merge several years ago (precisely because they maintained celibacy was voluntary) - so, since it fits in sexual abstinence according to the sources and that article put it there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

"Absolute Beginners" and "Whatever"

If the German term "Absolute Beginners" is mentioned though the word "incel" never comes up there I think it is kind of hollow to omit Whatever (novel) with the pretext that it does not use the word "incel".Miacek (talk) 08:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Miacek: Can you provide a reliable, independent source discussing Whatever in the context of the incel subculture? GorillaWarfare (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

My point was that the "Absolute Beginners" stuff does not mention explicitly "incels". Why are you ignoring this point? Miacek (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Can I expect an answer?Miacek (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Consider, perhaps, that I was busy and not ignoring you. I try to respond quickly, but my offline life, work, and personal obligations take precedence over Wikipedia. You're right that the source about "Absolute Beginners" does not mention incels (and it's the primary source, I think, which shouldn't be used). I looked for reliable sources connecting the two but didn't see any, so I'll remove it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Disputing neutrality

It seems to me this article conflates a topic of psychology and medicine with sensationalism and is citing the NYT and SPLC to do it, associating anyone who can't get a girlfriend as a potential shooter. This is on the verge of bullying imo. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to link from those violent examples (Rodger, Mercer, Minassian) pages to a more neutral (less sensational) version of this page instead of associating these shooters with anyone who may be "involuntarily celibate"? Thanks. Aquinassixthway (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Are there specific ways you would change it? Keep in mind that any content should be supported by reliable sources (like NYT or, for some things, SPLC, but not limited to those of course). As the article is just starting, there's still certainly a lot to do. We don't want to be saying that "anyone who can't get a girlfriend [is] a potential shooter", and to be clear this isn't necessarily about people who can't get girlfriends but about this specific neologism and its associated community (not that they're all potential shooters, either). At the same time, we can only cover it to the extent it's covered in reliable sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The easiest method would be a new article for "Involuntary celibacy (ideology)." The way it reads now suggests all incels subscribe to incel "ideology". PUAhate and the like have no doubt contributed to fomenting violence but associating that group, and their violence, with the state of being without a partner is at odds with the origins of the term as described in Terminology and the first half of Definition. Aquinassixthway (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Involuntary celibacy (ideology) or similar seems to me to be the right way to go. This is a tiny minority of men: most men who can't get a girlfriend do not harbour these sorts of sentiments. -- The Anome (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Further to this, the whole 'ideology' is predicated on the belief that extra-marital sex is 'normal.' No doubt it has been normalized in western countries thanks to the sexual revolution, but there are also large religious and other communities who believe that sex outside of marriage is immoral. Put another way, just because some guys can't get laid, and want to, that doesn't mean everyone thinks that they ought to be doing so.198.161.4.63 (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

In my research I did find some interesting discussions of how the communities have formed around ideas that it's "normal" and "masculine" for men to be having a lot of sex — maybe later tonight I'll try to add some of that, it was interesting and I think relevant here. As for people not having sex because of religion, etc., I don't see how that's relevant here—that's more a topic for Celibacy or Sexual abstinence, and they both already discuss it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It's kind of ridiculous to think that just because VICE magazine and a few losers think that "incel" is an actual thing, we need an entire encyclopedia article about it. At the least, this should be treated the same as the "freemen on the land" nonsense.198.161.4.63 (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

They have an article too... GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Involuntary celibacy is a life circumstance, "incel" *can* mean the blackpill, which is an ideology specific to many, but not all incel or involuntary celibate forums. If we want to make the entire article about people associated with blackpill ideology, then just rename the entire article "The Blackpill". Involuntary: "one without will or conscious control" Celibacy: "the state of abstaining from marriage and sexual relations". Allana's defunct website, and the active love-shy.net (which considers incel and love-shy as near synonyms and has hosted both groups since 2003) communities as well as many people outside 4chan use the hard definition unrelated to the blackpill. Would be good to include more info about severe physical disabilities causing inceldom instead of conflating the "blackpill" with a term with a fairly obvious meaning. The version before I edited it definitely had a bias steered way too much to the most caustic 4chan and 4chan-like boards. Also, the SPLC didn't add incels to their list of hate groups. See https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/groups it's not in there, they just did the same thing with incels that they did with MRAs, they made an article about sexist and violent patterns within communities but didn't officially add the whole shebang to their official list of hate groups. The New York Times article is just one opinion of many, it's essentially a blog and the author has no relation to any incel communities to make the author notable. Willwill0415 (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, sources please. As for the SPLC, the article does not say that the SPLC added incels to their list of hate groups. It does say they added "male supremacy" as a hate group, which is easily verified by clicking through the references or a simple Google search. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I have just caught up with this media wave. I must say that, as someone is involuntarily celibate, I do not like this article. It's as if you looked up the Wikipedia article for Muslim and found a list of terrorist attacks by ISIL or looked up the article for Christian and read about Ian Paisley and the UVF. This article associates being involuntarily celibate with an extremist ideology, and it does this without any robust evidence whatsoever. The sources currently used would never be accepted to give descriptions of hate speech or terrorism on other pages. Just because I've never had a partner doesn't mean that I hate women or that I justify rape or violence! I completely agree with the suggestion made by Aquinassixthway at the start. You are a good person. Epa101 (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Epa101: I feel like a broken record. Please provide reliable sources to support your points and they can be worked into the article. This talk page is full of a lot of people who disagree with portions of this article, but who are notably silent when asked to provide sources that show discussion of "involuntary celibacy" outside of the violent subculture is any kind of significant viewpoint rather than just a rarely-used term for sexual frustration. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Epa101: First, just about everyone that is Celibate is involuntarily so. Meaning, very few would pass up a chance for sex under the right circumstance with a desirable partner. You are describing a symptom, not a condition. Those trying to make the symptom a condition are doing a great disservice to those affected by the various conditions that lead to that symptom. If people identify with the online subculture, then they are part of that culture. You see, we do have articles on ISIS, Al Qaeda, the KKK and Nazis. What you are basically saying is that a white person can say, "Hey, I'm white, why have an article on the KKK & Nazis? Are you calling me a Nazi?" --Well no. But if you identify with Nazis, post on their message boards, defend them, then you're probably a Nazi. Reliable sources detail how the online subculture has promoted rape, violence and hate towards women. And men who have sex with women. That's what the article is based on. There is a difference between Sexual frustration, Erectile dysfunction, a Sexless marriage and taking those conditions into the online subculture for grievances rather than seeking the proper treatments. One way leads to help, the other to Sociopathy. Dave Dial (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not a fair comparison, because none of our articles state or imply that a high proportion of Muslims are terrorists or white people neo-Nazis. Not only are most incels not part of the subculture, not all those who are part of it are misogynist or violent. An animal rights forum would likely attract a tiny minority of extremists who advocate breaking into laboratories and releasing the animals, but that doesn't mean that mainstream animal rights activism has that as one of its aims. Jim Michael (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Nor does this article state or imply that a high number of people who are celibate (whether by choice or otherwise) are members of the "involuntary celibacy" subcommunity. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The whole article is just a mess and only English version of it. Russian, Japanese or Chinese versions refer to the term just as a synonym for "love shy" and relate it with NEETdom. It's politicization by people from certain communities is just astonishing. And chosen RSes are very specific, like bunch of people thinking the Earth is flat has gathered in the same place and are promoting only their quite specific world view. Please, stop mixing a social phenomenon of a person unable to find a sexual partner with mass murderers or anything similar. And how "involuntary" can even be considered part of an "ideology"? Ivan Dolvichev (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ivan Dolvichev: Please provide your reliable sources supporting changes to this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ivan Dolvichev: Also, I'm curious, did someone post this article somewhere asking for folks to come give their thoughts on the talk page? I've just noticed a bunch of folks such as yourself who haven't edited before showing up on this talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: If you feel like a broken record, then stop saying the same thing all the time. The burden is on you - not me - to provide reliable sources. Wikipedia's policy that you highlighted is that, if there are no reliable sources, then there should be no article. There are no reliable sources for the claim that involuntary celibate people are terrorists and misogynists, so you should not say this. There is only one academic reference in this article. Most of the references are either from unreliable sources, such as The Atlantic or the New York Post, or from comment pieces that offer a subjective opinion. I did also provide sources for the argument that I was making. I said that the article for Muslim doesn't reference ISIL and that the article for Christian doesn't reference the UVF. Maybe if you're not British or Irish, you don't know what the UVF is, but they killed a lot of people in the name of Protestant Christianity. Epa101 (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Epa101: The article as it stands now is well-cited. However, you and others are suggesting changes without providing reliable sources to support them. The burden, as you said, is on you for that.

The article does not say involuntarily celibate people are terrorists (although some of the sources do: [2], [3] at a glance, would have to re-read others to find which say it in the article body). For "misogyny," all you have to do is scroll down to the references section and ctrl-f "misogyn"—it lights up like a Christmas tree with sources saying that the incel subculture is characterized by misogyny. As for the sources, The Atlantic is widely considered reliable at WP:RSN. You're right that The New York Post is iffier (it can be sensationalist, for sure). However, the one instance in this article where it's used as a reference, it is paired with another reference to The Guardian.

As for your point about academic sources, I've discussed that in a few places on this page. The very few academic sources I have found that mention "involuntary celibacy" are discussing sexual frustration, sexual abstinence, and loneliness. They are few and far between compared to the body of research I've seen discussing those phenomena, which is why I don't believe it makes sense to expand this article to try to discuss involuntary celibacy as more than a subculture. As for academic sources that discuss the subculture, feel free to add any you might have access to. I've found a couple that look like they might discuss it, but as I'm no longer in college, I no longer have access to the academic databases that would let me read them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I accept that you are trying to see my perspective on this. I feel that many of the sources currently in the article would struggle to stand up on the WP:RSN, where they seem fairly tough on fact-checking. It is now 12:21am here but I shall work through the sources tomorrow and, if I feel that the sources are not sufficiently robust to justify the claim, refer them to the WP:RSN. Epa101 (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Would appreciate a ping to those conversations just so I can follow along, but I'll keep an eye out. As a quick note, if you edit a comment to add a ping, you need to re-add the ~~~~ signature or it won't actually notify the person. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dave Dial: I think that your logic is flawed here. If the article for being White had lengthy sections on being a neo-Nazi, then that would be wrong - but it only mentions Nazism very briefly. Having a separate article is fine. I see that there is an article for the Reddit incel group that got deleted, and that is fine. What is not fine is implying that all involuntary celibate people are terrorists or misogynists. That is akin to claiming that all Muslims are Islamist terrorists or that all Christians are like Ian Paisley. Epa101 (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. There are no "Involuntary celibate" people outside of the subculture. And that is what this article is about, the subculture. And reliable sources state clearly that the subculture is misogynist, hostile & can be violent. We reflect what the reliable sources state. People not in the subculture that you, and others, want to label as "involuntary celibate", are not. You, and some other editors here, are not reliable sources. Dave Dial (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please state your reliable sources. You've made some rather bold claims there, and they require very good sources. Epa101 (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Just by a quick look on Google Scholar, I have identified academic sources on the topic: 1, 2, 3, 4. I suggest that the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources that is quoted above supports this sort of study rather than the references that are in the article currently. I hope to read these academic articles and add to the Wikipedia article when I have time, but I stand by my point that associations of being involuntary celibate and terrorism/misogyny cannot be justified by a few web links to sources that are not exactly known for robust academic research any more than we would permit referencing Fox News to associate Islam with terrorism. Epa101 (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

All four of those links point to what Denise Donnelly wrote in one of her studies. That has been discussed over and over and over again. Read the last AfD of the article. It has been proven that we already have several articles covering the basic conditions that lead to being celibate, either voluntary or involuntary. If you don't read the AfD and probably the previous AfDs too, you will continue to be confused and not understand you are just tilting at windmills with your claims there is some other thing called "Involuntary celibacy" not included in the onlince subculture. Dave Dial (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

There are certainly many involuntarily celibate people outside the subculture and I disagree with this article being restricted to the subculture. It would be like saying that all motorcyclists are in motorcycle clubs. Some people in the subculture are misogynist, violent etc. - but not everyone within it is. Jim Michael (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

That's well and good that you disagree, but without reliable sources supporting that "involuntary celibacy" is a notable phenomenon outside the subculture, it's irrelevant. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dave Dial: @GorillaWarfare: I have now posted my thoughts in full on the WP:RSN noticeboard. You are invited to share your thoughts there. I have also suggested making use of this source as a less sensationalist description of the online incel community, written before the tragic events in Toronto. Epa101 (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC) @Dave Dial: Separately, you seem to be saying that this article is just about the online incel movement. I understand more what you're saying now, although I would still question whether a glut of media coverage (questionable sources) in the last month should redefine words that have been in our respected dictionaries (reliable sources) for centuries. If this article is to focus on the online movement, then I would be in favour of renaming the article. Epa101 (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Epa101: Thanks for the ping! I'll go read through that section in a moment. Regarding the Psychology Today article you're suggesting, I was actually using that and another article by that author until it was pointed out to me elsewhere on this talk page that those are both blog posts (see the URL, or click through on the section of the website). As for your comment on media sources, media sources are widely used as reliable sources throughout Wikipedia—if you want that to change it'll require quite the discussion. Regarding redefining words, I'm not aware of any dictionary that includes the term "involuntary celibacy", but regardless, Wiktionary is the place for cut-and-dried definitions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: No responses yet. I struggle to understand how reliable media sources are agreed upon on Wikipedia. To my knowledge, the only mass-media source that is banned completely is the Daily Mail. I agree that the Daily Mail is sensationalist and very selective with its facts, but it is not the only one. It is not obvious to me when a mass-media source is acceptable or not, and it seems to me that this is not applied consistently across Wikipedia. If you tried to use similar sources to edit an article on Islam or clinical depression or zoology, I think that you would get reverted swiftly. On the dictionary point, your statement that "involuntary celibacy" is not in the dictionary would suggest that the sole definition of it promoted by Dave Dial is not widely accepted by reliable sources. As you say, we do not define words on Wikipedia, but I would vote in favour of renaming the article. Epa101 (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Epa101: Typically, any established news source that has an editorial board and a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is usable (with the caveat that we can't use writings that aren't subject to this fact-checking, like opinion pieces, blog posts, or user-submitted content). That is obviously a bit vague, so when a source comes into question that's where the RSN comes in. I'm surprised no one has commented there yet—hopefully they will with a bit more time. The Daily Mail situation was an unusual one, and I was surprised to see a formal ban put into place. Usually it's enough to agree that a source is unreliable, and remove instances where it's used—I think the Daily Mail decision was probably because it's such a well-known and prolific publication that it was being used very frequently.

I disagree with your conclusion on the dictionary thing. Dictionaries are typically not in the business of adding terms for subcultures—I doubt Merriam-Webster has entries for juggalos or rivetheads—but that doesn't mean the subcultures don't exist or can't be accurately defined.

Regarding Islam, clinical depression, and zoology—you're right that these types of sources would be inappropriate to use for clinical depression, but that's because of WP:MEDRS, which requires a higher standard for sources discussing medical topics. Islam and zoology are widely covered in exceptionally high-quality sources (peer-reviewed journals, etc.) and so those tend to be preferred when they're available, but take a look at the reference section of Islam and you'll also see The Guardian, BBC News, The New York Times, and other sources like the ones used here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: It doesn't look as if anyone is going to reply. I was hoping that someone would clarify the acceptability of using media sources after a tragic event in this case, but I'm willing to give up the argument on reliable sources now. There are two changes that I feel justified in making, as my investigations found that the sources did not justify the text. I'm going to delete the line Many male incels also believe that modern society is gynocentric, and that women are predisposed to hypergamy. as the reference does not say this: it is talking about the manosphere rather than male incels and this reference belong on the manosphere article. Second, I'm going to edit the part about /r/braincells as the only source given that mentions /r/braincells is the Irish Journal one and, combined with three sources on different subjects, it seems either not justifiable by the sources or perhaps original research by combination of myriad sources. Epa101 (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Epa101: That's a shame, I was hoping some folks would. No real objection to your edits (I can't verify the first point because I can't access the article, but I trust between you and other folks who can you'll sort it out). As for the second edit, I did go in and try to remove the direct quotes as much as possible. There were three in two sentences, and four in that small section, which was making it pretty choppy to read. This is the edit if you care to review. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, can you try to use American English spelling where possible? I feel kind of bad asking, since the only reason it's in AmEng is because I'm American and I started it, but per WP:ENGVAR where there's no strong reason for it being in one or the other (such as with this article), it should maintain consistency. Not a huge deal, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: That seems OK. I like to use direct quotes to prove that I'm not misrepresenting the source, but I see how it might disrupt the flow of the article. I also accept that American English is used in this article. Epa101 (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Epa101: I think an existing reference of the Wiki page, [4], addresses the origin and evolution of the term, and has been overlooked. The article states that the term began "in a harmless fashion", which is important and worth noting. (I myself was very confused when learning this term for the first time, and this piece of information would certainly help.) This article does also say that it is unknown "whether incels are all dangerous", which is also where some people insist on reliable sources, but I feel this is where common sense comes in play. Before any serious investigation into this problem (which I doubt if there will ever be), proper comments should be made in the section. Rwalle (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

"There are no "Involuntary celibate" people outside of the subculture." pure dogmaticism supported by no evidence whatsoever. I have a good female friend who is also incel like me and she does not belong to any subculture. Miacek (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Then she's not an incel, regardless of her desired or actual sexual activity. When we say that there are no "Involuntary celibate" people outside of the subculture, we don't mean all people who could plausibly be described by the words "involuntary" and "celibate" are part of the incel subculture, we mean people who aren't part of the incel subculture aren't incels, regardless of whether they could plausibly be described by the words "involuntary" and "celibate". The word has a more specific meaning than the literal interpretation of its components. Not to re-use my own analogy, it's like how saying someone is Antifa implies more than just that they're against fascism; if "antifa" meant no more than "anti+fascism", then probably a large majority of the US population would be considered part of it. It's a synecdoche. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The view that you cannot be involunary celibate without belonging to this or that subculture is POV. I'd underscore that the first versions of this article also avoided pushing such [5] POV. Moreover, the respective russian and German pages also avoid pushing such a POV. Miacek (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

That you describe them as "involuntary celibates" doesn't mean they self-identify as "incels". We've been over this several times. The broader concept that exists outside of this subculture is covered at sexual frustration, celibacy, sexual abstinence, etc. It is the subculture that became notable with coverage after recent events. The other concept, seeking to cover the idea of "involuntary celibacy" as a broad phenomenon and the subculture as one part of that, has been rejected as a separate article multiple times. That said, if you would like to try again, you can always start the article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The article celibacy says "Celibacy (from Latin, cælibatus") is the state of voluntarily being unmarried". How does this relate to being unvoluntarily unmarried? This is like saying heterosexuality and homosexuality are both sexual orientations, hence 2 articles are not necessary. What is more, we do have separate articles on essentially related terms like bisexuality and heteroflexible, despite the fact that the latter patently is a form of the former, but fine, a subculture like that does exist. Why then be so intolerant on heterosexual varieties? Miacek (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Because this article isn't about "involuntary celibacy" any more, it's about incels, which are not the same as people who are "involuntarily celibate". That's the whole point of the move request below: the two are not the same, and this article is only about one of them. The state of being "involuntarily celibate" is not the same as being an incel. Calling yourself an incel implies you're part of the incel subculture, not because of your sexual activity level but because that's the term you're choosing to describe and identify yourself with. Not being sexually active despite wanting to be (i.e. being "involuntarily celibate") doesn't make you an incel; only identifying with the subculture does that.

If you call yourself an incel while not being part of the incel subculture, you should probably reconsider your terminology. You have the right to identify with and call yourself whatever you want, of course, and I would never say that you don't. But the word "incel" has a meaning, and that meaning is more than just the combination of "involuntary" and "celibate"; it means the subculture, and if you call yourself that to anyone else, you're gonna carry that weight. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

That's just a bunch of OR terminology games. And why did you conveniently ignore my other points? A quick Internet research reveals [6] "incel" is just an abbreviation of "involuntary celibate".Miacek (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and "Antifa" is just an abbreviation of "anti-fascist", and "BLM" is just an abbreviation of "Black Lives Matter", and "IBM" is just an abbreviation of "International Business Machines". If you think any of those terms mean no more than what they literally abbreviate, then you're just wrong. Your other points aren't relevant; this article is about incels as a subculture, not involuntary celibacy as a state of being; the scope of this article has changed, as evidenced by the move discussion below. The article on involuntary celibacy as a state of being doesn't exist on the English Wikipedia; this is not it. What articles other language encyclopedias have aren't relevant because each language Wikipedia is a project unto itself, and what other articles on Wikipedia exist aren't relevant because they're not this article. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is frequently overcited but it is kind of relevant here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Miacek: How many times are we going to have the same conversation over and over? And how many times will I have to point out that your own experiences as an incel or your anecdotal evidence from forums and friends is not useful in shaping this article? This is becoming extremely frustrating and is wasting a lot of peoples' time. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

A clear straw man argument. I mentioned only once that I'm an incel and have an incel friend and have never brought up stuff from incel forums (that I simply don't read).Miacek (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps I've confused you with someone else on this page—the arguments blend together a bit. Still, we can really only have the same argument so many times over whether this page is about the incel subculture/online communities or if its about the literal interpretation of "involuntary + celibacy". My recommendation? If you really think that there is sufficient sourcing to discuss the phenomenon as a) a real thing, and b) primarily referred to by that term (vs. sexual frustration, etc. etc.), draft either a version of this page or a separate page on "involuntary celibacy" and start a formal RfC (or in the latter case, a DRV might be more appropriate). If you do so, however, I would strongly recommend you read up on reliable sourcing first. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you for your advice, I may indeed proceed so. I find it ironic though that you find it worthwhile to lecture someone who has started more than twice the number of articles you have on "strongly reading reliable sourcing first". Thank you for the laugh anyway.Miacek (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Given that you seem to think that introducing "sources" like this is OK, I think GorillaWarfare has a completely valid point. And whilst you might have started a lot of articles, I'm guessing that GorillaWarfare probably created proper articles with sources, unlike this, this, this, this ... shall I continue? Black Kite (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Really? If you wanna dismiss all my article work that has rightly being praised even outside Wikipedia, how is this stub [7] better than my stubs such as Rostislav Petera that has wholly 9 sources in Czech Wikipedia yet you present as some sort of rubbish?Miacek (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Brother, you were the one to bring up an appeal to authority based on article creation count. Don't get pissed when someone points out that when you do provide sources, they're shit.--Jorm (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Really? You called out GorillaWarfare for not creating articles and I pointed out that numerous of yours are completely unsourced. The facts are there. Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Not to defend Miacek, but I think Gorilawarfare's edits are similarly indefensible. For example, in this edit they seem to misrepresent the WP:RSOPINION guideline. Opinion articles are allowed if they are attributed to author (on reputable papers). Since Toronto Star is a broadsheet, has an editorial board and has a long history, it is arguably a reputable source + it had attribution. Thylacoop5 (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC) @ User:Writ Keeper. I think you're argument may be based upon a misunderstanding of how the English language works. A term can have multiple senses. One of the senses refers to the online community. The other sense refers to involuntary celibates in general. @User talk:Miacek, I created a userbox for self-identified incels; you might be interested in it. Thylacoop5 (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC) Thanks for creating the userbox, folks may find it worthwhile. I won't add it myself to my userpage though, just as I don't add the userbox "Bisexual" as I think they needlessly label an editor.Miacek (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC) I know how English works, and I know that words can have more than one meaning, but thanks for your condescension. I could comment on the irony of mistaking "your" with "you're" when telling others they don't know how English works, so I did. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC) If there were a bunch of lexicographers joining in on this discussion, Miacek's argument would hold more weight. That's because lexicographers favor descriptivism over presciptivism when defining words. As a whole, incel as a subculture = prescriptivist. Incel as involuntary celibates = descriptivist. Thylacoop5 (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

FAQ

Given how often certain questions come up, this page seems like a good candidate for a talk page FAQ.

I went ahead and started one, which is now displayed at the top of this page (and located at Talk:Involuntary celibacy/FAQ). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: looks good to me! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Nice, thanks for that! Hopefully people actually see/read it and don't just scroll past all the yellow boxes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: The FAQ is very helpful. Should some contents in FAQ be incorporated in the main article, or added to a hatnote with those references to sexual frustration, celibacy, and sexual abstinence? I think many people are confused when reading the introduction of the Wiki page, but additional comments may help. Just note that most people never read the "talk" pages or even know that they exist. (sorry I do not have sources to support this) Rwalle (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Maybe something like this:

This article is about members of the incel subculture who self-identify as involuntarily celibate. For the inability to find romantic or sexual partners in general, see sexual frustration and celibacy. For other uses, see incel (disambiguation).

A little wordy, though... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I did add a hatnote a while back, but it didn't take:

This page is about the online communities of "involuntary celibates" or "incels". For the topic of people who wish to find a romantic or sexual partner but cannot, see sexual frustration.

[8]

Undone shortly after: [9] GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes it's mentioned in a section above. Was reverted by RichardWeiss, who said above "We don't need a hat-note, we have a section on this, and yeah, an unsourced definition". I'm not sure what unsourced definition this refers to, but I don't think we have a section as such (or at least don't now -- I'm not saying it didn't exist at the time). Regardless, I'm not aware of any guideline that says that if an article title could easily be confused for another topic, but that topic is mentioned somewhere in the article, then it's preferable not to have a hatnote (and for readers to read through to that section to realize what they want is elsewehre?). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

An unsourced definition is one which isn't verified, same rules as apply to article space. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 05:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The hat note claimed that "the topic of people who wish to find a romantic or sexual partner but cannot" which is an unsourced and inaccurate definition. If not find a source and bring it here. I can see no good reason to link to sexual frustration in the hat note, that is a much bigger topic, and it isn't likely people come here looking for the sf article, which would be the reason to hat-note. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 05:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Sub-culture vs. wider variety

Most sources clearly do no identify incels aka involuntary celibates as a particular subculture, rather than as a variety of celibates. See e.g. this search. The article should reflect a consensus.Miacek (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Miacek, no offense, but you're arguments would gain more traction if you sought a compromise rather than a stance that is widely at odds with a good chunk of editors. Maybe consider improving this or this. I believe that "online community" in the lede sentence is such a compromise. Thoughts? Thylacoop5 (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Miacek: This is exactly what I commented on yesterday at your discussion in the earlier section when I said How many times are we going to have the same conversation over and over? This is becoming extremely frustrating and is wasting a lot of peoples' time. Now you're just starting another section to make the same argument, and repeating the Google search results point made in the section just above this (which you participated in, so I assume you've seen) that was explained to be unhelpful. This is bordering on disruptive editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The subculture is what is notable, not the "variety of celibates". EvergreenFir (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Thylacoop5:, yes these drafts are moving in the right direction and should be introduced into the article.

@GorillaWarfare: no-one "explained" me why Google Search results were "unhelpful". Instead, you conveniently ignored that point and engaged in ad hominen. Please, try to finally address the issues raised instead.Miacek (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes they did: Google hits (... include untold numbers of unreliable sources) [10], DUE is about NPOV with regard to reliable sources, not Google hits. [11], 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." [12]. You can also read WP:GHITS and WP:GOOGLE for more details—this is not hard stuff to find, and as you've pointed out you're experienced with this community and so should be familiar. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

First, why are articles this search reveals less suitable than the ones we have in the article? Second, even a number of Google Books exist, that treat the issue, without paying undue attention to the supposed "subculture" idea: [13].Miacek (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Great, let's see the sources—the individual sources, not just a Google search—we don't create articles with just a link to Google search results in the references section, nor is it enough to create change in a talk page. Better yet, work them into a draft like you said you might. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, shall we create some kind of a draft page, that me and others can edit to eventually update this article?Miacek (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Go for it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

"There have been a number of mass murders in North America by men who have self-identified as involuntarily celibate"

Isn't this original research? The list only includes only one who self-identified as incel. Two others are are a bit of a stretch, and even if they were three, this seems to be a bit exaggerated to call it "a number of mass murders", nobody denies there were cases like that, but this is so limited writing about "number of mass murders" seems really over exaggerating due to recent event(see Wikipedia:Recentism)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount: I imagine you're referring to either Rodger or Minassian when you say the list only includes one who self-identified as an incel, but I'm not sure which you're referring to, so I'll discuss all three.

• Rodger posted in PUAhate, a former incel community, and discussed being an incel both there and in his manifesto.
• Minassian posted about "The Incel Rebellion has already begun! We will overthrow all the Chads and Stacys! All hail the Supreme Gentleman Elliot Rodger!" and spoke about his activities on 4chan. He has, however, not yet been convicted of any crime, so we have to word carefully.
• Harper-Mercer was suspected of posting a threat to an incel community before the Oregon attack, though it's unclear from available sources if this was ever determined one way or another.

There was wording in the header to clarify that some of the people in the list are a little hazier than others (with Minassian not being convicted, and with Harper-Mercer's posts not being definitively tied to him) but that has been removed several times for several reasons. However, I do think the sourcing is strong enough for the list to remain in some form. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Although this thread has gone cold for several days, it strikes me as remaining an open question. The word "several" in the last sentence of the intro sent me looking for a list or accounting, and the number identified in the list is four. "A few" might be more accurate than "several" to describe four verifiable incidents, but "few" has a minimizing connotation of "oh, not that many," whereas "several" has its own connotative problems (might imply more than four in four years). I've made a modest change, but I probably won't be back to argue the point. How about "at least four"? The problem is that as the list changes, the count in the sentence will need to be maintained; however, "at least" allows for the existence of other incidents, perhaps less verifiable or debatable as to the killer's incel status, while not leaving non-encyclopedic room for interpretation—my reaction was "Several?!" I do feel that there might be a better way to make this statement. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cynwolfe: I think "at least four" is an improvement. Agreed that "a few" is minimizing it, and "several" is too vague: could be two or twenty. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Nikolas Cruz

If William Atchison is being identified as incel because he praised Elliot Rodger, shouldn't Nikolas Cruz also be considered an incel?

Not sure how reliable the source is but it checks out with some of the online postings I've seen from him: https://babe.net/2018/02/15/nikolas-cruz-elliot-rodger-35621

--Franz Brod (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Possibly... I don't think that source is sufficient, though—we'd need something a bit stronger, and something that discusses Cruz in the context of involuntary celibacy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Here’s one from Daily Beast about him praising Elliot Rodger, doesn’t say anything about him being an incel though: https://www.thedailybeast.com/nikolas-cruz-trained-with-florida-white-supremacist-group-leader-says --Franz Brod (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

While I agree on a personal level that a guy praising Elliot Rodger probably is at least sympathetic towards incels, if not a self-identified one, what should be included in that list is probably worth a broader discussion. I'm going to split out a section below... GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

List of mass murders by self-identified incels

I'd like to get some opinions on the "List of mass murders by self-identified incels" section. When I first created this article (and this section) the page was less strictly scoped to incels as the online subculture, and so I included some folks in the list who attributed their murders to their inability to find partners (such as Edmund Kemper and David Berkowitz) but pre-dated the online subculture or didn't necessarily identify themselves as members. To be clear, I entirely agree with the stricter scope of this article now, but it does leave us in a bit of a bind when it comes to that list.

• Elliot Rodger (2014 Isla Vista killings) is a non-issue. He can clearly be included in the list, given he posted to incel forums like PUAhate and was a clear member of the subculture.
• Chris Harper-Mercer (Umpqua Community College shooting) is a little murkier: someone suspected to be him posted to a forum known to be populated by incels, forewarning of an attack. However this has never been confirmed (nor has it been disproven) and given he committed suicide after the attack it may be something that's been dropped.
• William Atchison (Aztec High School shooting) used the pseudonym "Elliot Rodger" on several online forums, and praised "the supreme gentleman", but the forums have not been identified as specifically incel forums
• Alek Minassian (suspect in the Toronto van attack) quite clearly identified as incel (posting about the "incel rebellion" and praising Rodger) but has not been tried

In the above section, Franz Brod asks about whether Nikolas Cruz (Stoneman Douglas High School shooting) should be added, because he too praised Rodger.

The problem here is that there is an extremely high amount of sourcing required to be able to firmly say that a given attacker self-identified as incel; Rodger and Minassian are the two people in this list who publicly announced their membership in the community, and can clearly be included (with the caveat that Minassian hasn't been convicted). It's highly unlikely that Atchison and Cruz praised Rodger without identifying with his incel beliefs, but this is where original research murkiness comes in.

What should we do with that section? It has in the past been titled things like "List of mass murders committed or suspected to be committed by self-identified incels" (to handle the Minassian issue) though that is understandably unwieldy. It could also be retitled to something that more clearly expresses that the list also contains people who share beliefs or idolize people like Rodger, without requiring the standard of proof required by the "self-identified" label. The other option, and the one I'm starting to lean towards, is capturing this information in prose and doing away with the table so that the circumstances of each can be explained. While I really like the readability of the table, it is hard to express this kind of nuance there. Any thoughts? GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Prose seems better. "by self-identified incels" is very strict, while in prose we can describe the full context and the standard becomes whether sources describe the shooting in the context of incels and so we can write about it (as with George Sodini), not whether the mass murder was definitely committed by a self-identified incel. The table anyhow has quite a bit of prose. I returned the unwieldy title, per BLP shouldn't imply that that he definitely committed and it is also more accurate description of the list Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I support your concept of presenting this content as prose, GorillaWarfare, as this allows us to portray the murkiness of the identifications and the varying levels of evidence. A table tends to force binary decisions of "include" or "exclude", whereas prose allows for more nuance, as long as any mention of a person in the prose section complies with core content policies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I do have to say that I agree on the readability of the table, and that converting to prose may make it closer to a list in prose form, i.e disconnected paragraphs that are hard to parse (though that may be possible to remedy); maybe just title it "list of mass-murders associated with incel"? Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me the most straightforward way to go would be to use prose and reframe the section as something like "violence" (at the broadest) or "connections to mass murderers" (a bit narrower, including connections reliable sources make, whether they be people who self-identify as incels or mass murderers they've celebrated/claimed). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Rhododendrites' suggestion of prose and renaming to violence. Thylacoop5 (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm about to start turning it into prose, but I'm curious why you (@Rhododendrites and Thylacoop5:) are suggesting to rename it to "violence" -- right now everything in there is mass murders, is there some other non-mass-murder violence that you think should be added? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:LEDE

WP:LEDE requires that the lede "summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Since the body mentions two mixed-gender incel groups (Alana's and ForeverAlone), as well as a female forum, I think that the phrase "almost exclusively male" is a bit fervent and sweeping. I propose changing it to "mostly male" or "primarily male". Any thoughts on that? Thylacoop5 (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Speaking generally, I would warn against trying to change descriptors like this based solely on what is discussed in the article, because that goes into WP:SYNTH territory. For example, although the article on the Apollo program mentions that there are people who believe the moon landing was staged, but the lead says that "The Apollo program ... accomplished landing the first humans on the Moon", not that "The Apollo program ... may have accomplished landing the first humans on the Moon." This is obviously an extreme example, but WP:UNDUE requires that these things be represented fairly

That said, I don't have any major objections to changing the wording to "mostly male" or "primarily male" or somesuch. The three supporting sources say:

• these are primarily heterosexual white men [14]
• the people who identify with the label are almost exclusively male [15]
• The term describes a subculture of mostly heterosexual men [16]

Based on this, I think "almost exclusively," "mostly," or "primarily" are all fine to use, although the sources that say "primarily"/"mostly" are a bit ambiguous -- it's unclear if "mostly" applies to "heterosexual", "men", or, in the first one, "white". I'd prefer a stronger source clearly saying they're mostly male if possible. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The Atlantic: Incels, mostly male. What do you think of that source? Thylacoop5 (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I have edited it in your way, although I still think your interpretation of WP:Undue etc. is a bit "wp:paraphrasey". Various guidelines repeatedly ask you to use your own words, and yet here we are replicating the words in the citations. Thylacoop5 (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Stating that all incels are white

It is absurd to state that, when we know for certain that it's not true. You can see from incel forums that there are members from various ethnicities. There have been high profile incels of different races, including Elliot Rodger (who was Eurasian), Christopher Harper-Mercer (who stated that he was mixed-race) and Wilkes McDermid (who had Chinese parents). Jim Michael (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention Alek Minassian who's from Armenia, a nation that has the category "countries in Asia". Thylacoop5 (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I'm always down for a little WP:OR ... we should remove the sources which say they are, without qualification, white, namely, NBC and "The Week". Marteau (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

NBC don't say that all incels are white. Their article quotes the director of the SPLC, who also falsely claims that they're all in their late teens and early twenties. Jim Michael (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Good point. I'll go ahead and remove that source from the article as support for their whiteness. Marteau (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I would remove all allegations about the race of incels as being inadequately sourced. I did so yesterday because it was sourced to an analysis piece contrary to WP:NEWSORG... beyond it being an analysis piece, it had other problems preventing its use as a source for the race of incels. But the race thing was restored with NBC and "The Week" as a source. Marteau (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I've re-added the claim that they're mostly white after seeing it was removed by The Anome. I've included three four sources specifically for the whiteness claim:

• The Incel Movement has been identified as a strand of a broader trend of young white males being radicalised online. The Week
• "What makes the incel culture different is that these are primarily heterosexual white men..." (part of a quote attributed to Ross Haenfler, "associate professor of sociology at Grinnell College who studies subcultures and masculinity") Washington Post
• The term [incel] would soon be appropriated by groups of disaffected, young white males... CityNews
• "[Incels are] young, frustrated white males in their late teens into their early twenties who are having a hard time adjusting to adulthood." (part of a quote attributed to Heidi Beirich, the director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project) NBC News

I can probably find more if needed, but three four cites should be sufficient.

Edit: I've just re-added the NBC source. It's common for news articles to cite experts in their reporting—I don't at all follow the argument that that makes the source unusable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The fact that she makes a provably false claim is a major issue. It's easy to prove that they're not all white males in their late teens & early 20s - in fact, most aren't. Jim Michael (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it's being a bit overly literal to suggest that Beirich is claiming every single incel on the planet is white/male/teens–twenties/etc, and regardless, the Wikipedia article is quite clearly not saying that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

None of those sources say incels are "mostly" or "primarily" in the voice of the publication. They both attribute it. If we are going to slap an adverb in front of "white" it must be either in the voice of a reliable source, or attribute it. Marteau (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

And no, if a source such as SPLC does not qualify a category, it is not ours to put an adverb in front of their chosen categorization. Marteau (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've added two more sources. I really hope that's sufficient because that list of citation links is already unwieldy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The sources are sloppy, as evidenced by the ones which say they are 'white' without qualification, but I'm not going to fight it any more. Before I drop the stick and take a hike I do have to say that I find the implication made by the linking of incel pathologies to whiteness using Wikipedia's voice outrageous and logically unsound. As our article states, the incel phenomena is "Situated mostly in America"...that most of them are therefore white is not necessarily indicative of a white pathology, but is more likely matter of simple population distribution, and as such, bringing race into the article is unwarranted. For example, the source the WaPo cites used a study of incels which attributed the overwhelming whiteness of the participants to the fact that the majority of respondents had characteristics typical of people who have access to computers - young, male, white, well-educated individuals who hold professional jobs. Using such sloppy sourcing (and I include the two you just added... they are not top-notch to say the least) to imply in Wikipedia's voice that incel is a white thing and also implying it is a white pathology is irresponsible, unwarranted, and unnecessarily inflammatory. Although I know you won't, I wish you would re-consider but at this point I wash my hands of the whole sloppy mess and walk away with a clear conscience. Marteau (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Misleading OR

This sentence appears to be misleading original research, in the form of creating a novel synthesis to paint a picture of "incels" as violent racists when the sources don't really support this:

"Discussions in incel forums are often characterized by resentment, misanthropy, self-pity, misogyny, racism, entitlement to sex, and the endorsement of violence against sexually active people."

The problem is that these things are not found in anywhere near equal proportions in such message boards, and two of them (racism and endorsement of violence) are not even related to the topic, but rather are typical of angry white dudes. It's probable that the just as frequently if not more frequently talk about fast cars, video games, and pizza. It might be reasonable to do something like this:

"Discussions in incel forums are often characterized by resentment, misanthropy, self-pity, misogyny, and entitlement to sex. The demographic is also somewhat more likely to post racist material, and the endorsement of violence (against sexually active people in particular)."

Or something along these lines, based on a careful read of the sources. If they don't show a marked trend, but rather a blip, in either of the two outlier directions, they shouldn't be mentioned at all.

There are similar problems in the main body of the article, along similar lines, and sometimes worse. E.g., the material on "the black pill", a term from within the incel subculture, is characterized by WP only in the words of a harsh critic, clearly injecting a personal viewpoint that the actual users the term wouldn't agree with: 'In comparison, "taking the black pill" was described by WBUR-FM as meaning "I will now espouse violence, hatred and misogyny."' That's not permissible here; it's not encyclopedic writing, but misuse of WP for activism.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

PS: "endorsement of violence against sexually active people" also appears to be overly vague; so far I don't see much support for the notion in the sources I've looked at. There does seem to be an indication that a higher than average proportion of male incels as opposed to people in general are sympathetic toward rapists (at least in certain scenarios), but this doesn't appear to relate to whether the victims are sexually active or not. If there's a "we should beat up guys who get laid" kind of "endorsement of violence against sexually active people" meme in this crowd, it would seem to be less common. It may be that the rape-specific issue needs to be highlighted (but also without wrongly implying that a pro-rape stance is characteristic of incels, rather than simply more common among them).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Source says "infamous for its sexist, racist and homophobic language". What you appear to be saying is that we do our own OR to say that, since all angry white dudes are apparently typically racist, that we say something like "demographic" blah blah, instead of closer to what our sources say. Also - complaining about/hating more sexually active people is pretty much the main thing incels do..and endorsing violence is part of that (per sources, maybe change that to just endorsing violence, though; the guardian source repeatedly mentions violence). Why does it matter that that the "actual users the term wouldn't agree with"; per NPOV we just should report the sources that describe the term black pill, and how the actual users describe it if that is mentioned in the sources, not disinclude things because we think it is a personal viewpoint of a "harsh critic". Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree with Galobtter on this one. Your objections to that sentence seem to be based on your own view of the makeup of posts on incel forums—do you have any reliable sources that can support this? I don't think we can synthesize that angry white men are often racist and violent with the fact that many incels are angry white men and the fact that posts are characterized by racism and violence to come to the conclusion that the racism and violence is a result of them being angry white men and not incels (given that the racism and violence points are citing sources directly tying this to incels).

As for the black pill, it's unfair to say the material on "the black pill", a term from within the incel subculture, is characterized by WP only in the words of a harsh critic — there's a whole paragraph on it aside from the WBUR quote, and the quote is clearly attributed to its source (now the author, thanks Galobtter) rather than given in Wikipedia's voice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Dysmorphia

@User:GorillaWarfare What's wrong with this edit? Thylacoop5 (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You claimed that the wording "charcaterized" carries incorrect grammar, but I don't see how "allude" carries incorrect grammar. Thylacoop5 (talk) 09:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Do we know that a high proportion of incels suffer from the mental disorders listed? Jim Michael (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Two things—you're right that "allude to" makes sense with respect to depression/Asperger's/body dysmorphic disorder but then the other part of the sentence is weird—the discussions don't allude to resentment, etc., they are characterized by them. The second piece is that by including it there, the "often" is now applied to the disorders. The New Statesman source says "Many write about their struggles with depression, body dysmorphia or Asperger’s syndrome."—it's saying that many of the people on incel forums struggle with these things, not that many of the conversations discuss them. That's why I think it makes more sense for these disorders to be discussed in the context of members of incel communities, rather than in the context of forum posts. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• @User:GorillaWarfare I think there are strong arguments that NewStatesman discusses online conversations rather than a people/members. Firstly, look at terminology in preceding paragraphs; "discussion website", "a popular post", "Another post listed, in bullet-point form", "these spaces", "online incel communities", etc. This is tewrminology focused alluding to the forums, not the people. Secondly, look at the preceding sentence. It mentions r/Braincels, a reddit forum. Therefore "many" in the dysmorphia sentence refers to posts on the r/Braincels forum. WP:Due also comes into play as RS such as USAToday describe terms such as "subhuman" in the context of incel dicsussion forum slang; none AFAIK for people/members. Other sources corroborate that this is a theme on discussion forums; [17]. The dysmorphia reference evidently refers to forum posts titled heightcel or wristcel. Furthermore, when you discuss it in the context of people, it possibly violates WP:MEDRS. All-in-all, there's no way that Amelia Tait can be interpreted to mean offline/Real-life/medical diagnosis, and to do so would misrepresent the source. Thylacoop5 (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how you interpret that sentence to be referring to posts, not users. Posts can't write anything, users can, and posts certainly can't struggle with those things (except in a metonymic way which isn't the case here). More importantly, the full context of the sentence GW quotes is [...] users frequently refer to themselves as “deformed” and “subhuman”. Many write about their struggles with depression, body dysmorphia or Asperger’s syndrome. The "many" in the second sentence pretty clearly refers back to the "users" in the first. The piece might discuss posts elsewhere, but here, it's definitely talking about users. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Yeah, agreed with Writ Keeper. "Many [posts] write about their struggles with depression, body dysmorphia or Asperger’s syndrome" makes no sense—I could see "Many posts write" maybe being used informally (or sloppy grammar), but posts do not have struggles with depression, dysmorphia, or Asperger's. "Many [people] write about their struggles with depression, body dysmorphia or Asperger’s syndrome" doesn't require the assumption of poor grammar, and makes sense in the context of struggles with depression/etc. I think it's fine to say that many incels write about their experiences with these conditions—it's not us diagnosing them, it's them discussing their diagnoses/experiences. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@User:GorillaWarfare @User:Writ Keeper - In the sentence [...] here, users frequently refer to themselves as “deformed” and “subhuman” what does "here" refer to? Thylacoop5 (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

"Here" refers to the Reddit forum. Note that it's singular; "many" can't refer to the single forum they're talking about. In fact, nowhere in that paragraph are individual posts mentioned. There are only two plural nouns in that entire paragraph: "users" and "struggles". "Struggles" obviously isn't the antecedent of "many", and the other possible antecedents are all singular; thus, the only even remotely plausible antecedent for "many" is "users". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@User:Writ Keeper How about the interpretation "many users on that Reddit forum write about ...". Is that implausible? Thylacoop5 (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that the wording you were disagreeing with above? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Incel/incel-adjacent communities named in this article

It seems like more and more incel communities are being added to this article, and I'm starting to wonder if we should pare them down a bit. A quick audit:

• Alana's Involuntary Celibacy Project
• /r/incels
• Voat
• /r9k/
• /r/IncelsWithoutHate
• dateanincel.com
• /r/braincels
• /r/Femcels
• /r/ForeverAloneWomen
• PUAHate

This seems oddly long. Alana's Involuntary Celibacy Project, /r/incels, and PUAHate probably appear the most in sources and ought to remain, but many of the others enjoy only brief mentions in one or two sources. The current collection seems a excessive to me, but I figured I'd see if others had thoughts before going forward. Note: I refer to them as "incel communities" for the sake of brevity in this talk page discussion; I understand some of these like Voat are entire platforms, like /r9k/ are multi-purpose communities, etc. etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

That's ten communities. It seems to have precedence in other articles as other online subcultures such as Furry fandom mention 13 online communities. Thylacoop5 (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Jargon and MOS:HEAD

Incel jargon is covered quite a lot in sources. Not sure why that was deleted. Also, MOS:HEAD requires the heading describes the topic. Since some of content in the "history" section doesn't discuss past events (i.e. history), either the title should be changed or the material should be split. Some of the other section titles similarly do not reflect the section title Thylacoop5 (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

When you say "incel jargon" do you mean the "chads"/"stacies"/etc. stuff? If so, it wasn't deleted—ctrl-f "chad" or look at the bottom of the ideology section. Which part of the history section doesn't cover past events? If you mean the last sentence, it could be rephrased to "The term "involuntary celibate" or "incel" is and has been sometimes used alongside other terms" or something, but I think it's pretty clear as is... GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

In this edit you deleted "Online incel communities have since created their own jargon to refer to various concepts". Its not limited to "chad"/"stacies". Thylacoop5 (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, I removed it because when I moved it to go in front of "Some members of the incel communities describe women...", it's pretty redundant. I did retain the source, it just seemed unnecessary to repeat that the language is used by incels. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, edit conflicted with your comment edit there—if you're trying to convey they have more terminology than is included in the article maybe it could be edited to say that more clearly? What about something like "Members of incel communities regularly use jargon to refer to various concepts, including describing women as "femoids", "stacys" (attractive sexually active women), or "beckys" (less attractive sexually active women) and sexually active men as "chads"." GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Although its obvious to you and me that incel derives from involuntary celibate, per WP:OBVIOUS we should still clarify this in the article body rather putting "incel" and "involuntary celibate" adjacent to one another and assuming readers know. Thylacoop5 (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Better? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. Thylacoop5 (talk) 03:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Great! :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding linking "normies": I think this is a pretty common bit of internet slang, not restricted to this particular corner of Internet culture; its etymology is obvious, and I don't think it needs an article link unless there is actually material for an article on it. -- The Anome (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Sections

A look at google trends and returns suggest that the most common queries regarding incels are phrases such as "what is incel", "what is chad", "incel def" and other queries relating to "incel phraseology". For now, since focus of the readership remains on the terminology, the lexicology section should go top, but this may change later. Thylacoop5 (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that this is the order the article should follow. Firstly, deciding an ordering based off Google trends is unusual, and I don't think Google trends is really a great indication of the motivations why people are visiting this article—that's something we can't really know. Second, people searching things like "what is incel" or "incel def" ending up at this article is the intended result, but the lexicography section doesn't elaborate on what an incel is any more than the lead does. People searching things like "what is chad" are liable to end up at Chad (slang), and in my Google search, this article doesn't even appear on the first page of Google results for that query.

We need to order this article in a way that makes sense, and to discuss things like "chads" and "stacies" before discussing the ideology makes no sense at all. I think the "History" section ought to precede the lexicography one, and the ideology section absolutely must. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I have self-reverted, pending further input. Thylacoop5 (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Maybe some other folks will weigh in. I'm not completely pleased with the ordering of the remaining sections either, but every time I start reordering them I wind up giving up—only seems to make it worse. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe would be useful to look at the placement of Alt-right § Use of memes. wumbolo ^^^ 20:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

"Ideology" as a heading

Since the article states that "incels reject the notion that they have an ideology", isn't it controversial to use "ideology" as a heading? Thylacoop5 (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Bit of a misleading beginning to a discussion, given you just added that. The source you're citing for that says "Incels say they have no ideology but go by the rules of the ‘black pill’..." which contradicts itself. I've removed that text—for one I think we need more than one source to show that incels on the whole reject the notion that they have an ideology, and secondly I don't think it makes sense to include it in the primary sentence of a section discussing what is clearly an ideology (regardless of whether they feel like they have an ideology or not). GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

PUA

The use of "frequently overlap" and then "although some" makes it sound as if incel solidarity with PUA's is the rule, and opposition to it is the exception. That needs a source. Thylacoop5 (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah true, that was not my intention. I'll rephrase. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Define overlap; does their lingo/jargon overlap? Do they share the same forums? Do they share the black pill? Do they share youtube platforms? Do they follow the same public figures? Overlap means share. So let's clarify what exactly they share. Thylacoop5 (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm researching a bit more and finding a number of sources that say that incel communities grew out of PUA communities (Newsweek, New York Times citing SPLC). This is a little confusing, though, given the project started by Alana. Maybe sort of a convergence? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

islamism

Non-starter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following editors: Dave Dial, Jorm, GorillaWarfare have recently suggested that this article should primarily focus on misogyny and violence and exclude other topics; with the rationale that this is where media coverage primarily focuses. By analogy, Islamism in the media primarily focuses on terrorism by groups such as ISIS/AL-Qaeda. Yet the islamism article has 14 subsections that do not mention militancy. Doesn't that show that there is a precedence on Wikipedia of broadening the focus? Thylacoop5 (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC) What I think is that at the very least, a topic ban is coming for you. Dave Dial (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC) Also, do not change your comments after they are responded to. It's not ethical. Dave Dial (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC) And against the rules. See here. Dave Dial (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC) Well, the Islamism article hints at a precedence on Wikipedia that broadens the focus away from violence despite media coverage. Do you dispute that this precedence exists? Thylacoop5 (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC) There is a massive amount of scholarly research and historical coverage of Islamism; that is not the case for Incel. It's apples and oranges. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC) And most of that coverage is related to terrorism. Yet the article is more broad than terrorism. Thylacoop5 (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Gilmartin

The demography sentence currently cites Haenfler, Turner, Griffin, Boyd and Toby. I dont think they are more authoritative than Gilmartin on incels, since unlike the former, Gilmartin has at least researched incels, and most sources describe him as a psychologist without the qualifier "fringe". Also, the "fringe" qualifier in Elle appears to make reference to his 1987 book, while Gilmartin's statement dates to 2012. Also, the fact that Gilmartin's figures have been repeated by multiple authors, give it further credence. As such, I will reinsert the figure pending further illumination. Thylacoop5 (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to include a figure that is much larger than other estimates and sourced to Gilmartin, we need to attribute it to him in-text—I've added that.

Also, why do you keep using alternative references to Dewey's Washington Post article? This is now the second time I've replaced the citation: first when you used a reprint of the article in Stuff.co.nz and just now when you were using an Italian translation... GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought it might be an interpretation rather than a complete translation, since some of the language seemed a bit different. I didn't compare to be honest. Thylacoop5 (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment -- Thylacoop5 you are making way too many changes. Gilmartin should not be referenced. This page is starting to resemble an advertisement. Yes, there are blogs that mention the incels, but the #1, #2, #3 and every reason they are in the news(reliable sources) are because of, the attacks in Toronto & Isla Vista, and being so misogynist that they were banned from Reddit. The edit after edit you are making has nothing to do with the reasons this subject is notable. Instead, it looks like you are searching thorough every mention of incels in any outlet to present a view outside of mainstream sourcing. Dave Dial (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  Concur with Dave Dial.--Jorm (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• I have to agree here as well—after your batches of edits I've often had to go in and rephrase/adjust things you've added because they tend to discuss incels as an objective condition rather than a self-identified label. You also occasionally use bizarre sources, such as translations/reprints of articles that are already being cited in the page (discussed elsewhere on this talk page) or opinion/blog pieces. I will give you credit for being easy to work with and for sometimes catching errors I've made, but it would be helpful if you were a little more careful with sourcing and POV-pushing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

  Plus, most of the batches of edits don't have edit summaries that describe the changes. Thylacoop5 needs to slow down, make proper edit summaries and wait for consensus. There are not many active editors for this article, and there is no hurry. Dave Dial (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

  I have no major concern with the number of edits in a batch; look at the history and you'll see I also tend to make a large number of smallish edits in quick succession rather than grouping them up. The edit summaries would be extremely helpful, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Although three editors seem to support making misogyny/violence the focus of this article, I don't think that qualifies as a consensus. This is because there is precedence on other articles such as Islamism where despite overwhelming media/academic focus on violence, the article seems to have a broader focus. Thylacoop5 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I think if you continue with this argument you may find yourself answering questions about your WP:COMPETENCE. It is, as GorillaWarfare said, apples and oranges - whataboutism at its best. No. The article will focus on the realities of incels, and not try to make them into some sort of mis-understood super-heroes.--Jorm (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Incel murder count

moved from User talk:-sche

Ok, so by your count, what does the figure run to. Maybe you could work that out to your satisfaction and make the adjustment instead of totally reverting, you know? Thanks brother. Vranak (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Looking at the edit history of that article, I think you probably intended to contact User:GorillaWarfare. She seems to have undone your edit out of concern that not all the killers "self-identified" as incels or have been convicted, which is reasonable. However, (I'm going to move this to the article talk page because) I notice that the "self-identified" language was already present prior to your edits and remains present now, so if it is problematic—if some of the "at least four mass murders" were not by people who reliable sources verify were "self-described incels"—then it (still) needs to be removed.

It does not seem like the fact that some killers have not been convicted yet would impede counting the death toll from attacks (if that is a permissible WP:CALC) any more than it impedes the current version of the article from reporting the occurrence of the attacks and their individual death tolls—as long as only attacks from "self-described" incels are counted, or that wording is removed. (There would still need to be agreement that giving such a total in the lead was "due", of course.)

-sche (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

With all this complication I'm just going to put it back the way it was, and advise this third party to come over here to hash things out. Cheers. Vranak (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, I understand what the problem was now, and remedied the wording. Vranak (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely better now, though at first glance it seems a bit contradictory: and self-described incels have committed at least four mass murders in North America. The total number of citizens who have been slain in the five events by those who may be considered incels is forty-five, since 2014. It's accurate, but the difference between "self-identified incels" and "those who may be considered incels" is subtle and probably easily missed at a quick read. I'm also not convinced we need the total death toll in the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed (not really requested) move to Incels

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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Incel → Incels – I run in here where angels fear to tread. I am explicitly and unabashedly completely neutral and not in support of the move I am going to propose. We just had a fairly divisive RM that put this article at a common name, and now I ask a fundamental question: what exaaaaaaaaaaaaactly should this article actually be about? Is it about the people trapped in this subculture (as the current first sentence of the article declares?) Or is it about the subculture? If it's about the subculture, we should oppose this proposed move. If it's about the people, WP:PLURAL seems to dictate supporting it. I have no opinion or bearing on this; it's really a decision that should be up to the editors who have really invested in this page, though of course everyone's invited to share their thoughts. Red Slash 23:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Do we have to go through this argument again? I don't think consensus has changed in the past two months.--Jorm (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Strong meh. Either one seems fine to me. But I agree with Jorm that this discussion shouldn't become a repeat of the one that already happened. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• Please do not propose moves if you neither you nor anyone else is advocating the change. We don't need to have move discussions just to have them––especially not on topics that have just had contentious move discussions. Dekimasuよ! 00:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• And "editors who have really invested in this page" shouldn't have more control over the title than anyone else, per WP:OWN, etc. Dekimasuよ! 00:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• RMs are not a thought experiment. GMG^talk 00:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• Close this. Wikipedia is not a WP:BUREAUCRACY, and the move review is longer than the article. wumbolo ^^^ 00:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• I am going to close this tomorrow afternoon unless there is a sudden flood of people who actually care about this.--Jorm (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• Close this. Wikipedia is not a WP:BUREAUCRACY, and yes the move review is longer than the article. And moreso we use singular for article titles. Assez. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • ... you literally participated in the discussion at WT:PLURAL, User:In_ictu_oculi. People groups are plural. Americans, Canadians, etc. Red Slash 21:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Incels aren't a nationality. President Clown etc are singular. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Meh. Either name seems OK. -sche (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support, per first sentence. Thylacoop5 (talk) 21:30, 24 June 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.

Bias

This is not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have noticed that in order to see how biased a Wikipedia article is, you usually only need to read its lede. Biased editors really love to shove all of their narrative into the lede (probably to make sure that anybody who just skims through articles gets the "correct" picture). Ledes of deeply biased articles are often full of minute details that really don't belong there. But hey, we don't need to follow good encyclopedic writing standards when we have a narrative to push, isn't that right? The lede of this article is a full-on no-holds barrage. It is, for example, really important to note, in the lede, that most incels are "white heterosexual males", because that's such an important detail. It definitely belongs to the lede. We want to make absolutely sure that this crucial information is given to the casual reader. He or she might otherwise not become aware of this extremely crucial detail of great importance. Also, of course, make absolutely sure that the reader becomes aware of mass murders. It's very important! Someone recently shortened the lede, making it more succinct and less biased. This was, of course, quickly reverted! We can't have such unbiased ledes on this kind of article! Heaven forbid some casual reader doesn't get the full picture of incels being the unholy trinity of white heterosexual males, and mass murderers! Good thing this vandalism was quickly reverted! I wish this were the only Wikipedia article that's so incredibly biased. Unfortunately it isn't. Wopr (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Well said, Wopr. Also, I looked over the sources for the "white heterosexual males": The Current, The Washington Post, The Guardian, CityNews, NBC News, Houston Press, CTV News and The Atlantic. These are all secondary journalistic sources, all from press outlets on the political left and of varying repute. Not a single primary academic source is given for this. This has all the hallmarks of bias and agenda-pushing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.95.244.228 (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Do you have an academic source discussing the race and sexual orientation of incels? This article relies heavily on news sourcing because there is limited research of "involuntary celibacy" (at least as it is defined by these communities; there is more research on things like sexual frustration, but "involuntary celibacy" is not widely used in that context). GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Guardian, Washington Post, Atlantic? Most folks call that mainstream journalism of the type that was around to write about the assassination of Lincoln and the impeachment of Johnson. GMGtalk 15:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC) @Wopr: admit it, you've heard of incels because of the mass shootings. wumbolo ^^^ 08:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC) As with all Wikipedia articles, this lead summarizes the article content, and the article represents what is available in reliable sources. If you feel the lead does not summarize the article properly, please be more specific. If you think the article body is not accurate, please provide reliable sources to correct. Otherwise, this is just soapboxing with no suggested changes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC) This page kind of seems like hate speech. Like it just seems characteristically sweeping, lacking in nuance, full of clear implication, and loaded with non-empirical subjectivity resting only on fluffy third party assertions. Such as that most incels are white (source? Survey? Anything? Nope) There's little mention of actual incel ideas, like appearance based discrimination and priviledge, which is in some ways similar to intersectionality, the drastic rise in millenials in virginity at a late age (150 percent increase btw), the lowered amount of sex millenials on aggregate are having, the historical record low levels of marriage or long term relationships, or related science like the known psychological effects of a lack of affection. It's like you took an excellent opportunity to offer real insight into this admittedly frequently toxic online community as a social phenomena, and just used it for painting them as terrorists in waiting. In fact, it smacks of political propaganda, like something out of a communist autocracy. I get that this will likely be deleted, but it's this sort of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Oh I see someone talking about real demographics. I believe there's an incel dating website, and they have done a survey. From recollection Asians and some other groups are more disproportionately represented than Europeans per population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4402:14C2:8200:E1A8:9659:334E:18E0 (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Citation overkill

I find it really ironic that discussion on the amount of bias and unneeded detail and minutia in the lede of the article (which quite clearly is there for a certain purpose) isn't allowed even on the talk page of the article, even though the discussion is explicitly talking about the article, how it has been written, and what it ought to contain (even though Wikipedia's own rules explicitly allow and guide discussion about articles to be done in their talk pages).

If you want more concrete expressions of what the problems are, then here: The lede is way too long considering the length of the article itself, it contains way too much minutia and mostly irrelevant detail that does not belong to a brief summary of a subject, and quite clearly the lede is pushing an agenda, leading the reader to a certain direction, which badly breaks the bias rules of wikipedia. Also, in the talk pages of some other articles editors have pointed out that ledes generally shouldn't contain references, because that's not their purpose. The fact that this lede is stock full of references just goes to show how much content it has that should be in the main text of the article, not the lede (even if we accepted that every single point made in the lede ought to be in the article, which is another discussion).

This is a bad habit certain editors engage in Wikipedia, especially those who are pushing a certain political agenda (and this is by far not the only article that has this same fault). I'm not asking to push a different agenda, or even to add alternative points of view to the lede, or even to the article itself. I'm just asking to follow proper encyclopedic principles, and the principles of Wikipedia, and make at the very least the lede of the article shorter, more succinct, and more neutral. Remove the minutia and the bias from it. Preferably the bias should be removed from the entire article, but the lede is a good start.

If this kind of discussion isn't allowed on the talk page of this article, then where? Wopr (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wopr: wrong and wrong. The lead is not a good start to remove bias, it is the body, since the lead summarizes the body. Also, the lead shouldn't be shorter, it should be longer, read MOS:LEAD. wumbolo ^^^ 17:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Well...not totally wrong. The citation bombing in the lead is pretty gruesome. The body isn't much better though. If you count mid-sentence citations, the number of times that four or more are used for a single sentence is...something special. I mean...in the first sentence under demographics, there are almost as many citations as there are words. GMG^talk 18:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Is anyone is familiar with ways to combine multiple references in footnotes? Seems it must have come up before on other articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

<ref><br/>
* ref 1<br/>
* ref 2<br/>
* ref 3</ref>
But it screws up ref naming if the references are repeated. The most elegant solution is to ask why we really need 15 or 17 references for a single sentence. GMG^talk 18:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The nine references for "Self-identified incels are mostly white, male and heterosexual" stands out as the most excessive citation overkill in the lead. It's clear from discussions on this talk page that it needs to retain some citations, but even if we kept the best two citations for the statement that they're white, two for the statement that they're male and two for the statement that they're straight, and none of them happened to be the same citations, we could still drop three citations. The Ohlheiser/WaPo citation attests all three characteristics, saying "'these are primarily heterosexual white men [...]' said Ross Haenfler", as does the Rouner/Houston Press article, which says "angry, mostly white, straight and cis men"; what do you think of dropping it down to just those two? -sche (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that the number of cites in the lead is pretty brutal. I toyed with removing all citations from the lead entirely, leaving the citation duties up to the body article, but given how often various parts of the lead are challenged on this talk page I thought that might not be wise. It could make sense to just leave a few of the strongest sources in place, and save the rest for the body. The huge number of cites has largely been in response to people repeatedly posting on this talk page to try to refute the white/heterosexual/male thing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree this is a case where leaving some citations in the lead is wise. But I've dropped the sentence in question down from nine citations to "just" five, including the two mentioned above. -sche (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The amount of citations is not the main problem in the lede, or the entire article. It's just a symptom of a bias problem. Why does an editor feel the need to specify, specifically, that these people are mostly "white, male and heterosexual"? Why is, for instance, race so important to be mentioned here? Can you think of any other, non-politically charged subject, where somebody feels the need to mention race in the lede, or even the entire article? It is quite clear that whoever felt the need to mention those three characteristics, including race, had an agenda and biased narrative in mind, and the excessive amount of citations is quite clearly a symptom of this person feeling the need to justify that characterization. The message is quite clear: "Most of these people are white, male and heterosexual. See? All these numerous sources confirm it!" The sheer number of citations is not the core problem; it's a symptom of the underlying bias problem. Reducing the number of citations isn't going to remove the bias. Wopr (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Is your argument, saying what sources say is bias? Perhaps, but it's not bias as how it is usually defined, which is saying what sources don't say, or ignoring what sources do say because you don't like it. As for your claim that using those words is bias -- they are words, which you seem to have a bias against but that does not mean we would not use them, as the sources do, and not according to your anti-word bias. As for who added them, you can check the history, but that seems irrelevant ad hominem, and you will likely find multiple editors have edited. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you're right about race. It's very stupid to say that incels are mostly white, given that they are an online subculture (it's beyond me how you find out an online person's race – they have to show you their ID at least, since any expansive survey will be riddled with trolling), the only poll I found on the first two pages of Google shows 31/89 incels being white, and finally, the article's lead completely disregards the fact that the article mentions currycels by name (they are "Indian incels"). We never talk about race in the lead of biographies, and race is controversial even in subjects that are "defined" by race e.g. the Congressional Black Caucus. wumbolo ^^^ 11:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I assume you know that a poll on an internet forum is not a reliable source? I don't agree that it's biased to include a point that is frequently mentioned in many reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, so the lede is still as biased and politically charged as always, without change. I suppose it's completely hopeless to wish for any change. I also suppose that if I or anybody else were to edit the article to be a bit more neutral and remove the unneeded references to things like race, those edits would be quickly reverted, probably more out of principle than anything else. I would probably also be quickly banned from editing further, or even using this talk page. I'm guessing this discussion has probably only strengthened the resolve of the main author of the article to keep it the way it is, no matter what. If one protests this political bias too much, one gets banned. That's just how it works. Wikipedia remains the mouthpiece of partisan politically biased people, who are free to push their political agenda as long as they format it in a certain way, and there's nothing that can be done about it. Any protests will be dismissed with excuses. I could suggest a more neutral lede for the article, but it would probably just be a waste of time. I suppose being banned is my only prospect for even voicing my opinion. Wopr (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Listen, there's nothing wrong with arguing an unpopular position. I often argue unpopular positions I don't even myself agree with, just for the sake of a balanced discussion. But you are arguing wrong. If you wan't to substantively change the content of an article, you need to come bearing sources, high quality sources, and you need to demonstrate that the current state of the article does not reflect the consensus among the preponderance of those sources. That's the only metric that really matters, because if the sources are biased, and Wikipedia is exactly as biased as the sources, than we've done our jobs, because Wikipedia does not judge neutrality according to how well we represent reality; we judge neutrality according to how well we represent the sources. GMG^talk 12:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you in all honesty saying that you do not think there is any sort of agenda or ulterior motive in writing, for example, that "white heterosexual male" in the lede of the article, and that it was a completely innocent and innocuous observation without even a shred of bias or sociopolitical motivation from the part of whoever put it there? I think that both you and me, and whoever put it there, know perfectly well that it was added there deliberately in order to give a certain picture. (I would, once again, point out that the fact that the statement was "backed up" by a flood of a whopping nine references is quite clearly a sign that the person who put it there felt the need to over-justify his or her actions. Normally such statements are backed up by one or at most two citations, not nine. I think we would both agree that whoever put it there felt the need to justify putting it there, because it's a rather controversial thing to point out, especially on this modern politically charged climate.) If you are being completely honest, I believe that you would agree that yes, perhaps there was some kind of "message" that the editor wanted to convey by putting it there. And if that's true, then it shows a bias. And it's not even the only such problem in that lede. And that's my major problem. Race, among other characteristics, has nothing to do with anything here, and its inclusion in the lede (and even the article at all) is superfluous, inflammatory, leading, and pushing a certain political agenda. This is not what a neutral encyclopedia ought to be doing. Do you agree with any of this, even slightly? Wopr (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that I am agnostic to the personal bias of editors, because arguing from personal bias accomplishes nothing. If you want to argue and accomplish nothing, Wikipedia is not a forum for that. If you want to argue and accomplish something, you need to bring sources. GMG^talk 16:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources for what, exactly? Sources that say that this article is biased? Or that saying "white heterosexual male" in this context is needlessly inflammatory and provocative? Sources that say that an encyclopedia shouldn't contain this kind of political bias and political message? I honestly cannot understand what kind of sources you are asking for, or what those sources should say. I'm asking for this article, especially its lede, to be made a bit more neutral and less politically inflammatory. What "sources" do you want me to cite for that, exactly? What is it that you are asking? Wopr (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

In this case, if the preponderance of reliable sources feel that demographic information is relevant to an understanding of the subject, and so report demographic information, then we should do so also. Compare something like Rodney King, where demographic information is obviously central to the subject's notability. If only a small minority of sources feel the need to cover demographic information, then that helps to advance the argument that the prominent inclusion of the information here is lending WP:UNDUE weight. So if you want to demonstrate that it's biased, you need to survey the sources, and demonstrate that it is, not simply say that it is. Compare the survey of sources I posted a couple of days ago here looking at the characterization of holding facilities for immigrant children. GMG^talk 19:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

That's the genius of it, isn't it? Most news sources copy other news sources. Quite often there are only very few original sources from which the snippet originates from, sometimes even only one. Dozens of news organizations repeating the same factoid over and over gives the false impression of likewise numerous sources for the same information, when in fact they are all just copying each other, or the few or lone original source. But this is just the perfect excuse to use Wikipedia as a political mouthpiece: "Look at these tens of 'reliable' news sources stating the same thing. That gives credibility and weight to it. You can't prove otherwise!" As long as one isn't able to do the extensive research to prove that the media is just copying one single original source and/or is being overly biased over the subject matter, it's the perfect excuse to write biased politically charged Wikipedia articles that push an agenda. An objections will just be dismissed with "my sources are bigger than yours". You know perfectly well that this article is highly biased, and extremely politically charged, but you can't even bring yourself to admit it. That's a problem with Wikipedia in general. Wopr (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

That gives credibility and weight to it. Yes, it does. That's how this works. It's not a bug; it's a feature. And saying you don't have the time to do the research falls a little flat, seeing as how you've, from what I can tell, mostly spent the last week aimlessly complaining, which, as I have told you, has accomplished nothing. GMG^talk 12:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

If I am the "main author of the article" you mention, I have no objection to the lead being edited to remove the white/heterosexual/male bit—iff you can show that either it is inaccurate by producing reliable sources, or achieve consensus on this talk page (or some other appropriate venue, like WP:NPOVN) that it is being given undue weight. So far you have made no attempt at doing either, and have rather just been railing that it is biased and politically charged, and accusing folks of bias and agenda-pushing. You won't be banned for having a civil, policy-based discussion about the content of the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

If that bit was such an innocuous thing and there was no agenda behind including it, why did you feel the need to flood it with so many citations? I think we both know perfectly well that you know how inflammatory, provocative and controversial it is, especially on this day and age, to put something like that in an article like this, and that's why you felt the need to justify yourself by flooding it with citations. Wopr (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're repeating a question I've already answered, but I'll repeat the relevant portion of my answer here for convenience:

The claim was repeatedly challenged on the incel talk page by folks such as yourself, who tended to fall into one of three categories: those who said it was incorrect, those who said it was given undue weight in proportion to how often it was mentioned in reliable sourcing, and those who didn't like that it was mentioned. I don't believe the folks in the first group were ever able to provide any reliable sources that discussed the demographics of incel communities as anything other than primarily white/heterosexual/male. Some sources were produced that discuss the existence of non-white/non-heterosexual/non-male incels, but the folks offering up those sources seemed to misunderstand the statement as implying that all incels are straight white men, not that they make up the majority of the communities. As for those in the second group who argued it was not widely mentioned in reliable sourcing, the impetus was less on them to produce evidence, since one can't really prove that negative. Hence why myself and other editors added additional sourcing to show that it is mentioned quite often. As for the third group, well, Wikipedia:I just don't like it.

I understand that you disagree with its inclusion in the lead, but it seems you might be unfamiliar with how these subjects are handled on Wikipedia. The fact that more citations were used for that claim was an artifact of resolving conversations about whether it should be included in the lead—though I do agree with those on the talk page who felt the list of inline notes had grown too long and decided to pare it down.

I see that you replied there that you didn't believe me, but that does not change my answer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)