Talk:Incel/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Sources have to be reviewed heavily

I see in this article there are various sources who are quoted but either:

- They are not accessible unless you register and pay to access the data (eg. tandfonline)

- Are not based on any study or sources, they just represent the view of the writer (eg. 37)

- Are quoted even when they have nothing on a point (eg. 37 again, on the "Many incel communities are characterized by resentment, self-pity, racism, misogyny, misanthropy, and narcissism.", there's not a single iteration in the article that is "incel", so how would you connect it as a source to such affermation?)

- Twist and bending of the source (eg Observer, 40, say: "On the PUA website, Mr. Rodger was an “incel,” which stands for involuntary celibate. But while his fellow incels were content with masturbation and “lucid dreaming,” he styled himself as an online revolutionary—and now a martyr to their cause.", which is oddly not used to refer to Mr. Rodger as an extremist, but is a perfectly fine source to say that, or the article "How Incels got Hijacked" which states "Whether incels are all dangerous, or some just “depressed and despairing,” as Douthat put it", meaning that the source does not confirm nor deny the negative association, that is only repeated after with a quote from a single person near the end of the article.)

- As the consensus of the focus on the term "Incel" seems to have been reached already to refer only to the "internet movement/group", the page should reflect that the page itself focus on the internet movement and not with the (possible) broader meaning, ie the page should state or otherwise make it clear that it's referring to the online subculture 79.17.135.167 (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Responding in order to your points:

1. Are you saying that the sources should be removed because they are not freely accessed? If so, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost. If you are just saying that someone else who has access to them ought to verify them, no objections from me. There is some info at WP:SOURCEACCESS that you may find helpful. I also have access to most (all, I think) of the sources, so if you have any specific questions I should be able to help there too.
2. Are you talking about the New York Times article "Reddit Bans Nazi Groups and Others in Crackdown on Violent Content"? That's what's showing up as reference #37 for me on the page at the moment, and I'm not seeing an issue with it. The New York Times is generally considered to be a reliable source (WP:RSP#The New York Times), and news sources are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia (WP:NEWSORG). This is not an opinion piece.
3. I have fixed the issue with cite 37 being used to support the "Many incel communities are characterized by..." statement. There are two articles by Christine Hauser, published in the NYT, about Reddit bans, and it looks like one was used where the other should have been. I have checked and corrected the other usages of the two articles also.
4. I'm not sure I follow what your issue is with the usage of the New York Observer source. It's only used in one place, to verify that Rodger was a member of PUAHate.com, which the source clearly supports: "He was an active member of a vile website, since taken down, called PUAhate.com." There is no twisting there. Can you also clarify what your specific concern is with the "How 'Incel' Got Hijacked" source? It's used in a few places in the article, so I'm not sure which reference you're trying to dicsuss.
5. The first sentence of the page is "Incels (/ˈɪnsɛlz/ IN-selz), a portmanteau of "involuntary celibates", are members of an online subculture who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one" (emphasis mine). I'm not sure how we could be any clearer that this page refers to the online subculture.

Thanks for your feedback on the page, hope this answers some of your questions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello GorillaWarfare,

Sure let me explain deeper, I'll start from the last point as it's the easiest to address:

- The Incel term is used to refer to the involuntary celibates, which are at whole all the people that are celibate while seeking/desiring/etc. to not be, the online subculture which is referred in the article is about the BlackPill-ed(?) Incel community. Not every Incel is BlackPill-ed(?) (in fact most are not) and not every BlackPill-ed(?) is Incel (most however are). The online subculture refers to a, well, culture that share the same ideology, which is the BlackPill (or the RedPill in some cases), notably while the BlackPill is, according to the sources, the most extremist ideology on the spectrum, the RedPill shares some ideas but do not advocate nor condone for example the acts of violence and is more of a phylosophical view on the topic, which focus on things like the LMS theory (the theory that states that people -not just men- are pre-selected based on a three-cardinal metrics that are the Look (beautyness), Money and Status (social status), and propose for example the liberation and full legalization of prostitution, even state-aid, as it considers for example sex a human right (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_sexuality) but not something that could be imposed, to make this example clear the RedPill sustain that, while it's everyone's right to have sex, it's not a duty of anyone to provide it, if it makes sense, ie person X have the right of having a sexual life but nobody can be forced to fullfil that desire.

This is in sharp contrast to the BlackPill, which sustain that every person have the right to have a sexual life -like the RedPill- but also sustain that someone have the obligation to provide it, which is most of the time the state or someone not defined but some fringes also sustain that it's acceptable to rape to fullfil that right.

So, all this long digression that is by no means complete on the phenomenon to say that, if the page want to focus on the internet subculture that is referred as Incel but then use sources that focus on the BlackPilled Incel phenomenon, it should make it clear with something like "This page focus on the internet subculture commonly referred to as Incel, an internet subculture that adopt a BlackPill theory on the dynamics between men and women [...]" or something like this, that makes it clear the focus of the page and do not confuse the reader, if you go on the Italian wiki page you can see what I'm talking about, the localized page starts by defining the broader meaning of Incel and then moves on and describe the BlackPill and the RedPill, of which only the former is associated with extremism and goes inline with extremist people's views.

- Yes I meant that i was not able to access them and verify them, so I'd like someone else to do it as I'm not able to do it myself

- The NYT is indeed a reliable source, but should not be used to represent something other, for example is the NYT says that (i'm making an example to explain what I mean) "According to Y, all the bananas are orange", it does not mean that the science agrees that all the bananas are orange, but just that the person Y says/said that.

The example in this article: "Many incel communities are characterized by resentment, self-pity, racism, misogyny, misanthropy, and narcissism."

The article at §37 says for example:

"Communities focused on this content and users who post such content will be banned from the site,” the statement said. “As of Nov. 7, r/Incels has been banned for violating this policy.", This means the Reddit statement said that, and under that it speaks about Mr. Rodger, the white supremacy site The Daily Stormer, and then says:

"“I view this as part of that broader movement,” Danielle K. Citron, a University of Maryland law professor who has studied the phenomenon of online hate, said on Thursday. “That there are communities like Daily Stormer that we find troubling and call for violence, and we don’t want to aid and abet groups that call for violence.”" This quote to me seems referred to, well, the website, not to the Incel movement

Under it:

"It is not clear when the term incels was coined, but the link between misogyny and violence against women has emerged on sites where incel communities gather."

This sentence does not seem to come, as far as I was able to understand, from any source, it seems the writer's thought on it, there's no quoted source (a professor, a book etc.) on this line, so it seems to me the idea of the writer -ie an opinion or a first-line study from the author itself- rather than a secondary line study based on other studies of the data or a review of various sources.

It then says:

"“These men got angry at the women that they see as depriving them of something they are entitled to,” Professor Franks said. “It was a trend in online forums, that they legitimately had a reasons to lash out,” speaking of Mr. Rodger and Mr. Sodini."

Which seems to me to indicate something about Mr. Rodger and Mr. Soldini 's self-reasoning more than on the Incel movement as a whole.

I hope this example makes the point I was trying to make before clearer.

- The "How 'Incel' Got Hijacked" is used correctly as a source where it's used, my point was that the article itself presented two points of view, namely from the title itself, that says that the term was Hijacked by some extremists, but not every Incel is an extremist, the same way the Al Qaeda does not represent the Islamic as a whole but it's an extremist fringe, so are the BlackPilled Incels (to reconnect to the first point)

"Whether incels are all dangerous, or some just “depressed and despairing,” as Douthat put it"

This for example was never used to show the POV that Douthat made in the article/interview about the doubt if the whole movement is characterized by such things, but this POV is not reported.

"It had become hijacked by people like the killer, Rodger, who used it on message boards to justify hatred of women based on being sexually rejected." and "hereas the 1990s incarnation of the term had been inclusive regardless of gender and sexuality, the new incel culture was rigidly patrolled by the indignant young men typifying the so-called manosphere."

Which to me further points out that Incel is a broader term with many subcultures and yes, some of them are extremist views and some of the people took them and "Hijacked" (as the title says) the term and the extremist ideologies of a fringe to justify their points and their ideas, like some islamic terrorists and groups of terrorists did, however they don't represent the islamic people's view as a whole and the same is true about terrorists that used the BlackPill Incel theory to justify their hate and their crimes, or the BlackPill itself that support some extremist views.

If we want to focus the article on a subculture, we should make it hence clear that we're focusing solely on the subculture of what is already a subculture, otherwise we should approach the broader definition of the term and include many dissertations on the subcultures that compose it, which includes both extremistic POVs but also not extremistic POVs.

I hope this clarify my points79.17.135.167 (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, this definitely helps to clarify. The reason this article is about the subculture, and not about "at whole all the people that are celibate while seeking/desiring/etc. to not be" as you put it, is that consensus has repeatedly determined that there is not sufficient support in reliable sourcing to describe those people as "involuntarily celibate". While incels (that is, members of the subculture) seem to often believe that people who are celibate and wish not to be are incels regardless of whether they self-identify as such or are members of the online subculture, that is a fringe view not supported by sourcing. The state of not having sex or a relationship but wanting to is more generally described by sociologists, doctors, etc. as celibate, sexually frustrated, or other similar terms—almost never as "involuntarily celibate". For this reason the article focuses on the subculture that goes by that name, which is well-described in reliable sourcing. And for that reason, this article should not imply that the group of people who are not having sex but would like to be, but who are not associated with the subculture, are "involuntarily celibate". The article links to the articles I mentioned above (celibacy, sexual frustration) in the "See also" section which I personally think is sufficient.

As for your point about the article describing only a portion of the subculture, I disagree with that assessment. The article describes many different incel communities specifically (to name a few: love-shy.com, IncelSupport, /r/incels, /r/TruFemcels) and also describes varying beliefs among the communities and incels in broad strokes. I haven't seen sources to support your description of RedPill folks as being incels—usually they're described as a different community entirely among the manosphere groups (a community that is already described at a separate location: Controversial Reddit communities#TheRedPill and mentioned more broadly at manosphere) While some of the sources in this article do describe specific incel communities, many of them describe incels in general and do not make the differentiations that you are making in your comment above. Do you have reliable sources to support your characterization?

Regarding the it.wiki article on incels, I have only a vague familiarity with it via Google Translate, because unfortunately I can't read Italian. However their article takes a very different approach to the subject than the en.wiki one in that it describes involuntary celibacy as a social phenomenon rather than a subculture—again, an approach which has been decided against on en.wiki. It is not unusual for articles to differ from one language version of Wikipedia to the next, and consensus on it.wiki does not affect consensus on en.wiki (or vice versa). The it.wiki article seems to be heavily based on the website [1], which from what I can tell is a TRP blog. I am not familiar with it.wiki's policies on reliable sourcing (again, this can differ from one language wiki to the next) but it would absolutely not be in line with English Wikipedia policy to use that source here. If you have sources that meet the enwiki policies on reliable sourcing that support that TRP is a subset of incels, or that there are other groups of incels going unmentioned in this article, I'd be happy to review them and see about making changes based on them.

Thanks for clarifying your point on the sources you can't access. Since I wrote much of this article you probably don't want me to be the one to do it, but hopefully someone else watching this page will come along and can weigh in.

Your example about bananas doesn't really apply to this scenario—even if there is one source saying that bananas are orange, there are probably thousands saying that they are yellow, and so to include the one source would contradict the guidance that Wikipedia ought to "summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence". However in this case, the majority of sources that discuss whether incel communities are violent support the statement that many incel communities are characterized by violence. So in this case, attributing that statement as if it is a fringe view, as you are suggesting, would be an inappropriate application of WP:WEIGHT.

Regarding your comment about the Hauser source, journalists often do not specifically state which research has led them to draw the conclusions they draw. That does not mean we can't use the Hauser source to support the assertion that incel communities are characterized by misogyny and violence, which is something she states clearly: "It is not clear when the term incels was coined, but the link between misogyny and violence against women has emerged on sites where incel communities gather." As I have also noted, there are other sources in this page that support the assertion beyond just the one NYT source.

Do you have a suggestion for wording you'd like to see introduced to this article that would more wholly represent the "How 'Incel' Got Hijacked" source? I don't personally feel that this article implies that most incels commit violence—for one, the math just doesn't work out: the article itself says that there are at least thousands of incels, but "several mass murders and other violent attacks". However I'm certainly open to hearing what you have to suggest if you think that can be made clearer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello GorillaWarfare,

sorry if I get straight to the sources I'd like you to look into but it's very late here and I don't have the energy right now to articulare every source so I hope you don't mind and maybe you find some to be reliable sources:

For the multiple facets of incel:

https://theswaddle.com/looksmax-redpill-femoid-dissecting-incel-language-and-ideology/

"Some incels, however, end up giving up on looksmax, and “swallow the black pill,” which means entering a state of resignation; " "In a world wherein there is no hope for a better life for the incel, some, especially those influenced by far-right ideologies of how to assert toxic masculinity (through violence) can go “full ER,” i.e. show their frustrations and assert their identity via mass killings, like Rodger did. It’s important to note all incels are not at risk of inflicting violence on others — many may joke about going ER, or even fantasize about the possibility, but actually going through with harming others remains a practice accepted in only very small factions within the incel community.

"The incel ideology was not created in a vacuum"

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Manosphere_glossary

"Inceldom is the state of being "incelibate" or "incel", abbreviations of "involuntarily celibate",[5] which is someone (usually male) who claims their inceldom is caused by "bad" genes, society, females, white knights, feminists, bad boys, hypergamy, the black hole in the center of the galaxy, etc."

https://www.wikizero.com/it/Incel (IT)

"Gli incel che frequentano gli appositi forum online, si rifanno principalmente a due teorie, la Teoria LMS per i rapporti interpersonali e la Teoria RedPill per quanto riguarda la visione generalizzata del mondo."

https://medium.com/@ethanjiang4/blackpill-philosophy-a-closer-look-at-incels-e49ede6a2f7e

"An important distinction to note is that one can reject Blackpill ideology yet still be an incel."

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/20/17314846/incel-support-group-therapy-black-pill-mental-health

"Several members of the community I spoke with echoed this idea: If other people tried to protest to them that they were wrong and that everyone deserves to love and be loved, or that women do in fact love men for their personalities and not their looks, the blackpilled incel will often assume that they’re just trying to be nice[..]" "The appeal of the black pill, for those who subscribe to it, is that once you’ve accepted this harsh reality, you can adjust and live your life accordingly." "It serves as a generally positive support group for incels of various stripes" "She emphatically told me that none of the women buy into the idea of taking the black pill and that they retreated to a separate server when the blackpillers in their midst got too intense." "“Although some self-identified ‘incels’ assert that the nihilistic views of ‘the black pill’ are what connect them, and not overt misogyny or alt-right beliefs,” he told Vox in an email, “notice the misogynistic basis of the worldview”"

https://www.mic.com/articles/189074/the-meaning-of-incel-and-how-mens-rights-extremism-fueled-the-toronto-van-attack have a lenght dissertion on the black and red pill topics

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7997085/Men-internet-extreme-toxic-abusive-according-study.html

"'Incel' stands for 'involuntary celibate' and is a term used by a certain group of men who blame their inability to form relationships and have sex on women."

http://www.beunsocial.it/etnografia-digitale-il-caso-della-community-del-forum-dei-brutti/ (IT)

"Gli incel non vanno confusi con i redpillati, che come spiega il Redpillatore.org, si rifanno alla Redpill, la pillola rossa di Matrix che fa accedere a “verità scomode”: questo gruppo, di cui spesso fanno parte anche incel, ha una visione politicamente scorretta dei rapporti uomo donna."

For the Incel term specifically:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/incel

"A member of a mostly online subculture of people (typically misogynistic and straight men) who define themselves by being unable to find a sexual relationship despite desiring one." "(uncountable, seduction community, informal) "Involuntary celibacy": the state of not being sexually active despite wishing to be" "(seduction community) Not having sexual relations despite wishing to."

https://www.oxygen.com/crime-time/what-are-incels-subculture-reddit

"“Incel[s] [are] men who would like to be in sexual relationships, have girlfriends, and so forth, but feel that modern society has made it such that women won’t date them — it’s impossible for them to get dates,” explained Heidi Beirich, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose work focuses on various forms of extremism."

http://cda.morris.umn.edu/~meeklesr/celibacy.html

"Certainly some people are celibate because they have chosen the lifestyle due to religious or personal reasons. Other, however, would like to have sex, but lack a willing partner, and so celibacy is not a choice. The authors of this paper call this involuntary celibacy, and say that this a relatively new area of inquiry within the field of sex research and almost no studies have dealt with the dimensions, etiology or consequences of this phenomenon."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00498.x and https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224490109552083 and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233371822_Sexuality_Derailed_A_Life_Course_Analysis_of_Involuntary_Celibacy for example use the term "involuntary celibacy"

https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/sexless-in-city#1

"But what if you're not one of those people having sex on a regular basis -- and particularly if you are someone whose life is void of virtually all sexual activity?

If so, you may be part of a growing group of adults known as "involuntary celibates" -- otherwise healthy folks who want to have sex but can't make it happen in their lives.

"These are often people who, for one reason or another, have put their sex life on hold -- maybe they were shy and plagued with social anxieties when they were young, or perhaps they were just concentrating on school and then their career -- or were saddled with other responsibilities or issues that took priority in their life at the time," says Philip B. Luloff, MD, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York."

To my prespective, it seems there's no scientifical consensus but different POVs on what an "Incel" is, mean, do, is categorized or how the phenomenon is stuctured on the inside etc., let me know what you think 79.17.135.167 (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

For the "multiple facets of incel" thing, again, could you specify precisely what wording change you're suggesting? Like I said I don't think this article presents incels as a monolith, so I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting we change. I'd also suggest you give WP:RS a quick read—wikis, blog posts on Medium, The Daily Mail, and the like are not reliable sources. (See WP:UGC, WP:DAILYMAIL).

For your comments about incels as a phenomenon rather than a subculture: again, this has been discussed at length in the past and articles were repeatedly deleted based on this consensus. The sources you have provided are

• Wiktionary: not a reliable source (WP:UGC)
• Oxygen.com: you have taken out of context a quote that directly follows a paragraph describing incels as an online subculture. Elsewhere, the same person quoted has described incels as an online subculture (for example: "The incel community is 'one of the most violent areas of the internet,' said Heidi Beirich, who tracks hate groups for the Southern Poverty Law Center" [2]; she also describes incels as an online extremist community at [3]), so I don't believe she's contradicting those statements here and describing incels as a general phenomenon.
• Several studies all by Denise Donnelly, who I would recommend you search in this talk page archives. Repeated discussions have resulted in the view that her treatment of the concept is a minority, WP:FRINGE view; for example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination)
• A WebMD source based off the Donnelly study, which mostly interviews some psychiatrists about the concept of sexual frustration, which they do not describe as "involuntary celibacy"

While it's certainly possible for past consensus to shift on how this article should treat the subject, that would most likely only happen if there was a major shift in how academia and medical professionals treat the concept, which hasn't happened. Rehashing old arguments with Donnelly studies is not going to result in a new outcome. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello GorillaWarfare,

my suggestion is to divide the article between those who endorse and those who do not endorse estremistic views for example, IE the "red pill" and the "black pill" philosophies inside the incel comminities spectrum, this could/would be a good start, and address the affirmations to the correct groups, instead of lumping the whole community together and label it as a whole 95.247.142.163 (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

What would you suggest we say about those who don't endorse the "black pill", though? Other than the fact that there are incels who don't, there seems to be very limited sourcing on the concept. If we split the article as you're suggesting, I'm just trying to figure out what you think we should put in that section.

I believe the majority of sources describe incels as a whole, rather than specific subgroups (aside from a few instances I mentioned above of studies of individual communities, though the actual results of such studies are mostly unused due to being primary research sources).

The most helpful thing when suggesting changes to articles on talk pages is to suggest specific text, with sources included, that you're hoping to see added (or edited/removed). That makes it a lot easier for other editors to evaluate what you're hoping to see changed–when you drop a long list of sources like you've done, but not actually suggested what changes you think should be made based on them (or make only vague suggestions like "split the article") it's hard to evaluate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

So, my suggestion would be to split and assign the correct affirmations, the problem lies in the generalistic approach of most sources, so the first and foremost step would be to reach a consensus on what we would define in this article as blackpill and redpill, am I right? 95.247.142.163 (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the very first thing would be to confirm that reliable sources support that there exists a group of red pill incels, as you are suggesting. Like I've mentioned, I haven't seen such a concept mentioned (at least by that name) in my research while writing this article, aside from the associated "redpill" manosphere group which I've generally seen described as a separate concept from incels (though the fact that incels do overlap with other manosphere groups is mentioned in this article). It's certainly possible that I missed an entire swath of reliable sources, but I'm a little skeptical that this phenomenon has been described with such proportion that it ought to be included in the article (WP:WEIGHT) but that I haven't stumbled across it. Still, happy to see what sources you have in mind.

After it's established that a) this is verifiable in reliable sources and b) that there is coverage to the extent that it ought to be included in the article, then yes, it would be time to figure out what the definitions of each subgroup would be. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I think I have posted some above, one in particular goes in lenght to describe the differences between the two ideologies, I'm not sure if they are considered a reliable source considering how smoky the definition is, I'd also like you to note that WebMD in the first paragraph is not citing a study nor quoting when it defines "Involuntary Celibacy", therefore you may want to reconsider your objection on that source, I'm also not sure what would qualify a POV as "fringe" considering the sources that are linked to support the definition of the meaning are exactly 3, can you elaborate this for me? 95.247.142.163 (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The WebMD source is still describing the Donnelly source, which is why I believe they're using the term. As for the three sources, they are still all by the same WP:FRINGE researcher, Denise Donnelly. A fringe viewpoint does not become mainstream simply because its proponent writes about it a lot. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't, but the source of the definition on top is your interpretation of the text, which differ from mine for example, plus I think I read we should avoid to assume the source and as it's not clearly stated we can't know if it's from Donnelly or from someone else or just from the author of the article, for the other sources that comes from the same researcher to which ones are you pointing out exactly? Becase I checked the TheSwaddle one and it does not mention that researcher anywhere 95.247.142.163 (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were referring to the three Donnelly sources ([4], [5], [6]). For the avoidance of doubt can you link the three sources you are referring to and what specific text you're suggesting be added? We're discussing a few different things at once here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Let me address this in the GreenMeansGo reply 95.247.142.163 (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Just noting a couple quick things. First, it would really help garner wider participation if we could try to be more concise. Second, as indicated above, most of the cited sources would not be considered reliable for our purposes. Yes, this takes a little while to get a feeling for how this works on Wikipedia, but that doesn't change whether or not they're usable. The bit from the The Journal of Sex Research is certainly interesting, but it's not clear that they're necessarily talking about exactly the same phenomenon despite using the same words. So, for example, it's not at all clear that a coupled celebrate really has anything to do with the "red pill/black pill/polka-dot pill" online subculture. They're maybe someone who just needs some good old fashioned marriage/family/sex therapy. GMG^talk 15:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, however it does not expand on what you consider to be not reliable and, despite some sources are user-generated contents, others are articles that seems to me reliable enough to be included, can you articulate based on what you consider "most of the cited sources [...] not reliable", despite around half of them are articles (ie secondary sources)?

I'd also like to point out that in the article itself there are some primary sources or simple quotes from a source that "person X said Y", AFAIK they are not against the wikipedia rules but yet if they are acceptable we should apply the same metrics to all the sources to guarantee the NPOV, let me know if this makes sense.

Your objection on the "not clear about [...] online subculture" sources sounds like what I was telling before, that the Incel is not only an online subculture but, according to some sources, a wider phenomenon that is mostly resonant in the web but not only confined to online communities, the facets are really many so you can have offline incels, online incels, blackpilled incels, redpilled incels, nonaligned incels etc.

I never heard of the polka-dot pill however, where did you find it? Is there a new faction I never heard about before? 95.247.142.163 (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I was just being facetious.

GW already did a fairly good run down above. Quite a few of them are wikis. WebMD is kindof just a generic website for our purposes, and doesn't normally meet our standards for medical content. I don't have anything against Donnelly publishing and trying to build a body of literature on the subject. But one person building a body of literature doesn't really make it mainstream, and "mainstream" on Wikipedia isn't a dirty word. Some of the articles seem okay, yeah. Vox is okay as far as non-academic sources go. But anyway, as GW indicates, it's not entirely clear which of these sources you want to use to make which specific changes to the article. GMG^talk 16:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

But we are not discussing a medical content, but more of a social phenomenon, so I don't see how would it need to meet the standards for medical content if we are not addressing a medical topic in this specific istance?

My first step would be, IMHO, to address a broader definition of Incel, by saying that Incel refers to people who are involuntary celibates [insert what online celibate means here] and that it originated and is most prominent as an online subculture, then I'd go in depth to describe the main sides of the online subculture (the blackpill and the redpill), and then build from there if we can reach the consensus on those, what do you think?95.247.142.163 (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it would help for you to review this essay of mine. I wrote it a few years ago to try to illustrate how to have these types of discussions in a way that is most productive. In a nutshell, it is very difficult to evaluate sources and proposed content if we are not exceedingly specific. GMG^talk 16:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

That is the part I really don't know as my articulation and synthesis abilities are not really top-notch, do you have any proposal in that regard? 95.247.142.163 (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

That's super useful, I'll definitely be linking to that essay in the future when trying to help people make their suggestions more clear. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

As I've said, there is previous consensus not to discuss "incel" as a social phenomenon but rather as the online subculture. In order to change that we would need to come to a new formal consensus (most likely via WP:RfC). While it is your prerogative to start such a formal discussion if you so wish, I just want to warn you that there are 162 sources in the current version of this article, most of which support the view that "incels" are an online subculture, and it's exceedingly unlikely that the consensus will be changed by presenting the same sources that were available in the past discussion and which were described then as a WP:FRINGE view. The addition of a WebMD source that is describing the same Donnelly study is not likely to be sufficient to tip the scales from past discussions. I don't suspect it's likely consensus will change without a significant number of new, high-quality sources supporting the alternate presentation, and from what I can tell those do not exist. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot about that part, I'd like then first to articulate this more clearly in the article preface with something like "This article refers to the online subculture that formed around the term Incel which is a portmanteau of "Involuntary Celibate"" or something along that line, let's see if we can reach consensus on this as a first step 95.247.142.163 (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

How is that meaningfully different from the current wording? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Because it shift the perspective from: "Incels (/ˈɪnsɛlz/ IN-selz), a portmanteau of "involuntary celibates", are (all) members of an online subculture who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one." to "In this article we are addressing the term Incel in relation to the online subculture, those who defines themself incels but are not part of said online subculture are not defined in this page at this moment", which seems to be what you said about the previous consensus was, to only speak about the online subculture, correct? 95.247.142.163 (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Previous consensus is that the term "incels" (or "involuntary celibates") is really only widely used to describe the online subculture. The consensus was not "we're not going to write about the other definition of incel", it was that that definition is not widely used in RS at all. This means that we should not imply that there is some other group of people who are called "incels" in the way you are suggesting, at least not without a new consensus that such a group exists and is widely referred to as "incels" or "involuntary celibates". The wording you are suggesting implies that there is legitimate usage of the term and that it just isn't described in this article, which is against previous consensus and giving undue weight to a fringe usage of the term. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, indeed. There are in fact two topics, but only one is usually known by this name and has sufficient sources to merit an article. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As has been discussed previously, there may be little scholarly consensus that the "existential incel" is a thing apart from the online community. It was largely to entirely the online community that seems to have taken the concept from just "people who aren't getting laid" to a "class". I'm not sure how to put this...I'm a person who doesn't really like cake. I don't really eat sweets at all. That's a capital-T Truth about the universe, but I'm not really a member of a "class" of non-cake-eaters. I mean...sex is fun, and in many ways is quite healthy, and I have a couple of degrees that or more-or-less related to the subject. But water-slides are also fun, and hiking, and kayaking, but I'm not really a member of a class because I can't do any of those things at the moment. GMG^talk 18:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not saying that what you're saying isn't true. I'm just saying that there isn't a documented scholarly consensus for it. Wikipedia is a lagging ledger and we only follow the sources, and normally only once those sources reach a mainstream consensus. GMG^talk 18:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Someone put it well in a past discussion on this page, saying something along the lines of: I don't have a million dollars and I'd sure like to, but that doesn't mean I identify as an "involuntary non-millionaire", nor does it mean that if I did, academics or psychiatrists or whoever would go around describing everyone in my situation as an "involuntary non-millionaire". GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

There are at least a few interesting discussions around the idea. In the realm of marriage counseling, sexless marriages have been a thing since, in dunno...Louis XVI? Of course there some discussion about how many of those people were really gay, not that that's going to help Marie sleep at night. But there does not seem to be (as far as I have read) a compelling consensus that it's not normally a transient phase, at least for those who don't make it a core of their identity. I mean, for goodness sake, we're in the middle of a global plague and a global recession. How many married couples right now are entirely more worried about whether they can keep their house and how to unmute Jenny's tablet on Zoom for her class, and maybe the scented candles have gone unlit for a few months.

But in perspective, people who are trans are an exceedingly small part of the genpop. Maybe incels are a thing. But we have to wait for the sourced to catch up if that's the case. GMG^talk 19:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the sources that I posted refer to it as mostly online community, which to me means that the sources imply they are not only an internet subculture, and I posted some of them already, other sources expand also on the various subgroups of the online subcultures of the subculture, which to my interpretation means that if we make a page on them we can't just lump all of them together and then pretend what all the sources report applies to all of them, that's my point, and I don't think this presentation is an undue weight 95.247.142.163 (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

First of all, the source that describes it as a "mostly online community" is Wiktionary, which for starters is not a reliable source due to it being user-generated content. However, even if Wiktionary was a reliable source, it is not saying that the term incel is mostly used to refer to the online subculture, it's saying that the incel subculture is mostly online. Similar wording is used in the Men Going Their Own Way Wikipedia article because there are offline MGTOW meetups, etc. I'm not actually sure I've ever seen any mention of incels being an offline community, though, so I may go edit the Wiktionary definition accordingly.

Regarding your suggestion that this article address other subgroups of the online subculture, you still haven't presented what text you're hoping to see added or based on one source. Handwaving at the list of sources that you've previously posted and saying that you want the article changed to reflect them is pretty unhelpful; many of the sources are unreliable and the other ones do not appear to contradict the existing article or how it's presented. Presenting the specific change, with the specific sources you'd use to support it, is really the only way to move this conversation forward. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, well, they go offline to murder people, but I get your point. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

A big problem I'm noticing in this discussion is the conflation of "redpill" and "blackpill". The "blackpill" is the dominating ideological viewpoint of the incel subculture. Taking the blackpill entails a) understanding the "truth"; that most men are undesirable to practically all women and b) that it is impossible to change your status in this system. Taking the redpill just entails understanding the "truth"; which in the context of the broader Manosphere refers to understanding the "true nature" of women, which varies depending on who you're asking. [7] Notably this does not include the nihilistic viewpoint that you cannot change your status within this system and many places that are "redpilled" on women aren't a part of the incel movement. Oftentimes they will be pickup artist forums, "game" experts, or other general places where people with knowledge of how women are want to take advantage of them. For example the subreddit /r/theredpill which is a main hub for "redpillers" in the context of gender politics [8] is officially according to its moderators anti-incel [9] (relying on WP:ABOUTSELF here) and is focused on manipulating women to have as much sex as possible. The point I'm trying to make is that it's mistaken to lump people who follow the "redpill" under the Incel umbrella when they more properly belong on our article on the Manosphere. The "redpill" is not a moderate version of the blackpill that entails non-violent resistance or whatever; it's a separate ideology that shares many of the same basic assumptions on women. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 22:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chess: That's how I know the "red pill" also—both as a philosophy common among manosphere groups, and as a group (r/TheRedPill), but not as a subgroup of incels. Our IP friend is correct, though, that the it.wiki article describes redpillers as a subgroup of incels—it's all that not clear to me if this is an Italian phenomenon or if it.wiki is just grouping the two ideas into one article for some reason. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Pardon my (probably long) dissertation, I'll try to go through the sources here, bear with me for a while.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/09/world/americas/incels-toronto-attack.html

"But incels are the latest manifestation of a much larger movement hidden just beneath the surface of polite society across the West. They are just one part of a set of ideologies, now growing in size and influence, that speak to broader resentments among men in Western societies, experts say." "The result is that movements like the incels are becoming at once more accessible and more extreme.

So this source says Incel is an ideology and a movement

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/25/us/incel-rebellion-alek-minassian-toronto-attack-trnd/index.html

""Incel" is short for "involuntarily celibate." It's a movement made up almost entirely of men who claim they "can't have sex despite wanting to," according to incels.me."

Another support for the movement terminology

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/4/25/17277496/incel-toronto-attack-alek-minassian

"Only a tiny percentage of incels seem willing to turn to violence or terrorism, and the movement isn’t a threat on the level of an al-Qaeda or ISIS."

Another support for the movement terminology

"Instead, we are talking about a specific subculture of people in various internet forums — subreddits like r/braincels, the cruel troll chat forum 4chan, and dedicated websites like incels.me.

Beyond their shared frustration with not having sex, the incel community is not monolithic."

Here there is a swap of terminology, but it support the idea that we can't lump the faceats in a single group, as it says that it's not monolithic

https://theswaddle.com/looksmax-redpill-femoid-dissecting-incel-language-and-ideology/

This, again, goes in lenght to explain the difference between the two main ideologies, the black pill and the red pill, that are present.

https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/sexless-in-city#1

"If so, you may be part of a growing group of adults known as "involuntary celibates" -- otherwise healthy folks who want to have sex but can't make it happen in their lives."

This source defines them as a group and uses a broader definition on who can be defined as incel.

https://medium.com/@ethanjiang4/blackpill-philosophy-a-closer-look-at-incels-e49ede6a2f7e

"An important distinction to note is that one can reject Blackpill ideology yet still be an incel."

Another source that supports the idea of not lumping all the incel communities together

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/04/25/inside-the-online-world-of-incels-the-dark-corner-of-the-internet-linked-to-the-toronto-suspect/

"Incel is partially explained by what it stands for: involuntarily celibate. But in online culture, “incel” means more than just a support group for the lonely and shy — it refers to a specific, insular, self-radicalized community with roots in the anti-feminist, misogynist “manosphere” and 4chan culture."

I believe the source partially support the definitions expressed above, otherwise the "But" referred to the online culture would not be necessary.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/04/26/incel-rebellion-alek-minassian-sexual-entitlement-mens-rights-elliot-rodger/550635002/

"[Incels are] men who believe that women are withholding sex from them, and they are celibate not by choice but because of societal structures, or because of feminism or because of the evils of women," said Keegan Hankes, a senior intelligence analyst at SPLC"

This support the broader definition too, but it's also an Ipse Dixit, however it seems those are accepted so I'll include this.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/24/toronto-van-attack-facebook-post-may-link-suspect-with-incel-group go back and forth and it's not clear to me, it uses the term movement, then says it's an online subculture, then specify online incels again, I'll leave it here alone for now

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/toronto-van-incel/558836/

“incels,” short for “involuntarily celibate.” Incels, mostly male, want to have sex but find no willing partners. They often resent the sexually active for spurning them." "I suspect something similar has happened with these two violent incels. The dynamic is a familiar one in the age of digital community building. Once the incels griped to themselves, occasionally victimizing others, and sometimes getting over their pathology or finding a partner. Now they can come together online and find others to validate their grievances and encourage them to action."

This to me seems to support the idea that incels are self-identifying men that want to have sex but find no willing partner, and only after that they build a community, those who are online (the "Now" implies a before too)

https://www.dps.texas.gov/director_staff/media_and_communications/2020/txTerrorThreatAssessment.pdf speaks to incel as a movement.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190120182313/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

"The term is short for “involuntary celibates,” though the group has evolved into a male supremacist movement made up of people — some celibate, some not — who believe that women should be treated as sexual objects with few rights. "

Note it doesn't say anything it's an online movement or subculture, but just a movement.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180528133904/https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/05/we-must-try-understand-how-unwanted-virginity-leads-self-hating-incels-murder

"Rodger and Minassian both belonged to a community known as “incels” – and they were not lone wolves. Incel is a slang term used to describe someone who is an “involuntary celibate”, ie a person who desires sex but isn’t having it. Online, incels are part of the “manosphere”, a toxic group of misogynistic men who openly hate women."

Seems to support the broader definition, and then goes to describe what it means online.

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/m7qqen/what-is-an-incel-how-incel-culture-grew-2010s

"This incident, in 2014, brought the term ‘incel’ to international attention. The word – which is an abbreviation of ‘involuntary’ and ‘celibate’ – has now come to define a distinct kind of modern masculine rage; one fuelled by young, typically white, typically right-wing men who want to find a girlfriend, but can’t. The lack of sex and intimacy in their lives drives them to online forums, where they incubate themselves in bitter, hate-filled echo chambers."

Another support to a broader definition, that brings then the members to online communities, which is as far as I can understand a consecutio.

"While this rage has always existed in the darker corners of society, it has managed to slip into the spotlight this decade. Now, these angry, deluded and terrified men – men who believe they are entitled to sex and innately superior to women – are everywhere. (Solid research is hard to come by, but some stats have suggested that between 15 to 30 percent of millennial men in the US could be classified as incels)."

I don't think this means 30% of millenials men in US subscribe to the online communities on that content, hence further supporting my idea of broader definition.

https://www.radicalrightanalysis.com/2019/11/11/incels-the-new-politics-of-indifference/ swing a bit, but it swing between "identity" and "phenomenon", focusing on the first one for the most part of the article, hence it seems to me it suggest Incel is an Identity.

https://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-abcarian-incels-20180508-story.html

"The 25-year-old male suspect, Alek Minassian, is a self-described “incel,” a man who is involuntarily celibate, and not very happy about it."

Not a strong swing i know, but this seems to support a somewhat wider definition of what incel is, ie a man who is involuntarily celibate.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/07/06/incels-the-ugly-truth/

"Incels are ‘involuntary celibates’ – men frustrated with their inability to find a sexual partner."

https://www.theweek.co.uk/93167/what-is-the-incel-movement

"The term “incel” is a portmanteau derived from the phrase “involuntary celibate”. Self-identified incels believe that they are excluded from fulfilling their desire to have sex, date or establish relationships with women, usually because of their physical appearance."

Wider definition again.

https://www.villagevoice.com/2018/05/03/the-harpy-someone-please-tell-the-times-that-incels-are-terrorists/

"Naturally, the media responded with a surge of explainers, with Vox, as ever, leading the way, about what “incels” are — it’s a self-applied term, meaning “involuntarily celibate”"

Broader definition again.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/incels-alek-minassian-mra-mens-rights-terrorism-toronto-van-attack-a8323166.html

"The basics are simple: “incel” stands for “involuntary celibate”, a man who cannot have sex with anyone, because nobody will have sex with him. But beyond that, there’s little understanding of who these men are or what they believe."

Yet another wider definition.

https://www.adl.org/blog/the-extremist-medicine-cabinet-a-guide-to-online-pills

"The incel red pill can be explained by the 80/20 rule, which says that 80% of women desire just 20% of men" "In the incel movement, the black pill is far more pernicious. "

The article also support the term "movement", beyond the above that speaks about the differentiation between black and red pill incels.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v40/n06/amia-srinivasan/does-anyone-have-the-right-to-sex

"‘incel’ – involuntary celibate. The term can, in theory, be applied to both men and women, but in practice it picks out not sexless men in general, but a certain kind of sexless man: the kind who is convinced he is owed sex, and is enraged by the women who deprive him of it."

A broader (albeit stricter than the articles above) definition.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/435g9p/how-to-help-an-incel-sex-therapist

"He doesn't identify as "incel" per se, although he certainly meets the baseline qualification of being involuntarily celibate, which is how he found himself asking the braincels community for advice."

Somewhat support broader definition (?)

https://web.archive.org/web/20191029034533/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/05/27/inside-the-manosphere-that-inspired-santa-barbara-shooter-elliot-rodger/

"There, and on other forums, Rodger identified as an “incel, or “involuntary celibate” — a virgin who couldn’t get girls, even after taking “the red pill.”"

Double affirmation: on the broader definition, and on the existence of incel redpill subculture

https://observer.com/2014/05/hating-the-players-elliot-rodger/

"On the PUA website, Mr. Rodger was an “incel,” which stands for involuntary celibate."

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/alek-minassian-toronto-van-attack-incels-891678/

"Newly released video footage of a police interview with Alek Minassian, the suspect in the 2018 Toronto van attack, sheds light on how he became an incel, a term used to describe an “involuntary celibate” male"

Wider definition again.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/tallahassee-yoga-shooter-incel-far-right-misogyny-video

"Rodger is often seen as a hero for so-called incels, or those who consider themselves “involuntarily celibate.”"

Wider definition again.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/enterthefray/la-ol-dallas-gunman-brian-isaack-clyde-video-federal-building-20190618-story.html

"The Dallas Morning News reports that Clyde also had shared memes tied to the misogynistic “incel” subculture, or “involuntary celibates” — socially isolated men who blame women for their inability to enter into romantic relationships."

Broader definition.

I think this goes a long way from saying the inclusion of broader definition and/or subdefinitions is unweight or fringe, there are many sources more but I mostly picked those already in the article and those I posted above, to me this does not look like "undue weight" at all to include the broader definition and the subcultures/subideologies. 95.247.142.163 (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The sources you are quoting are describing the same phenomenon. It is a group of men who call themselves incels who have a distinct ideology, and regardless of whether you describe it in terms of the subculture, the ideology, the "movement", or whatever, you're describing the same thing. None of these sources at all support the assertion that people who are completely unaffiliated with this subculture are described as incels. Frankly a lot of your explanations here are quite a stretch (calling out "but" to mean that they must be alluding to a wider group of people, pointing to sources that state that "incel" is short for "involuntary celibate" as somehow supporting that conclusion, etc.). Certainly you can wait to see if there are others here who think your sources are stronger than I do, but I'm pretty much convinced at this point that you don't have the requisite sourcing to support making this change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You make it sound like words don't have a specific meaning, if it is an Ideology or a Movement or a Sub(culture) these are very different things, you can refer to your dictionary for the details.

My point is that the "are members of an online subculture who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one." seems to not be the case for a good amount of sources, who don't tie it to be an online thing, but on people that either meet the definition or identify themself as.

You also ignored or forgot about the sources that state the existence of different ideologies inside this term, and there are some sources (see above) that says that it may refer to a plethora of people, not only those who subscribe to it, albeit they don't seem to be the majority, yet the majority of them don't take a standpoint in this regard so I'd like you to articulate your opposition on this specific point as, to me, a good amount of sources seems to be neutral on when the term should be used, ie if it is a "self-subscription only" or something that can be "appealed" to someone.

Another point to note is that if you use the term Subculture, as per dictionary (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subculture), it means it applies to whoever exibit the same patterns of behaviors, hence one can be an Incel without even having access to internet or knowing what it is. 95.247.142.163 (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I've made this argument on this page before, but one can be opposed to fascism ("anti-fascist"), without being part of antifa. Similarly, one can not have sex while wanting to ("involuntarily celibate"), without being an incel. Words have meanings, but when it comes to neologisms like "antifa" and "incel", the meaning of the words cannot always be taken at face value. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is a subculture that has a specific ideology—that is what the article says, and it is what reliable sources say. I am not ignoring or forgetting sources—we don't disagree that there are different kinds of incels, and that specific beliefs vary between incel communities and individuals. This is something that is stated in this article already. Regarding "I'd like you to articulate your opposition on this specific point", I have been exceedingly clear, and am becoming tired of repeating myself. The reliable sources support that incels are the members of the communities who have formed around their shared hatred of women and resentment for lack of sexual activity, not that incels are anyone who isn't having sex but would like to be. Past consensus agrees with my evaluation of the sources. It makes no sense that someone who knows nothing of the incel communities could somehow be an incel, because the whole definition of an incel is that they are a member of these communities.

As I said above, I am pretty convinced at this point that there has not been a shift in the available sourcing to support the change that you are suggesting. I don't wish to continue going back and forth with you on this point indefinitely; if others comment here I may weigh in then, but I think the two of us have discussed between ourselves about as much as is likely to be productive. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course, but we're trying to determine if/when/how the neologism applies, and as far as I can see there's no consensus on that on the sources, I'd go as far as saying there's no consensus on the definition itself on the sources, that's the first and foremost cardinal point of the discussion.

My objection point is the "online" word, while sources don't seem to indicate that it's an online-only community/movement/ideology, you keep missing to argument this point and I don't think it was ever challenged or agreed in the consensus, that's what I'm asking you to articulate on, and I believe you don't have a whole lot of sources to support the idea that incel is an online-only movement/ideology/community/whatever beyond any objection and the sources that says otherwise are only fringe POV, so I repeat again that to guarantee the NPOV the online word should be removed, or the definition reformatted. 95.247.142.163 (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

So to be clear, at this point you're saying that they are a subculture based around their shared opinions on women/not having sex, but you're not sure they're an online subculture? I'm honestly not sure anyone's made that argument before—usually either people believe incels should be defined as the phenomenon of people who aren't having sex but want to be, or should be defined as the subculture, and those who believe the latter have always pretty much agreed that they are specifically found online. But since you're asking, sure, it's easy enough to provide some sources to support that point, since I don't think there's much argument on it. While members of incel groups certainly go offline and do things (like shoot people, as JzG mentioned above), I don't think I've ever seen a source saying that these guys gather in person and talk about the things they talk about online or, I don't know, create IRL chapters or whatever else.

• "Do fringes of the involuntary celibate (incel) movement pose a terrorist threat? In recent years, attacks linked to extreme fringes of this loosely organized, virtual community have generated increasing concern." Hoffman, Bruce; Ware, Jacob; Shapiro, Ezra (2020). "Assessing the Threat of Incel Violence". Studies in Conflict & Terrorism. doi:10.1080/1057610X.2020.1751459.
• "More recently, the role of the Manosphere (the digital manifestation of the contemporary Men’s Rights Movement [MRM]) has come under fire in terms of how it may be contributing to the propagation of gendered online harassment... The Manosphere is now home to several different groups, including pickup artists, the more radical ‘Incels’," Jones, Callum; Trott, Verity; Wright, Scott (November 8, 2019). "Sluts and soyboys: MGTOW and the production of misogynistic online harassment" New Media & Society. doi:10.1177/1461444819887141.
• "'Incels,' or 'involuntary celibates,' are part of the online male supremacist ecosystem.... On the internet, the male supremacist ideology takes a few different forms. One of the newest forms is 'incel.'" Janik, Rachel (April 24, 2018). "'I laugh at the death of normies': How incels are celebrating the Toronto mass killing". Hatewatch. Southern Poverty Law Center.
• "A subset of the online misogynist 'manosphere' that includes Pick Up Artists and Men’s Rights Activists, incels are known for their deep-seated pessimism and profound sense of grievance against women." "Incels (Involuntary celibates)". Anti-Defamation League.

I picked a handful of the stronger sources (academia and groups known for researching these kinds of things), but plenty of news sources also support the description. And like I've said above, I haven't seen sources contradicting that the subculture is a primarily online phenomenon. Some don't make much mention of it, perhaps, but these guys aren't exactly having big conventions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I repeat my point above. There are two topics - the online incel movement and people who live without sex - but only one of these is routinely referred to as "incel" by reliable sources. I think that our anonymous interlocutor is arguing from the false premise that the two are the same. They are not.

You remember the history of this page, and the efforts by incel activists to use the minority-use clinical term "involuntary celibacy" to excuse the excesses of inceldom. I do not think there are enough sources for an article on the clinical topic of "involuntary celibacy", whether under that title or some other more widely used one, but the contraction incel appears to me to be solely connected to the online subculture, and your analysis backs that up. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to come up with a good analogy, but it's hard. So...I'm a dad, and sometimes I tell jokes. So those are technically dad jokes. Some of them are very bad, and are (capital) Dad Jokes (lowercase) dad jokes. While Dad Jokes is a particular subset of corny humor, no one denies that dad jokes exist, but there is no particular subset of humor that refers to jokes told by dads, as opposed to childless men. The words are the same, but the meaning is different, and it is perfectly possible for one of these to exist and also be a particular thing, while the other also exists in a descriptive sense, but is not a particular thing. GMG^talk 11:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

So we have some sources that ties it up as an online-only thing, yet there are others that don't seems to make this tie, I'm not sure how this specific part is addressed according to wikipedia rules, how would this be treated? IE if it should be defined as "online-only phenomenon" because some sources states it even if others don't do that tie or is it required that many sources concur on this definition and there are very few sources that actively oppose that specific point?

In other words, a RS that does not make that tie is considered as an opposition of the definition or not considered in regard to that point and thus only RSes that actively oppose it are evaluated against those who actively support it? 95.247.142.163 (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's all a bit subjective and context dependent. So there are rarely hard-fast rules that can be uncritically followed without interpretation and critical analysis. But in general Wikipedia strives to present the mainstream view as represented in the preponderance of reliable sources. We generally more-highly-value sources the more reliable they are: e.g., college textbook > scholarly meta analysis > primary academic article > news story. But we would still tend to discount any one of those sources if it was apparent that they ran counter to the mainstream view in the preponderance of sources overall.

Wikipedia gets flack a lot for being politically liberal. But Wikipedia is very epistemologically conservative. We don't really get into things that are new and fresh, cutting edge or popular. We err on the side of things that are verifiable, even to the point of disregarding truth for the purpose of verifiability. This probably means that we're very often wrong, but it also means that we fix our wrongs when the sources fix themselves in due time. GMG^talk 13:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It makes sense if the wikipedia basis is the verifiability, I however wonder on this point if we should include the "online" part as there are various sources who don't seem to make that tie, IE my point is that someone may consider him/herself an incel and display charaterized signs without engaging in online resonant communities, IE it's something that a person "subscribes to" indifferently on where it does, if that makes sense (?)

I'm also not sure now that the correct term would be subculture, which derives from culture that is dictionarly defined (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture) as "the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group", "the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization" and "the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic", to argue on this I'd try to make a reductio ad absurdum: Imagine we say the English culture is tied to live the united kingdom, that would therefore mean that someone who displays all the norms, beliefs, values etc., IE for example drinks tea at 5pm every day, makes english humor and other charateristical points cannot be ascribed on the english culture because s/he lives in US/france or in another place that is not in the UK. You would concur with me that it would make no sense if the core values, norms and beliefs of said person to not ascribe him/her to the english culture just because s/he is in a different place.

The same way a person who shares a mysoginistic views on women, is misanthropic, self-pity, self-loathing, racist, believes s/he is entitled to have sex whenever and with whoever s/he wants, and ascribe to the idea that violence is justified against sexually active people and never had sex (I'm making an example on a perfectly, stereotypical person) would be ascribed as Incel even if s/he is in central africa or some place in India or wherever where internet doesn't even exist or s/he lives where it exists but s/he only uses it to look at cute cat pics and videos and never found an incel online community and never engaged with it, IMHO. 95.247.142.163 (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but in some ways that goes back to the core epistemology of Wikipedia. I know it may sound strange, and is surely the source of lots of angst, especially for new contributors, but we don't really care about truth, we really just care about verifiability.

In reference to my analogy above, no one can really deny that there are people who are 1) voluntarily sexually active, 2) involuntarily sexually active, 3) voluntarily non-sexually active, and 4) involuntarily non-sexually active. Categories 1-3 have each independently enough literature available to fill up their own library. Turning number four into a bona fide field of particular study is probably a job for young sexologists, therapists and psychologists. But generating that body of literature is not something that can be done on Wikipedia. GMG^talk 14:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Yep I got it and it makes sense, what do you think however on the objection on the use of the "online" part and the "subculture" term? To me the existence of various sources that does not necessarily tie it to be an online-only thing and the dictionary definition of what a sub(culture) is seems to indicate that we should use another terminology (movement as other sources used? community?) 95.247.142.163 (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Similar issue. If the preponderance of reliable secondary sources define it as an online subculture, then it is. We don't really engage in original extrapolation from things like dictionary definitions in order to fact check the secondary sources. There are places like Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where we generally use other secondary sources to judge the overall reliability of secondary sources. But we don't really do independent individual fact checking. Being the kind of source that has a reputation for responsible editorial oversight, journalistic integrity, and independent fact checking are the kinds of things we use to judge the reliability of a source. But if all that checks out in general, then ours is to roll with it. Otherwise, ours is to get off Wikipedia for a while, and go publish the kinds of sources we can use on Wikipedia. GMG^talk 14:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, do you have any sources or reason to believe that incels are not an online subculture? Your example of someone who "may consider him/herself an incel and display charaterized signs without engaging in online resonant communities" doesn't really make sense–I feel like a broken record here, but incels are people who identify with the online communities. Whether or not they are actively posting there or what have you, they still need to know of the online communities to identify with them. The ideology is almost exclusively spread online, which makes it an online subculture–the fact that members of the subculture also have lives that are separate from the internet, and may only consume information from the online forums rather than actively engaging with them, does not change that.

Regarding "subculture", you have picked one dictionary definition and tried to make it contradict the usage here. I absolutely disagree that we would describe someone as English because they drink tea and enjoy English humor, when they have no other ties to England. The term "subculture" is much more complex than a single-sentence dictionary definition (see the length of subculture, for example).

I am trying to AGF here but we are now on to the fourth issue you've jumped to in this (very long) section. First it was whether incels are the online subculture or the group of people who aren't having sex but would like to be; then it was whether the article needs to be split to discuss subgroups of incels such as "redpill incels"; then it was whether the subculture is online or not; now it's whether incels are a subculture. At this point it seems like you're just jumping from one term to the next trying to find something to argue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

That is because I have seen the errors on some of my comments and moved on with the list of things I believe should be discussed, you can see that as reaching consensus in some points like to describe the phenomenon rather than to use it to define anyone who is "involuntary celibate", I believe it's my right to challenge the points in the article, and I believe the tie on the online part makes no sense because a good amount of sources (see above) do not tie it uniquely to online, and the implication would be that if you sit down with your grand-grandfather and explain him all the Incel theories and he says "I concur with all of them" he would still not be an Incel as he had not consumed the info on the web? I think it's clearly paradoxical. 95.247.142.163 (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

If you explained the incel theories, which originated from the online subculture, to a person and that person agreed and decided they were one themselves, then they would be identifying with the online subculture. A hypothetical example of a person discussing incel topics offline does not change the fact that incels formed online, and incels gather and develop their ideologies online. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

So wouldn't it be more appropriate to say "a subculture that was born and is predominantly discussed online"? 95.247.142.163 (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

That would make a wordy first sentence even wordier, and I've yet to see any convincing reason "online subculture" is not an accurate or sourced descriptor. It also would imply that there is some non-negligible amount of the subculture that occurs offline, which again does not appear to be supported by the sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, takes place predominantly online like a duck, call it a duck. I can't tell what your actual intent here is, but I definitely understand GorillaWarfare's frustration; it seems like you're taking an extremely and unrealistically rigid interpretation of language, and it definitely feels like the intent is to be obtuse. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Sorry if it seems, but words have meanings and as I illustrated above many sources do not tie the thing to be an "online and online only" thing, so my first suggestion was to simply call it a subculture (a thing most if not all the sources agrees on, if we consider similar words as the same thing as you suggested and as I can agree to a certain degree upon), seeing it being rejected and trying to find consensus as mandated by the policies you guys linked before, I moved hence to suggest the inclusion of it but to resize the wording as how it's worded actually seems like it says "it happens online, online only, and it can't happen anywhere else than online", which to me doesn't seem to be endorsed by all the sources, hence why I proposed the removal of the online part that would make the first sentence shorter ("less wordy") in the first instance, I hope this makes sense on the reasoning behind my suggestion 95.247.142.163 (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I will ask again: have you found sources that contradict that incels are an online phenomenon, or only ones that don't mention whether they are online/offline? If so, can you provide them please? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I have not find direct contraddictions on the online part, only non-mentions, I wonder however what does it mean in wikipedia's terms (?) 95.247.142.163 (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia represent[s] fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. In this case, there is the one view: that it is an online subculture. So far no one has found support for the contradictory view, that it is to any extent offline. The lack of mention of its online- or offline-ness is not contradiction. As an analogy, there are plenty of sources that describe the sky as blue. There are also plenty of sources that describe the sky but don't mention its color. One could think, "maybe the sky is actually green!" and point to sources not mentioning the sky's color to introduce doubt, but until there is a significant viewpoint represented in reliable sourcing that the sky may in fact be green, it won't be introduced to the sky article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense in this perspective, I wonder how would it apply to the other topic we were speaking above, the redpill-blackpill differentiation, as there are sources that explain it deeper and as far as I remember noone that directly contradict it 95.247.142.163 (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing I have seen that mentions the redpill as a group of people describe it as a separate manosphere group more akin to men's rights activists. I have not seen any reliable sources yet that describe redpillers as a subgroup of incels. Looking through the sources you quoted above on the subject, the only ones that mention "red pill" are:

• https://www.wikizero.com/it/Incel: a mirror of the Italian Wikipedia article on incels, which is not a usable source (WP:UGC).
• http://www.beunsocial.it/etnografia-digitale-il-caso-della-community-del-forum-dei-brutti/: a source that explains that "Gli incel non vanno confusi con i redpillati"–incels and the "redpillati" ("redpillers", I assume) should not be confused. Also mentions that the redpill group also includes incels. This supports that those who ascribe to the redpill philosophy are indeed a separate group, though there is shared membership with incel communities. Not sure if this is an RS or not.
• https://www.mic.com/articles/189074/the-meaning-of-incel-and-how-mens-rights-extremism-fueled-the-toronto-van-attack: mostly describes the redpill as a philosophy shared among various manosphere groups, which is in line both with the discussion of the subject at Incel#Black pill and in other places on-wiki such as Manosphere#Ideology and content. It also mentions red pill-oriented forums and suggests that incels may visit these forums, which aligns with the statement in this article that incels may overlap with other various manosphere communities. The Mic article does not support the assertion that there is a redpill subgroup of incels.
• https://theswaddle.com/looksmax-redpill-femoid-dissecting-incel-language-and-ideology/: describes the black pill and red pill philosophies, don't make any mention of the communities centered around the redpill or suggest that there is a "redpill" subgroup of incels. Not sure if this is a reliable source or not, I've never heard of The Swaddle before.

So, in summary, the sources you've provided largely support the current treatment of the "red pill" topic as a) a part of the blue pill/red pill/black pill philosophy that is shared among many manosphere communities, and b) a name for some communities formed around the red pill portion of the "*-pill" ideologies, which appears to be a distinct community from incels that may have some overlap in membership. Have I missed anything? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, of course one could be redpilled while not being an incel (PUA for example), but if we imagine the incel as a circle, inside there are two smaller ones, one that intersect with it and is the redpill, the other one is all self-contained in it and it's the blackpill, and the space left between the two (which is not much) are other/non aligned incels (I think there are more "pills" but I'm not aware of them, I don't research on this topic that much).

https://www.adl.org/blog/the-extremist-medicine-cabinet-a-guide-to-online-pills have a dissertation on the two, "The incel red pill" and "In the incel movement, the black pill is far more pernicious. [...] blackpilled incels believe [...]" for example, altought there is also an idea that when one "swallows the black pill" it's when he starts to become an incel, the territory here is very muddy and as with all extreme self-enclosed ideologies that tries to go undetected and avoid confrontations and analyses and eyes from the external world there's very little basis on how they actually work internally and the current point/form of the ideology and categorizations, that's why it's so difficult to have good conclusions and concordance on many aspects beside the surface on those 95.247.142.163 (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

That seems a reasonably fair summary except on one point. Give me a moment, I'm going to draw a picture. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so I think I have represented your idea of the relationship between incels, the redpill, and the blackpill here:

95.247.142.163's mental model (#1)

My mental picture is closest to this:

GorillaWarfare's mental model (#2)

There are also at least two other options:

#3

#4

I have shaded philosophies in blue, and communities in red for visual aid. I've also included MGTOW just to illustrate that there are other manosphere communities that overlap variously. You could even draw a big circle around the whole diagram, labelled "manosphere". Models 2–4 draw a distinction between redpill as a philosophy, and redpill as a community (for example, r/TheRedPill is a community entirely encircled within the redpill philosophy, abbreviated to r/TRP to save space in my drawings). The questions to answer in order to determine which of the three models is most accurate are:

• Is belief in the blackpill the distinguishing feature of incels (option 4)?
• Are there incels who do ascribe to the red pill philosophy but not the black pill philosophy (option 2)?
• Are there incels who do not ascribe to the black pill philosophy or the red pill philosophy (options 2 and 3, though option 2 allows for the possibility that there are redpill incels and non-redpill, non-blackpill incels)?

Right now I think my mental model most closely fits with option 2, though I think all three of options 2–4 are represented to varying degrees by the sourcing. The article may need some changes to fully fall in line with one of these models, because it supports that incel communities overlap with communities like MGTOW (option 2), but also describes the blackpill as a distinguishing characteristic of incels that differentiates them from other manosphere groups (option 4). It may be that there are contradictory sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Geez. We're gettin awful fancy. GMG^talk 19:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

My partner looked over at me while I was drawing these pictures... "I CAN EXPLAIN!" 😅 GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

THERE IS NO CAROL IN HR! GMG^talk 19:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

My partner saw the diagrams over my shoulder and said that if you have an explanation for all of the clown fiesta that that represents, we'd love to hear it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, And there's a circle enclosing all of these labelled "assholes". Guy (help! - typo?) 21:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I think their views in respect to each other (at least as far as I'm aware of) is something like this (Writ I think your partner's mind will blow if s/he sees it, I'm in no way responsible for possible self human combustions :P): https://i.imgur.com/48MzypO.png (i pulled out Visio to draw this)

Notice Point 1, there's a minority of people who subscribe to the blackpill but are not incels (according to incel's definition), usually those are the people who while subscribing to the blackpill ideology but do not subscribe to the incel one, for example people that engage in sexual activities or (more prominently) gay men or gay/straight women, incels reject them, this is a minority of a minority of a minority so we may aswell ignore them.

Point 2, there's a subset of people who subscribe to the blackpill philosophy , to the incel philosophy and are in the incel community, a good part of them

Point 3, people who subscribe to the redpill philosophy, are in the redpill community, are in the incel community but do not subscribe to the incel philosophy

Point 4, subscribe to incel philosophy, are in the incel community, subscribe to redpill philosophy and are in the redpill community, a not so big amount but definetly more prominent than Point 1

Between Point 3 and Point 4 there's the group that subscribe to the redpill philosophy, are in the redpill community, are in the incel community but do not subscribe incel ideology, above that in the Venn diagram they subscribe to the redpill philosophy, are in the incel community, either do not subscribe or partially subscribe the incel ideology that is not part of the blackpill, they are the most prominent minority in the incel community.

There is also a grey are of mix between partial subscribers on black and redpill, non-subscribers, subscribers to other philosophies that i'm not aware of, and the good amount of mixes and cuts, the 2nd most prominent minority.

Damn, it was a good while i didn't do a Venn diagram. 95.247.142.163 (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the idea of people who ascribe to the incel ideology, but are not incels themselves ("between point 3 and 4" in your list). Are you referring to the concept of "fakecels" or "ascended" or whichever words they choose to use for that group of people who were incels at one point but have since become sexually active? Though from your description I think you are describing those people as people in point 1, not "between point 3 and 4"... If in point 3–4 you mean "people who aren't having sex but would like to be", I would not call that the "incel ideology", but rather "sexually frustrated" or similar. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Mmh I'm not sure about that term, as someone can be (and probably mostly are) sexually frustrated but do not subscribe to the redpill philosophy and are not in the redpill community, the area between 3 and 4 are community redpillers subscribed to the ideology that are also in the incel community while not subscribing the incel ideology, for example people that believe women follow the 80/20 rule in the sexual preselection, that believe that the sexual/partnership scene is a market and that they have "bad genes" (in their own wording) that makes them in the disadvantageous position in said market, but still believes that they can improve that my increasing factors of the LMS theory (eg. getting financially stable, get a higher social status), and that however are at that point in time in the incel community as they don't have a relative one (a sexual partner) or had one in the last 6 months, they are seen as incels by the incels community and philosophy, they are subscribed to an incel community, however they don't share the incel ideology and are mainly there to, i dunno, discuss about their viewpoints, evaluate the incel philosophy, looking for advices about how to trick a sexual partner, moral support, whatever reason they may have to be there, if it makes sense 95.247.142.163 (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It does not seem likely to me that there are people who are a part of the incel community but who don't ascribe to the ideology, unless you're talking about people who've managed to sign up to those (normally very insular) communities under false pretenses for research or for mockery or some other reason. If that is who you are describing, I would say they are probably not a member of the incel community, despite technically being signed up to one. Either way, I suspect we are talking about a very small number of people and also about a phenomenon that has little to no reliable sourcing behind it, so we're probably off-topic for the purposes of this talk page.

As far as actual changes to this page, later tonight I'll take a re-read through some of the sources that currently describe the ideology/etc. and see if I can find common thread to answer some of the questions I posed in my bulleted points above. Our models are actually fairly similar, with the exception of the fact that yours includes 1) a blackpill ideology that is not fully overlapping with the incel communities (and a separate blackpill community that also overlaps with but is not entirely contained by the incel communities), and 2) an incel ideology that is broader than the incel communities. I'm not sure either needs to be discussed too much here since 1 would be outside of the scope of this article and consensus has decided against describing 2 in a Wikipedia article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I've adjusted the wording so that the article no longer implies only those who believe in the "black pill" ideology can be incels. I think this actually may have been poor wording rather than a reflection of a source saying as much. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure about the stats on this, but I'm not totally sure that anyone who does not completely subscribe to the incel philosophy is expelled and can't partecipate on any community that is consider incels, there are communities that indeed are in the incel "wing" but allows people who are not subscribed to the ideology to participate, like r/IncelsWithoutHate/ that in the rule states "This group is meant to be welcoming and inclusive to everyone who chooses to post here." for example, and that community is currently in 23k+ subscribed members.

It's an area that changes wildly between communities and probably a somewhat fascinating yet immensely complex topic to cover and trying to "lump together" them as a single thing that exists in different places is probably gonna result in an inaccurate representation, however this is not something that matters for us here as we have to go for verifiability over truth anyways and I don't think that small area is discussed in any secondary source anyways (glad to be proved wrong however) 95.247.142.163 (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

This brings us back to the definition of incel, which at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned is someone who identifies with the subculture. So someone who happens to have very similar ideas to incels but has never even heard of the subculture is not an incel, nor is someone who is technically a member of an incel community (by joining one of the forums, say) but who does not identify with the subculture. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I was not arguing that but rather underlying the difficulty of the topic and why I focused on a part without drawing all the other things around it, the change seems alright to me so far, what about the inclusion of the redpill-side ideology? I see the blackpill one so far 95.247.142.163 (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the bump. I'll make a couple tweaks and then post here to get your feedback. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll probably keep working on it a little more after I get supper going, but I think I have made the general changes I think ought to be made: diff, section link. I have tried to convey that some journalists/researchers believe that "black pill" refers to all beliefs held by incels (and thus all incels are blackpilled), and some believe that there are redpilled incels as well as blackpilled ones. Let me know if you (or anyone else watching the page) have any feedback on the changes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems pretty fine to me, I'm not sure about a passage "feminism has unbalanced society to favor women and give them too much power", as far as my knowledge this is a consecutio more than the ideology itself, as the ideology focuses around the sexual preselection and selection and address both women and men (though it says that men tend to be more "accepting" ie tend to select from a wider range than women do, the ideology still says that the LMS applies to a certain degree to both sexes, like a man that on the LMS status is rated 8 would select a woman whose status is from 5 to 10, a woman that is rated 8 would select from 7 to 10 (ie in a more restrictive range) but both would still "ditch" the old partner if a good occasion presents to them to "tier up" their partner, ie a man that have a woman that is rated 7 on the LMS theory would ditch them for a woman that is rated 8, and the same goes from a woman, altought the latter would be more "ruthless" than the firmer in the redpill ideology), that's at least as far as I know 95.247.142.163 (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

That sentence, In manosphere communities such as men's rights groups and, according to some researchers, in incel communities as well, "taking the red pill" means seeing a world where feminism has given women too much power over men and male privilege does not exist. is coming from a few sources:

• "When you 'take the red pill,' you 'wake up' to the belief that progressive feminist views about gender equality have ruined modern life for men." Vox (supports the assertion that this is what the red pill means in manosphere communities but not necessarily among incels—the author believes the incel ideology is synonymous with the black pill)
• "Thus, the 'red pill' of Reddit implies that its users have woken up to the nature of gendered reality, and no longer accept feminist myths concerning women's oppression and male privilege and power." Men's Rights, Gender, and Social Media, p. xvi (also used to describe the general definition of red pill among manosphere communities)
• "the predominantly white heterosexual men of the Red Pill believe they need solidarity with each other because the idea of white male supremacy is an illusion maintained to ensure they remain oppressed. Although they concede that many of the most powerful people in the world are men—and are happy to use that as evidence that men are intellectually superior and more naturally suited to dominance and leadership than women are—they believe that the 'myth of male privilege' is a manifestation of "the apex fallacy": the tendency to judge the status of an entire group based on a few outstanding members." Not All Dead White Men, Donna Zuckerberg, p. 11 (general definition of red pill, supports that a core idea of it is that male privilege is not real)
• "The incel red pill can be explained by the 80/20 rule, which says that 80% of women desire just 20% of men. This means that the vast majority of men will never be desirable and consequentially will never find sexual fulfillment and happiness. Among incels, the red pill represents the realization that feminism has caused a massive shift in power, and that feminism (understood by incels as women having the right to sleep with anyone they wish), gives women far too much power, and has led to “hypergamy,” incel speak for women pairing up with men who are more attractive. In most cases, the red pill is only a stepping stone; the far-right and the manosphere consider the red pill a call to action." Anti-Defamation League (used to support the assertion that some researchers attribute this same view to a subgroup of incels)

The sourcing around hypergamy, which I can go into if you need me to, does not support the assertion that incels believe it applies to men as well. Hope this helps. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Mmh I see a point but I'm not sure about the coverage on it, for example:

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-red-pill-reddit-2013-8?IR=T "For a group whose ideology presents itself as a straightforward means of self-improvement and sociological liberation, Red Pill often muddies the water with highly-charged polemics on the proper way for men and women to relate to each other." - "It needs to be clear that there's a spectrum to Red Pill attitude, as there is with any ideology. Some members seem genuinely interested in it as a way to get a leg up socially, to break out of their proverbial shells. But on the other (much louder) end are members who come off as fundamentalist, those more likely to hold ideas about sex, politics, and society that would make a feminist cringe." - "Red Pill thought extrapolates this to the extreme. The situation is "unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020." - "So Red Pillers' ideas and actions come from a place of resisting what they find to be a generally oppressive society." - ""We’re definitely a little different from the men’s rights movement in the sense that we don’t seek to 'fix' society or our government," he said. "In fact, a lot of us feel that things are beyond fixing. Sure it’d be nice if reproductive rights were equal between women and men, but nobody’s holding their breath about it. A majority of our goals are personal and interpersonal improvement. Not really something to write your congressperson for.""

https://www.themantle.com/international-affairs/feminism-red-pill "Where /r/TheRedPill focuses on masculinity, subreddits like /r/RedPillWomen and /r/RedPillWives focus on femininity, domesticity, and traditional ways of living for women." - "The anti-feminist tone varies across conversations in these groups. Some users seek dating advice or traditional lifestyle tips that seem to demonstrate benign conservative tendencies. Others discuss more insidious ideas, like how “shutting the fuck up,” general submission towards a man, and prioritizing your sexual market value are some of the best ways to guarantee a good relationship. While there are many moderate discussions happening on these forums, the propensity for more extreme rhetoric is a notable feature: recently a discussion thread started debating The Surrendered Wife author Laura Doyle's views on whether or not verbal abuse is merited in relationships." - "Labeling groups such as /r/RedPillWomen as “fringe” is misleading — their number of followers may be small, but they often reflect larger patterns taking place in society. As the subject of inequality and feminism gains more media attention, so too do the arguments of anti-feminists and free-speech advocates such as Jordan Peterson and Janice Fiamengo. Debating ideologies and the prevailing narratives surrounding feminism is an intrinsic part of democracy, but should we really accept that a growing number of women find comfort in ideologies that equate women’s value with their sexual market rating?"

https://www.adl.org/blog/the-extremist-medicine-cabinet-a-guide-to-online-pills "The red pill is the most basic of pills, and it can refer to almost any kind of political awakening (and does not necessarily indicate a move towards extremism)."

For incels it means trying to be more attractive in an effort to join the 20% of men who get women. In this context, the red pill is almost optimistic. The world is unfair, and the odds are stacked against you, but you can fight back. "For incels it [the red pill] means trying to be more attractive in an effort to join the 20% of men who get women. In this context, the red pill is almost optimistic. The world is unfair, and the odds are stacked against you, but you can fight back."

https://theswaddle.com/looksmax-redpill-femoid-dissecting-incel-language-and-ideology/ "Putting store in how one looks, judging others by their looks, and expecting to be judged by others on the basis of an arbitrary value assigned to those looks, is an accepted practice every single person participates in — if incels have taken it one step further and codified it, there’s your example of how unrealistic beauty standards can detrimentally harm people at large, shattering their confidence to an extent that begets mass violence in some cases."

So yes, while the redpill areas often present anti-feminism ideas, the "feminism has unbalanced society to favor women and give them too much power" would be a consecutio as the redpill is focused on how women (and men) sexually select partners at the core, and while yes, there's clearly anti-feminisms views in it, it is not the core ideology as it's not a pure reactionary ideology against feminism, it is rather an "This is how people select sexual partners and what you can do about it to be more desirable in the sexual market, oh BTW you feminists are wrong" kinda of an ideology, at least as far as I understand, what do you think? 95.247.142.163 (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

This article already states that the "red pill" can mean just about anything to any community, as you've quoted the ADL saying. Among communities that use the term, the "red pill" often refers to the core set of beliefs of that community, and people who are "redpilled" or who have "taken the red pill" are those who hold those beliefs. However among manosphere communities the red pill has a fairly similar, anti-feminist meaning, and you are cherrypicking quotes from sources (some not reliable) that generally support the statements in this article.

• Business Insider: "The basis of this philosophy, which underpins almost all conversations in his community, is that females get away with things by virtue of being female.... Those who 'swallow the pill' maintain that it's men not women, who have been socially disenfranchised. Feminism is considered a damaging ideology and Red Pillers are quick to cite examples that bolster their points, some going so far as to argue that society is outright anti-male."
• The Mantle (not sure this is an RS): Supports that the redpill is at its core an antifeminist ideology, even in the womens' communities. But discussing what specifically "redpill" means to womens' redpill communities is not much more relevant here than discussing what it means to white supremacists.
• ADL: "In MRA (Men’s Rights Activists) and incel circles, the red pill is extremely specific and serves as an introduction to a particularly dystopian and misogynistic world view.... Among incels, the red pill represents the realization that feminism has caused a massive shift in power, and that feminism (understood by incels as women having the right to sleep with anyone they wish), gives women far too much power..."
• The Swaddle: (Don't believe this is an RS) supports the ADL's comments about the incel definition of redpill (80/20, hypergamy, etc.)

There is absolutely no question that among manosphere communities, the "red pill" is at its core an antifeminist ideology, and I could find a mountain of sources to support that (though I don't wish to WP:OVERCITE something that I believe to most people is quite an uncontroversial claim). GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

That's correct, my objection is not that the redpill is not antifeminist at most, but rather than it's not the core of the ideology, that centers around the interactions between sexes, sexual selection and as such, it would also crush against feminism of course, but I'm not sure if it is the core of the ideology, as to say, not sure if I'm explaining myself well 95.247.142.163 (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The sources support that antifeminism is the core of the redpill ideology among manosphere communities, and the sources you've produced don't contradict that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I give you that, it does not collide with my knowledge but seems so from most of the sources 95.247.142.163 (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

In popular culture

While I generally oppose "in popular culture" sections in articles because they are used as trivia dumpsters, I'll say here that I never heard of the term "incel" until last week when I read a 2020 novel called Fair Warning by bestselling author Michael Connelly. The novel is about an investigative journalist tracking down an incel serial killer who takes advantage of the poor security of commercial DNA ancestry services to locate women with a DNA signature identified with risky behavior, murdering them after having sex. Pretty creepy stuff, and it made me look up "incel" on Wikipedia. There seem to be some notable reviews of the novel on the author's official website.

The novel probably deserves a mention here. I just started a stub article on it: Fair Warning (Connelly novel). ~Anachronist (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Neat! Now that you bring it up, I think there have also been some TV shows (crime shows, mostly) that have featured incels as a plot point. Episode 4 of season 16 of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit is based on Elliot Rodger, for example. I'll look into writing a section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I've started the section Incel#In popular culture and added the SVU episodes and Fair Warning. I'll spend some more time this evening expanding it, I think there's a lot of content that could potentially be added. Thanks for the suggestion! GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ehh... IPC sections are pretty eww. GMG^talk 22:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't have an issue with them so long as the mentions are significant (for example, a full episode of a TV show about incels, rather than a passing use of the word in an otherwise unrelated context). Open to more input on it though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to raise a stink over it or anything, but no I'm not fond of them, at least not for contemporary subjects. Even then, for instances that are not merely notable but iconic. But it's not worth fighting over. GMG^talk 23:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Not looking to fight either, just for input. Yours is a totally valid position. Would be curious to hear from any other watchers of the page. I still might poke around at adding more to the section tonight, but if other folks think it doesn't add to the page then I won't be upset about removing the section either. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested edit to Incel#Ideology

A subgroup of incels who frequent websites run by Nathan Larson, a perennial political candidate and active participant in incel communities, work deliberately to convince other incels that they are justified in raping women if they are rejected sexually. In 2020, one of these sites, on which users shared images of children and gave advice on seducing minors, was the subject of a 160,000-signature Change.org petition, promoted by YouTubers Repzion and Belle DeMashi, calling for an FBI investigation. Yoonie1313 (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure it being the subject of a Change.org petition is really noteworthy enough to include in the Wikipedia article unless the petition is acted upon. Perhaps if multiple reliable sources have covered the petition in addition to Newsweek (WP:RSP#Newsweek (2013-present))—do you know of any others? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Edit request to Incel#Ideology

Please remove fathers' rights movement from the list of "misogynist movements"

That movement should not be listed to together with obviously misogynist movements like Incels or MGTOW. You might not agree with the fathers' rights movement but everyone should see that it is a men's' rights movement that has nothing to do with mysogyny and women hating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7d0:847e:180:1990:4be4:35ce:5b43 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say, and the reliable sources are quite clear that father's rights groups are a part of the manosphere, and that manosphere groups are misogynist. This has been discussed at some length at Talk:Manosphere, including Talk:Manosphere#Fathers' rights and men's rights groups categorized as hostile and misogynistic? and in some of the talk page archives. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

@Lightning in the sky: Repeatedly reinserting the same content without discussing the concerns other editors have raised with it, or making any attempt to change the content based on that feedback, is considered edit warring. I am creating this discussion to hopefully encourage you to try to discuss first, and reintroduce the edit only once editors have come to an agreement. I would recommend you do so, because the alternative if you continue to edit war is a block from editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Really? I thought this was Wikipedia and not urban dictionary

How is this subject even worthy of an article? This article should be deleted to make room for other worthy inclusions in an encyclopedia, which is what wikipedia is suppose to be. God help us all...we surely need Him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7610:41e0:8f7:8f3d:d67b:56cc (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

We are at no risk of running out of space for Wikipedia articles. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia articles of more noteworthiness are deleted daily. Wikipedia is one of the few websites giving the term "incel" notability. It ranks as top result in most search engines with very few results over all. Xephael (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Xephael: If you genuinely believe this article does not meet the general notability guideline, which states If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list, you can nominate it for deletion at WP:AfD. However, I think the 168 sources describing incels will more than satisfy that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:The authors of this article have pointedly found as many sources as they could describing incels to try to secure notability. The article "Bitch (slang)" currently only references 56 sources and that slang term has existed far longer. Xephael (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Xephael: Finding all available reliable sourcing on a subject is precisely what Wikipedia editors are supposed to do. If you would like to go improve the sourcing at Bitch (slang), be my guest. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:You've formed the irrelevant conclusion that the more sources cited equate to notability. I've already demonstrated that citations numbers are not a benchmark for notability. You have more notability than the term incel does, and a Wikipedia page doesn't exist about you... You're white knighting (another term wikipedia does not have an article on) this article. Wikipedia has become a platform to advocate notability for select terms, groups, and viewpoints. The simple fact that one of the few Wikipedia arbitrators policies this article out of the 6,000,000 other articles is a good indication of that. Xephael (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Uh, no, notability really is about in-depth coverage, which would be demonstrated by dozens of sources specifically about the topic. That's the community's consensus on what qualifies as notability, not just your insistence that it's vaguely something else. And don't even try to argue that they fail to provide in-depth coverage either.

Seriously, you've demonstrated you don't know our policies and there's little reason to believe you've actually examined the sources in the article -- find another topic where you can learn how things work here without letting your feelings on the subject get in the way. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

If you're so convinced it's non-notable and that I don't know how Wikipedia policy works, then nominate it for deletion. As for my "policing", arbitrators are editors first and foremost, and we each have articles that we have contributed to substantially. This happens to be one of mine. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no Incel Ideology

Incel is just a live circumstance and the so-called communities exist only in the Internet. The Majority of Incels are also not very political or not politized.--92.74.239.243 (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

If you have any specific changes you'd like to see made to the article, please suggest them, along with reliable sources to verify any new information. If you think something ought to be removed, please describe how the existing sourcing isn't sufficient. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center statement calling this “part of the online male supremacist ecosystem”…

  Not that there is anything about the SPLC that merits giving it any credibility on any subject, but this statement seems too ridiculous to be quoted in what is intended to be a serious article; in fact, to be quoted for any other purpose than to mock it, and to mock whatever cretin came up with it.

  We're talking about people who identify primarily by their frustration at not being able to get laid.  How is that any expression of “male supremacy”?  These are males who define themselves by their pathetic lack of anything that could be rationally characterized as “supremacy”.  Surely, this is about as opposite as you can possibly get of any concept of a “supreme male”.

 —  Bob Blaylock (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Please cite the Wikipedia policy you are applying in this request that factual information from a reliable source that is also quoted elsewhere in the article (the aforementioned SPLC quote) should be removed only from the introductory paragraph of this article. See WP:SPLC, WP:BIASED and WP:QUESTIONABLE for more information on reliable sources.

Also, users on this talk page are kindly requested to refrain from further uncivil discourse, such as referring to others as "cretins" or suggesting that a Wikipedia article ought to mock people or organizations (see WP:BATTLEGROUND). — john factorial (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, this quote should be removed from the lede.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 17:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2020

Remove the "misogyny", "racism", "a sense of entitlement to sex", "and the endorsement of violence against sexually active people" characterization of incels from the lede.

For the first two, while there are various media articles that characterize them as such, are just media articles by specific writers, each to serve the specific agenda of the respective article, there is no reliable or robust scholarly argument to that end, let alone a consensus. And any terms that are be found in their circles which can be characterized as such, are not directed at any specific sex or race, they are found among many others directed at the other sex (males) and the other races, and frequently at themselves too, invoking a characterization of misanthropy and not warranting the characterization of "misogyny" or "racism".

For the "the endorsement of violence against sexually active people", this could be very rarely found, not representative, and the attitude towards it is negative in their community. When found, it is in posts of individuals that can have the possibility of being a bait or a job. In any case it is far from representative. Their main attitude is pessimistic indifference if that needs to be mentioned. For "the sense of entitlement to sex", this is nowhere to be found, even that many instances in their culture can be found where prostitution is negatively viewed because it is motivated by monetary gain instead of genuine desire. BookBlackHole (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable sources that support your request. At this point in time, there are none; I do not think that you will find any, given the sheer number of reliable sources that say that incels are misogynist, racist, endorse violence, etc.--Jorm (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The source provision shall be made for the inclusion of these terms in the lede to begin with ... not for disproving them. As far as I've seen, every single one of them here is an articles on a journalistic websites (VOX, the theglobeandmail.com ?!) with or without advocacy/political leanings, representing a POV of an author, easily falling under WP:NOTADVOCACY. Providing WP:NOTADVOCACY sources is *particularly* crucial when characterizing a group of people as misogynist, racist and calls for violence. Not to forget also the "sense of entitlement to sex".

I affirm my request. BookBlackHole (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

You have failed to adequately demonstrate that the sources cited are unreliable or that reliable sources give WP:DUE weight to a contrary position. You've provided no reliable sources that demonstrate that the sources you've accused of bias have a relevant bias on this topic that would affect their reliability. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

"Entitlement to sex". Isn't every vertebrate on Earth, and even some invertebrates, "entitled" to sex? I mean as in "have a right" to it, despite some of them failing to do it? I thought accusations of "entitlement" were typical of the political right, but apparently, liberals will use it too when it's convenient for their narratives and agendas, whatever they might be. 186.129.140.146 (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:TPNO: Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not vent your feelings about it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, well, you didn't worry very much about that when your friends down there were using this section as a forum themselves, like calling someone a "fucking incel apologist", and then joking about that same comment ([10]), now, did you? 186.129.140.146 (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You'll note that they were discussing potential changes to an article, despite the inappropriate insult. If you would like to discuss actual improvements to Wikipedia I will engage with you just as I did to the user below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Absolute Beginners

I'm coming over from RationalWiki. We have an article on Incels which I'm working on heavily editing. The previous author ((Personal attack removed)) left a bunch of information about "Male Absolute Beginners", which are apparently the German equivalent of an incel [11], but all the citations are in German. Asking here because this information might also be relevant to this wiki page, if any German-speakers are willing to verify whether ABs and incels are equivalent.

If someone verifies those sources match the surrounding text, I'd be happy to write it up to Wikipedia's standard to include it here too. Kauri0.o (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kauri0.o: I am not a German speaker, but you could easily run those sources through Google Translate. If you use Chrome, it would even offer to translate for you automatically. Google Translate should be good enough for verification. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The term rings a bell. I see it's been mentioned before on this talk page: Talk:Incel/Archive 1#Not a part of manosphere? and Talk:Incel/Archive 3#"Absolute Beginners" and "Whatever". It seems there was some mention of it in this article previously, but it wasn't sourced. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'd like to object to the term "fucking incel apologist". Among other things, it's a self contradiction... --GRuban (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC) That reminds me of a stand-up comedy joke I saw, about the similarity between a celibate priest and any man who's been married for more than 5 years; celibacy is voluntary in one of those two cases. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC) GRuban, I'm glad you picked that up - I used that phrase quite deliberately! The author is an ex-blackpilled-incel, who found a solution to his "life circumstances", but his viewpoints are still heavily influenced by his past as an incel. ("incel" in that phrase is a qualifying noun, otherwise it would be grammatically incorrect!) Kauri0.o (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• We should not be relying on machine translation for anything other than conversation. GMG^talk 01:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree, especially on this subject I wouldn't trust GTranslate to correctly translate many terms common in the manosphere, least of all the word "incel".

I have a feeling AB's are not the same as incels. What makes incels notable is that they are part of a subculture - it's not fair to lump other groups of involuntary celibates as the same, especially if they neither identify themselves as such nor express similar such toxicity.Kauri0.o (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)