Talk:Incel

"The incel ideology" + new sources are available related to NYTimes front-page article and evolving international news story

The lede of this article says incels have an overriding single philosophy. "The incel ideology", and yet a front page article from the New York Times written by Megan Twohey of MeToo reporting fame and Gabriel Dance of Edward Snowden reporting fame, republished by many other places, says only "many" incels share the blackpill philosophy and not "all". It also distinguishes between online and offine incels, yet the article here never makes such a distinction :/ This Wikipedia article just keeps falsely saying it's all an online phenomena that occasionally has real world events associated.

In general the NYT article doesn't frame incels as a subculture, but rather a fairly simple subculture-less identity, specifically by specifying "online incels", as opposed to "offline incels", never referencing any subculture, talking about different "groups of incels", rather than a single group etc Although it does mention incels as becoming more extreme about their complaints over time.

The NYT article also mentions that some incels are prone to misogyny, suicide and violence, not "all", and yet this article falsely tries to give off an "all" impression

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/09/us/where-the-despairing-log-on.html The article is worth reading in full and adds new information if this article considers 'incel' to partly be a collection of forums. Maybe worth incorporating something from the article, given it's 33 pages and from an actually reputable outlet.

There's also been follow-up reporting on the NYT article almost bi-weekly. And international news related to it. Multiple national television news on it etc (although mainly in South America, but a few in the US).

On the other hand the NYT articles are gonna be available for people to see for thousands of years and wikis in general don't necessarily demand the rigour the authors of that article seemed to put in, nor do wikis have the permanence of an NYT article, so it might not matter if the article isn't included, but I hope that story makes it's way into this article as it's so topical and relevant to this article. (specifically the portions about the currently most-publicized self-identified incel forum on the web as of early 2022, it has new info about it)

The PRA article seems to add value to this Wikipedia article, but not sure how that merits adding but not NYT. Previous commentors about this article avoiding actually reputable sources I fear may be correct, but hopeful that I'm not. Thanks! :) 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

We distinguish between being literally involuntary celibate and self-identifying as pertaining to the incel group. Of course, there are many people who wished they had a partner, but they aren't incels in the meaning of this article. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Who is "we"? The NYTimes articles use the shortened word 'incel'. Wikipedia doesn't normally seem to act as a group that has predetermined opinions before fulling considering the largest news article on the most publicized incel forum, which it hasn't publically considered yet. Saying "we" as consensus before acknowledging the new sources means you don't care about the new sources. This section is about how a 33-page front-page NYTimes article from about month ago on incels.is and sanctionedsuicide frames 'incel' as a whole, and also is anticipating that people will actually read and comment on it here, given it's the most reputable and largest news article so far that goes in depth about the topic. Not to mention the follow-up stories, TV broadcasts, international related stories from this month etc. At the end of the day it won't make much of a difference to the world at large if Wikipedia ignores the story for unstated, possibly strange, reasons, (including in other articles) but it would certainly be mildly noteworthy if it does. Like how it also ignored the BBC documentary on incels. NYTimes, BBC, not sure why these are considered not interesting to Wikipedia when they are the most reputable sources. 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

This article has many footnotes to peer-reviewed studies. One article in the NYT does not change the whole narrative. If peer-reviewed studies will admit the narrative has changed, Wikipedia will follow suit. See WP:RECENTISM. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it doesn't negate other articles, nor did I say that. You're putting words in my mouth. Wikipedia lists differences in coverage normally and as of 01/01/22, it is ignoring the largest and most comprehensive sources on the topic, which was that article and the BBC doc, the Vox one, among maybe 1-2 others. 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Look, pal: I am celibate (whether voluntary or involuntary is a complicated issue). But I do not identify as incel. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:TMI, WP:NOTAFORUM 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 07:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

What I am trying to say: incels are people who whine all day long about being celibate. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you want to discuss sources or not? If not, there isn't much more to say to you. 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

A couple journalistic sources do not change the definition of the problem. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I'm not the first person to say people here are ignoring reputable places known for fact checking in favor of Wikipedia-feedback-loop academia and digital rags. Additionally this article, looking at the history, was crammed primarily with Minassian sources while that story was evolving in the news. The 33-page NYTimes article is a month old. The 2-hour BBC doc is 3 years old. 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

You can find peer-reviewed sources on Google Scholar discussing the "incel subculture". This isn't a question of the NYT vs. some random clickbait sites. And the article by Twohey and Dance isn't primarily about incels. It's about a suicide-promotion site whose operators happen to also operate incel forums. Nor was it a front-page article since it was published online. Unclear which BBC documentary you mean. Could you provide a link? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

This is listed at the top of the talk page here as the top potential source for this article, it's peer reviewed; "Speckhard, Anne; Ellenberg, Molly; Morton, Jesse; Ash, Alexander (2021). "Involuntary Celibates' Experiences of and Grievance over Sexual Exclusion and the Potential Threat of Violence Among Those Active in an Online Incel Forum". Journal of Strategic Security. University of South Florida Board of Trustees. 14 (2): 89–121. doi:10.5038/1944-0472.14.2.1910. JSTOR 27026635."

See two authors are Jesse Morton and Alexander Ash. Jesse died the day of the follow-up NYT report, unexpectedly, at a young age of 43, and had come out with an article with Ash a week prior to his death, and was tweeting normally prior to his death. Ash is reported in that NYT follow-up as being under both Montevideo police and Congressional inquiry. When the "peer-reviewed" author (Ash) of the top article here is a third of the story WP is ignoring, something smells real fishy. 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Here is the doc which aired on BBC1 and BBC3 many times, thx for asking https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07fvhmw 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Sangdeboeuf: the NYT article isn't about incels, it is about the webmasters of a pro-suicide website, who also happen to run incel websites. And of course, it is about people committing suicide because of that website. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It is about the founders of the largest incel forum, the founders of the most publicized forum, their trajectory from /r/incels to incels.me, and about those who died on their other suicide promotion site, that was not explicitly incel oriented. I don't see any reason to deny this source. Although, I'm sure people here wouldn't even create an article to accomodate this if it became a 5 year long evolving story either. Pity. Question is why. 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't deny that's true, but it is still not a source about incels. It's like saying that Ted Bundy was also a good poker player and link the game of poker to his murders. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The NYT doesn't say they founded the largest incel forum or name /r/incels or incels.me specifically. It seems correct to say it focuses on those who died on their other suicide promotion site, that was not explicitly incel oriented. Unclear why we would completely overhaul the Incel article on the basis of this story that isn't mainly about the incel subculture/identity/community. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yup, at best the IP can draw the conclusion that those who run main incel websites are heartless people who rejoice when others take their own life. But no more than that, e.g. it says nothing about the incel community. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

When you are making up things about the articles, I gotta quote it.

Extended content

Marquis and Serge have vowed to fight any efforts to take down the site. They have experience running websites with dark content: They operate several online forums for “incels,” or involuntary celibates, men who believe that women will never have sex with them because of their looks or social status. Many on those sites openly discuss a fatalistic outlook, including thoughts of self-harm. But in June 2019, BuzzFeed News reported that in addition to the suicide site, the two men were running the incel websites. Money didn’t appear to be the motivation. Both men seemed to have found their identity and sense of purpose in the online world of incels, many of whom share a dark outlook known as “black pill.” In 2017, when Reddit had banned an online group of incels for encouraging violence, Serge started an independent site for them, soon joined by Marquis, who had written to him about his interest and skills as a system administrator. By then, several deadly attacks had been carried out by men expressing grievances common among incels. American authorities would later flag incels as an emerging extremist threat. Radicalization experts warned that some were prone to misogyny, suicide and violence. On the incel sites that Serge and Marquis run, many members have expressed anger at society; some commend those who commit violence, and fantasize about doing the same. An Ohio man who was a frequent poster on one site was indicted this past July for allegedly plotting to slaughter women. In a podcast interview about incels, Serge said that much of the discussion was “suicide fuel.” But he and Marquis claimed they were helping those on the sites by allowing them to freely express themselves and face hard truths, a rationale similar to one they have offered about their suicide site. The Times investigation led to an elegant three-story apartment building in Montevideo, Uruguay, and a modest two-bedroom townhouse in Huntsville, Ala. The man calling himself Serge is Diego Joaquín Galante; Marquis is Lamarcus Small. Reporters pieced together their identities and roles with the site from domain registration and financial documents, their online activity, public documents including court records, and interviews with seven people who had interacted with either of them. The domain and financial records were never intended to become public. They came to light after a domain seller the site operators had used was hacked this fall, resulting in the release of millions of records. In addition, The Times obtained photographs of Mr. Small and Mr. Galante that were a match with Marquis and Serge. Records show that Mr. Galante, 29, resides in the Montevideo apartment with his family — several siblings, his mother and his father, who is a lawyer. Mr. Small, 28, lives with his mother and brother in the townhouse. Mr. Small’s family life has been tumultuous. His father, who has served as an Army officer, and his mother divorced. She was accused of attacking her husband in 2010, and then her adult daughter four years later, according to police complaints. Mr. Small had his own troubles. In 2017, a bank sued him for $6,578, and wages from his remote work for a Colorado tech company were garnished until that job ended in 2019. “If people want to change, if they want self-improvement, basically the whole web is out there to go for that — Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, all the big ones,” Serge said during a virtual panel discussion about incels in January. “But if we are being honest, not everyone has a way out.” --nytimes https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/21/technology/suicide-website-google.html Mr. Small and Mr. Galante also resigned as administrators of several websites they operated for involuntary celibates, or incels, men who believe women will never have sex with them because of their looks and social status. In Uruguay, where assisting suicide is a crime, the Montevideo police have begun an inquiry in collaboration with a local prosecutor’s office in response to The Times’s investigation, said Javier Benech, a communications director for the office. On Tuesday, Representative Lori Trahan, Democrat of Massachusetts, along with six other House members, wrote to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland asking what options the Justice Department had for investigating the site and its founders and what steps lawmakers could take to allow for a prosecution --nytimes

This Wiki article is almost entirely about their forum ecosystem, and to say otherwise is an insulting lie and an insult to everyones intelligence here2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

In 2017, when Reddit had banned an online group of incels for encouraging violence, Serge started an independent site for them, soon joined by Marquis, who had written to him about his interest and skills as a system administrator. --nytimes

2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote. If you have a source saying that either Galante or Small are founders of the largest incel forum, feel free to present it. Still doesn't affect this article beyond that one bit of trivia though. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, insulting everyones intelligence, but here is a source saying that https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/09/podcasts/the-daily/suicide-investigation.html 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk)

Friend, I have read the article, and it is not an article about incels (though incels do get mentioned). tgeorgescu (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Friend, that's not the article, it's a source which mentions them as running the largest incel forum. There it is, there's a source. 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It'd be cool if people at least clicked links of sources, they don't have viruses.2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Marquis and Serge are sick puppies. That's all you get from me. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, still waiting on why this isn't considered notable, beyond extreme evidence that people simply to not want to read or engage with material which would warrant a heavy rewrite or addition. I assume it will be added later. If not I anticipate others will ask why on their own.

Or simply gather their info from reputable sources like NYT, multiple criminal justice outlets, Congressional publishings, BBC, Vox, among others of which Wikipedia is not. And of which Wikipedia gets far less views than those combined, at least on the incel topic.2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

That podcast transcript quotes "Serge" saying, "I manage the largest incel forum on the web",^{[21:00 in the audio track]} which is apparently incels.co based on the very next audio clip (not r/incels or incels.me). The article's authors don't say that themselves, so neither can we. Again, unclear what changes are being proposed based on this bit of trivia. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, so incels.co then, we're getting into water is wet territory, but if we go by sources, which WP does, then it's incels.co which is the largest forum and of which there are... hmm... hundreds of articles and repulishings bout now. It's not promoting them to mention them at this point, trust me, I'm not as far from your side as you think. 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

If naming them is still the primary concern, there's all sorts of ways to phrase it, "largest incel forum", "forum born from /r/incels", "/r/incels successor forum" 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

You have produced much ado about rewriting the whole article, but you don't have any clue about verifiable edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Once again, those are soundbites from the subject of the article/podcast. Citing them would be like citing a tweet by Donald Trump on the size of his inauguration crowd that happened to be mentioned in a news story about something else entirely. Not reliable. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Megan Twohey: 33 page article, half of which exposes the largest incel forum founders, that forum being incels.co

Wikipedia: "Denied! Soundbites! Too toxic! I didn't click!" 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Sayonara, good luck with whatever it is you're trying to achieve through ignoring Megan's reporting on incels 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I already granted they are sick puppies. What else do you wish? tgeorgescu (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Amount I care about your personal opinions: 0. For anyone reading this, you can read the quoted sections of the article and the Daily above, to know the many paragraphs that could be added once that is added, when later factoring in the international and other follow up reporting. I advise an article split to incels.co Sanctioned Suicide and/or Incel Movement to incorporate new and old sources ignored.2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Then suggest verifiable edits instead of boasting how much you despise Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Not my job, I gave ppl the new sources. The old sources, both in article form and ref dumps ignored are also still floating around other places for any article splits. 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Once again, the sources don't say what you think they do. You'd need much more than a single news article to justify separate encyclopedia entries for any of those things. Nor is it clear what exactly you want split off. Not our job to read your mind. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"I manage the largest incel forum on the web",^{[21:00 in the audio track]}

In 2017, when Reddit had banned an online group of incels for encouraging violence, Serge started an independent site for them, soon joined by Marquis, who had written to him about his interest and skills as a system administrator. --nytimes

Three sources are the direct subject of this subsection. If it's too much for this already too long article, this article could be split into a much delayed incels.co article, or a Sanctioned Suicide and Incel Movement article. This is a talk page, I'm not demanding anyone do anything, just pointing out it's notable and propositioning ways it can be added if this article is too long. After that, the new international and related reporting not exlusive to incels could be introduced, as well as old ref dumps.2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Google news lists 30 articles for "incels.co", I can list them2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

An audio clip of a person claiming to be the founder or manager of something is not an independent, reliable source. Moreover it would be improper synthesis to connect incels.co to the "independent site" started by Galante. WP:GHITS alone do not an encyclopedia entry make. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

You realize your digging out rule cards to try to deny an entry of a new york times front page article with television brodcasts and international followups, this doesn't seem good faith. The Daily mentioned the URL and they didn't mention the full URL of the suicide site. If ppl want to avoid naming the site, which Wikipedia has done purposefully done for 5 years, no one appears to be pushing for that. And I'm not the first person to say here that there is a concerted effort here to deny top-tier news sources that fact check2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It explicitly mentions him as the founder of it, and in the many paragraphs about him and the incel topic, the article says serge is Diego

In 2017, when Reddit had banned an online group of incels for encouraging violence, Serge started an independent site for them, soon joined by Marquis, who had written to him about his interest and skills as a system administrator. --nytimes

The man calling himself Serge is Diego Joaquín Galante; Marquis is Lamarcus Small. --nytimes

A follow up story says he subsequently resigned from it, so when it gets added to Wikipedia it'd make sense to say "co-founder of a group of violence-promoting incels" or "co-founder of incels.co", rather than "admin". With Lamarcus as the other and final founder, along with the context of the article, cuz this news cycle appears to be partially about crucial developments in the incel space, not just about news worthy public figures and their exposure that made them public figures, through now hundreds of republishings and multiple followups mentioning the names and the incel stuff in print, podcast, television etc form. 68.100.233.100 (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Also from the Daily, you all didn't quote the full quote where he mentions the url:

Serge: Again, thank you for the introduction. I manage the largest incel forum on the web. If people come to the forum, incels.co, it is mainly because they want to be somewhere where they won’t be told, hey, hey, there is a way out.

68.100.233.100

(talk) 13:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Not gonna pretend like the NYT isn't a quality source. But the original post here makes it seem like there is a detailed discussion about people who are involuntary celebrate as an offline phenomenon. But the bits from the NYT that focus specifically on incels, rather than the suicide site (all of about six paragraphs) is explicitly discussing the topic in the context of the online communities. The OP content on offline incels seems to mostly be that because the article discusses online incels (a term which it never seems to actually use verbatim), it must necessarily be implying that there is a community of offline incels (also a term it doesn't seem to use verbatim).

If we wanna have a discussion about offline incels, I'm all for it. But we've repeatedly found in discussions here that in-depth treatment of offline incels...the sources just don't seem to be there. There doesn't seem to be like any deep examination where like...Jake is a therapist and he started a support group at the local YMCA, where this is a bona fide and independent social phenomenon discussed outside the overarching context of the online subculture. Maybe there's some psychologist or sex therapists busy typing away on their authoritative book on the subject. But it doesn't seem to have seen the light of day quite yet. GMG^talk 13:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi GMG, thanks for your input. If WP decides to ignore the framing on incels in a front page NYTimes source + subsequent news cycle, (which is not new on this WP article according to multiple registered users in the talk history of this page re: top-tier sources)

...what do you think about mentioning any part of the news cycle on the community most of this WP article is based off, at all? I can link all the URLs of the December-beginning incel-substory news cycle I found if you want. (but it's in the hundreds at this point so it'd take up quite a few lines ;) ) People weren't waiting even days for previous cycles to be over before adding in stuff the entire duration of this article, and this cycle began a month ago. 68.100.233.100 (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The first story uses the word 'incel' verbatim 9 times, and the article follow up uses the word verbatim as well. Contrary to what you said, it uses the phrase "online incels" at least twice. The word incel verbatim and the incel topic is also mentioned in the followup, the Daily and the PBS Television broadcast among many others. It mentions the reddit trajectory of incels.co, (of which most of this WP article is based on but purposefully doesn't name) the incels.co founders names and backgrounds, and the connection incels.co has with sanctionedsuicide, etc. Please, please people read the news articles before commenting on the news articles. Not demanding it, it just makes it easier to have a convo68.100.233.100 (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Month? Shoot. I've been around this article for like the last four years. We've put in a good faith effort to search high and low for sources. I get that lots of people don't think it's fair to associate incels generally with the high profile toxicity that brought the online culture into public view. And yeah, WP:NOTNEWS is a longstanding persistent problem. But as far as we've been able to parse out, this characterization isn't just part of the news cycle; it's the preponderance of coverage in all sources considered. In a God's-eye-view, that probably has a lot to do with what's flashy and exciting. Cover the plane crash, and not the 1,000 flights that landed safely.

But we gotta work with what we got. WP is supposed to be the dispassionate average of all sources. Again, I been around the block. I can Wikipedia with the best of them. But when you're trying to advocate a substantial change to a controversial article with a couple hundred sources, you're in an up-hill battle. Research more; argue less. Personal advice, try to do it in a format like this that suggests specific changes based on specific sources, rather than arguing broad concepts. It tends to be more effective in reaching a compromise if a compromise is to be had. GMG^talk 14:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

This article was *created* violating WP:NOTNews if you check the history. It's fine if people wait. I'd suggest splitting the article, and will ref dump so people can use it here or in a split. 68.100.233.100 (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

You'd do yourself a favor if you suggested specific changes rather than dumping sources, especially if they're being pulled from twitter. And things like "this article is biased" doesn't really count. Looking more for "this sentence should be changed thusly based on that source which says this." And for better or worse, reality intervenes, and I don't know how many if any folks involved in this article are fluent in Spanish. GMG^talk 14:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

3 NYtimes, 1 PBS, 3 Uruguay news, New Statesman, Toronto Sun, House.gov, Foreign Policy, (;edit 1 Telemundo), plus more, I'm at a loss at what more would be needed. None of those are Twitter. 2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

If that's not enough people here have an agenda and that'd be clear to anyone neutral reading this. 2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but you still need to put on your big kid pants and suggest specific changes based on specific sources if you actually hope to get anything done. GMG^talk 12:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Dec incels.co/SS founder (Lamarcus/Diego) news cycle ref dump

• 12/9/21 NYTimes front-page first story (33 pages) https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/09/us/where-the-despairing-log-on.html
• 12/9/21 NYTimes Daily https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/09/podcasts/the-daily/suicide-investigation.html
• 12/12/21 Interpol "studies link" that creator of incels.co/SS aka Diego has to SS story, the link established by nytimes https://www.elobservador.com.uy/nota/interpol-estudia-caso-de-uruguayo-presuntamente-vinculado-a-un-sitio-que-promueve-el-suicidio-2021121121320 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:0:C2:2490:6CD9:B4C7:8273 (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• 12/14/21 Interpol investigating creator of incels.co/SS aka Diego story 1 https://ladiaria.com.uy/justicia/articulo/2021/12/interpol-investiga-organizacion-acusada-de-promover-el-suicidio/
• 12/15/21 Interpol investigating creator of incels.co/SS aka Diego story 2 https://www.subrayado.com.uy/interpol-investiga-un-uruguayo-promover-el-suicidio-traves-internet-n823204
• 12/16/21 PBS national television: https://www.pbs.org/video/the-darkest-web-1639694820/
• Meta-story https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2021/how-the-new-york-times-handled-life-or-death-ethical-issues-while-reporting-on-a-popular-suicide-website/
• 12/16/21 Interpol investigating creator of incels.co/SS aka Diego story 3 https://www.infobae.com/america/america-latina/2021/12/16/interpol-investiga-a-un-uruguayo-que-creo-una-web-que-promociona-el-suicidio-al-menos-45-personas-ya-se-quitaron-la-vida/
• 12/16/21 Interpol "studies page" Mentions Diego and Lamarcus, but the latter not connected to interpol thing in it. https://noticias.canal1.com.co/internacional/interpol-uruguayo-web-promotora-suicidio-45-victimas/ 2600:8806:0:C2:2490:6CD9:B4C7:8273 (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• 12/21/21 NYTimes followup https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/21/technology/suicide-website-google.html
• 12/21/21 U.S. Congress letter to DOJ: https://trahan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/doj_sanctioned_suicide_letter_final_dec21.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• 12/21/21 "The Prosecutor's Office opened an investigation by the 11th prosecutor for the case reported by the New York Times newspaper that links a young Uruguayan to a website that talks about different ways of taking his own life. [...] The young Uruguayan leads the organization from Montevideo. The young man is 29 years old and lives in the capital with his brothers and their parents. [...] His partner was found in Huntsville, in Alabama, United States." https://www.montevideo.com.uy/Noticias/Fiscalia-investigara-a-uruguayo-presuntamente-vinculado-a-web-que-promociona-el-suicidio-uc807881 2600:8806:0:C2:2490:6CD9:B4C7:8273 (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• 12/22/21 French story, lists full names https://www.courrierinternational.com/article/mal-etre-linquietant-succes-dun-site-qui-promeut-le-suicide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:0:C2:2490:6CD9:B4C7:8273 (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• 01/04/22 New Zealand piece on Trahan letter to DOJ, lists full names https://foreignaffairs.co.nz/2022/01/04/mil-osi-usa-trahan-leads-bipartisan-call-for-action-to-stop-sanctioned-suicide-website/

Plus hundreds of republishings Will add more later 2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Non-Dec general incels.co refs

• https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/2020/03/incels-celebrating-lockdown-casual-sex-chad-stacy-4chan-reddit
• https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/inside-the-terrifying-violent-world-of-incel-subculture
• https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/02/incels-toronto-attack-terrorism-ideological-violence/
• https://www.thecut.com/2019/05/incel-plastic-surgery.html
• https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/it-s-time-to-take-britain-s-incel-terror-threat-seriously
• https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/incels-suicide-forum-woman-killed-herself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• https://www.inputmag.com/features/chatbots-and-the-loneliness-epidemic-when-ai-harmony-realdoll-replika-is-more-than-just-a-friend
• https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/men-are-being-radicalised-by-the-incel-movement
• https://www.oxygen.com/crime-time/what-bianca-devins-murder-tells-us-about-incels-male-entitlement-misogyny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Lavin, T. (2020). Culture Warlords: My Journey Into the Dark Web of White Supremacy. United States: Hachette Books. (long portion on forum, also speaks of "serge")
• Whitney, B. (2020). The "Supreme Gentleman" Killer: The True Story of an Incel Mass Murderer. United States: WildBlue Press. (speaks of "serge")
• incels.co in academic papers

Extended content

Ribeiro, M. H., Jhaver, S., Zannettou, S., Blackburn, J., De Cristofaro, E., Stringhini, G., & West, R. (2020). Does Platform Migration Compromise Content Moderation? Evidence from r/The_Donald and r/Incels. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.10397. Cousineau, L. S. (2020). Sex, power, and controlling bodies: Incels and pickup artists. In Sex and Leisure (pp. 73-90). Routledge. Horta Ribeiro, M., Jhaver, S., Zannettou, S., Blackburn, J., Stringhini, G., De Cristofaro, E., & West, R. (2021). Do platform migrations compromise content moderation? evidence from r/the_donald and r/incels. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2), 1-24. Bjarnadóttir, H., & Hanson, S. (2020). “We are denied to be human because society sees us as trash”: Den kollektiva identiteten på Incels. co. Johansson, J. (2020). " Other areas of life mean nothing… Sex is everything": En kvalitativ studie om män i ofrivilligt celibat på internetforumet incels. co. Eriksson, G. (2020). Incels-kvinnohat i den digitala åldern: En tematisk analys av åsikterna om jämställdhet, maskulinitet, och sexuella relationer på incels. co. Stijelja, S. (2021). The Psychological Profile of Involuntary Celibates (Incels): A Literature Review. Marveggio, M. (2020). The Affective Practices of Incels: A Social Identity Approach to the Construction of Incel Identities (Doctoral dissertation). ("prominent incel forum") Kelly, C. R., & Aunspach, C. (2020). Incels, Compulsory Sexuality, and Fascist Masculinity. Feminist Formations, 32(3), 145-172. Skalna, A. (2019). A linguistic image of selves and other men in the incel jargon. Zdjelar, V. (2020). Alone together: Exploring community on an incel forum (Doctoral dissertation, Arts & Social Sciences: School of Criminology). Voroshilova, A. I., & Pesterev, D. O. (2021, April). Russian Incels Web Community: Thematic and Semantic Analysis. In 2021 Communication Strategies in Digital Society Seminar (ComSDS) (pp. 185-190). IEEE. Kelly, M., DiBranco, A., & DeCook, J. R. Misogynist Incels and Male Supremacism: Overview and Recommendations for Addressing the Threat of Male Supremacist Violence. Svenning, A., & Åkne, M. (2020). " Normies don't know hardship": Incels och kvinnoförakt på digitala forum. Hajarian, M., & Khanbabaloo, Z. (2021, May). Toward Stopping Incel Rebellion: Detecting Incels in Social Media Using Sentiment Analysis. In 2021 7th International Conference on Web Research (ICWR) (pp. 169-174). IEEE. Hajarian, M., & Khanbabaloo, Z. (2021, May). Toward Stopping Incel Rebellion: Detecting Incels in Social Media Using Sentiment Analysis. In 2021 7th International Conference on Web Research (ICWR) (pp. 169-174). IEEE. Ware, J. (2021). Beta Uprising. Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses, 13(2), 10-15. Reichert, C. Involuntary Celibates: An Exploratory Research of Incels. Conley, J. (2020). Efficacy, Nihilism, and Toxic Masculinity Online: Digital Misogyny in the Incel Subculture (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University). Lopes, F. M. (2021). What do incels want? Explaining incel violence using Beauvoirian Otherness. Hypatia. Preston, K., Halpin, M., & Maguire, F. (2021). The Black Pill: New Technology and the Male Supremacy of Involuntarily Celibate Men. Men and Masculinities, 1097184X211017954. Davies, G. (2021). Radicalization and Violent Extremism in the Era of COVID-19. The Journal of Intelligence, Conflict, and Warfare, 4(1), 149-152. Young, O. (2019). What Role has Social Media Played in Violence Perpetrated by Incels?. Sande, E. (2021). Verdiløse menn-en kvalitativ studie av kjønn, erotisk kapital og fellesskap blant incels på internett (Master's thesis, NTNU). Binning, C. The Un-Dateables. Junni, A. (2021). Incel-yhteisön kriminologiset narratiivit verkossa: mikrotason oppimisteoreettinen analyysi rikosmyönteisistä asenteista. Krüger, S. (2021). Anal sexuality and male subcultures online: The politics of self-deprecation in the deep vernacular web. Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society, 26(2), 244-258. Nyström, E. (2020). ” What becomes of the broken-hearted?”-En socialantropologisk studie om männen som kallar sig incels. Rubertsson, C. (2019). ” The majority of females are selfish and don’t want to help us lonely men out”: En netnografisk studie om män som är incels. Jansson, F. (2019). Att inte få ligga: En uppsats om diskurser kring sex, makt och utseende på det mansseparatistiska forumet incels. co. Binning, C. (2021). The undateables: inceldom, entitlement and the state-mandated girlfriend. Gendering 2020 (+ 1). Cottee, S. (2020). Incel (e) motives: Resentment, shame and revenge. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 44(2), 93-114. Speckhard, A., Ellenberg, M., Morton, J., & Ash, A. (2021). Involuntary Celibates’ Experiences of and Grievance over Sexual Exclusion and the Potential Threat of Violence Among Those Active in an Online Incel Forum. Journal of Strategic Security, 14(2), 5. Engholm, H. (2021). The lack of looks: A study on the Incel ideology of Incelism during the 2010s–2020s and its relation to historical and contemporary ideologies particularly within far-right milieus. Ünes, A. (2020). Mating preferences of women as perceived by incels (Bachelor's thesis, University of Twente). Daly, S. E., & Laskovtsov, A. (2021). " Goodbye, My Friendcels": An Analysis of Incel Suicide Posts. CrimRxiv. Ribeiro, M. H., Blackburn, J., Bradlyn, B., De Cristofaro, E., Stringhini, G., Long, S., ... & Zannettou, S. (2020). The evolution of the manosphere across the Web. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.07600. Ostermann, L. M. (2020). Involuntary celibates (Incels) in the public eye: the effect of portrayal, political affiliations, and self-perceived mating success on the perception of a fringe online-community (Master's thesis, University of Twente). Davies, G., Wu, E., & Frank, R. (2021). A Witch’s Brew of Grievances: The Potential Effects of COVID-19 on Radicalization to Violent Extremism. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 1-24. Vårhall, L., & Öst, H. (2021). ” Gratis sex skulle också vara ganska coolt’TBH’men kärlek är bättre antar jag”. En netnografisk studie om incels syn på sin livssituation och gemenskapen på incel-forum. Ribeiro, M. H., Blackburn, J., Bradlyn, B., De Cristofaro, E., Stringhini, G., Long, S., ... & Zannettou, S. (2021). The Evolution of the Manosphere *Across the Web. In CoRR. ICWSM. Cousineau, L. S. (2020). 4 Sex, power, and controlling bodies. Ong, K. (2020). Ideological Convergence in the Extreme Right. Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses, 12(5), 1-7. (There's too many of these too list all here)

• Forsbacka, J. (2020). Så mycket hat från hjärtat som brister: en kritisk och feministisk online etnografisk undersökning av ett incel-forum.

currently most popular incel-forum in the world, incels.co. --Forsbacka, J. 2020

• Pelzer, B., Kaati, L., Cohen, K., & Fernquist, J. (2021). Toxic language in online incel communities. SN Social Sciences, 1(8), 1-22.

incels.co is the largest active digital environment for incels with around 11,000 registered members and 3.3 million posts. -Pelzer, B., Kaati, L., Cohen, K., & Fernquist, J. 2021

• Halpin, M., & Richard, N. (2021). An invitation to analytic abduction. Methods in Psychology, 5, 100052.

incels.co, which has since migrated to incels.is -Halpin, M., & Richard, N. 2021

2600:8806:0:C2:2490:6CD9:B4C7:8273 (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC) updated ref dump 01/04/22

If you are hoping to see content added to this page, or a new page created about incels.co, I would strongly recommend drafting the changes/page yourself (with references) rather than dumping a long list of sources. The sources list is certainly appreciated, but depends on another editor finding the time to sift through them all and create new content from it; you're certainly welcome to wait and hope that someone does that, but doing it yourself and suggesting it here for discussion (or creating a new draft article, if you are hoping for a standalone article) is more likely to achieve change. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, the last Telemundo link appears to be wrong story so I deleted it. Still trying to find where those snippets of what appears to be a TV Telemundo broadcast floating around on Twitter on Facebook regarding SS/Diego could be properly attributed if at all. 2600:8806:0:C2:913:B1D8:3F87:F9AD (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed dates and order of December-January incels.co founder news cycle. Added more incels.co refs, and separated some which list it as the most popular/largest (in 2020 and 2021) and moving to incels.is (2021/2022). I'm almost 100% sure people can find refs detailing move from /r/incels --> incels.me --> incels.co for complete chain, maybe even in a single source, if people want to try to make the full connection. There are more refs for incels.co and the NYTimes Daily chose to quote the incels.co URL, and not quote the sanctionedsuicided URL. Filing this under the "for future editor" option you mentioned for this page, or if anyone decides to do a split anytime in the future. With all the eyes on them and the founders exposed by epik leak and media who chose to use that, I doubt mentioning them is promoting them anymore, as brought up earlier. Thanks, hope this Dec news cycle ref dump and associated incels.co ref dump helps anyone add to this encyclopedia with anything that makes sense to how it's run. 2600:8806:0:C2:2490:6CD9:B4C7:8273 (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• I'm happy to see you're so enthusiastic in digging up sources. I'm still waiting for the part where we put on the big kid pants and say "This specific change is warranted based on these specific sources because they say this specific thing." This is the standard. GMG^talk 13:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand your comment and I apologize for not being the one brave enough to do that here. The parts that make the most sense to me, with the refs available, to add here or to new/another article, though is:

1. the /r/incels -> incels.co -> incels.is connection chain logic and timeline (depending on if people even want to name incels.is)
2. the comment that incels.co was the largest the last two years
3. the commment that the exposure of "a collection of incel forums moved from violence promoting incels on reddit" or "incels.co" reported founders (diego/lamarcus) were exposed by Megan Twohey and Gabriel dance in a 33 page front page NYTimes expose on sanctioned suicide and subsequently reported on internationally, with subsequent congressional scrutiny on Lamarcus and congressional and law enforcement scrutiny on Diego. (Whether or not Wikipedia actually names or otherwise republishes personal info of the founders/operators "Diego & Lamarcus" is unimportant to me, but plenty of articles from reputable news outlets listed their full names, city location, and background).
4. The comment that Sanctionedsuicide and "a collection of incel forums moved from violence promoting incels on reddit" reportedly shared the same founders ie diego and lamarcus. And just a side note of WP:OR I'll do only once, the front page of the public incels.is forum right now shows users are mailing the US Attourney General and Congress mentioning in a (public) letter pinned to the top of their forum that they are "familiar with many members" of the sanctionedsuicide site, and entitled it, "Re: sanctionedsuicide"
5. More info on incels.co in general given it's significance both in it's popularity in recent years and because it reportedly shared the same founders/operators (Diego & Lamarcus) of :the /r/incels --> incels.me --> incels.co --> incels.is chain. Talia Lavins book eg gives an actually surprisingly detailed take on it as far as culture, if that's what people prefer to go for. But given it might be too wp:notthnews to add it all now, this is why I'm just leaving sources here for future for seasoned veterans to decide2600:8806:0:C2:2490:6CD9:B4C7:8273 (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Friend, I've got three jobs, two dogs, a cat, a wife, and a little five year old thing that likes to draw on the walls. I ain't gonna do it for you. You're the lawyer for the plaintiff here. Pick one. Make your case. Assume I'm an idiot. These words right here need to be changed to those words right there because of that source that says this.

I can't give a better master class on how to edit Wikipedia. Be specific. If an idiot might wonder whether you're being specific enough, then be more specific. GMG^talk 13:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure he wants an Incels.is article. Can't say i oppose it. @GreenMeansGo: --Trade (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to any suggestion at all on purely principle. Obviously there are plenty of independently notable websites. Depends on whether there's enough sources available to write a bona fide article, which is really what WP:GNG boils down to in practice. GMG^talk 12:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I see I'm a bit late to the party. I'm pretty sure that IP user has heavy ties to the incel world and has an agenda to push, 'blackpill incel bad' 'purplepill incel good' 'visit my purplepill website'. I recognize his writing style from RationalWiki.

Now, on the NYT article topic - incels.is (ran by Lamarcus Small and Diego Joaquín Galante) is a major player in the incel-sphere. Following release of the article, members of incels.is wrote a letter to the DOJ regarding the Sanctioned Suicide website, in which they state they were "familiar with many of the members" of the site, and that "Pro-suicide viewpoints are protected by the First Amendment". Ties between sanctioned suicide and incels.is are pretty clear. However, this basically boils down to WP:OR and there are no reliable sources discussing this. https://archive.is/GCKOx https://archive.is/29REU

If reliable sources come out about this in the future, I think it would be worthy of discussion here. Kauri0.o (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion: change title to “Incel (ideology)”.

No person should be identified by sex status, i.e. being celibate or not celibate. Public discussion of sex status of a person should be considered a form of psychological abuse and violation of human rights. Therefore in my opinion this term is derogatory. In different cases the destructive ideology is separated from people who follow this ideology. For example, nazism or jihadism. This emphasizes the fact that a person can change their beliefs. Whether the "incel" is a permanent identity and cannot be changed, or a form of antisocial ideology is not clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.214.59.33 (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is being identified here by whether or not the are celibate. As the first sentence of the lead section makes clear, incels are defined by their involvement in an online subculture. That is what this article describes. Also, there is no need to disambiguate it in the way you suggest because we have no other article called 'Incel (something else)'. (This is discussed at WP:DISAMBIGUATION.) Girth Summit _(blether) 18:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Then make a separate article for involuntary celibacy ILoveHirasawaYui (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Not everything in the manosphere is misogynist

Ideology - In concext of related communities [[1]]

"Incel communities are a part of the broader manosphere, a loose collection of misogynist movements that also includes men's rights activists (MRAs), Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), pickup artists (PUAs), and fathers' rights groups."

Manosphere article [[2]]

"The manosphere is a collection of websites, blogs, and online forums promoting masculinity, strong opposition to feminism, and misogyny."

I take issue with fathers' rights groups being in a list of terms classified as "a loose collection of misogynist movements".

In fact, the article on Fathers' rights movement[[3]] does not define it as misogynist, which is true.

2003:F9:BF04:3700:D19D:92B6:7BC3:8EAE (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC) Heather

• We can't use Wikipedia articles as a self-referential source. Obviously we'd prefer to be consistent, but the sources are the ones who determine how we are to be consistent. GMG^talk 12:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually it is consistent. Fathers'_rights_movement#Movement states "The fathers' rights movement is considered to be a part of the broader manosphere." Unfortunately the movement and any legitimate arguments around fathers' rights have been corrupted by the manosphere.Kauri0.o (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Iconic photo

The article needs a photo to illustrate its subject. I propose that we use a photo of Elliot Rodger. Many people think of Rodger first when using the word incel; the first image on Google when searching 'incel' is of Rodger. In addition, the ADL, a reliable source, has its own encyclopedic entry on incels and also uses a photo of Rodger. I see no reason not to do so ourselves. --TheWikipedian05 (talk) 6:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with this choice, it seems too much to select one person to represent an online subculture. It's also not a great image, it looks like a mugshot. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I also disagree with using this photo this way. I am the exact opposite of an incel and have been happily making love with various women for 52 years, including and most notably my wife of almost 41 years. But the overwhelming majority of guys who identify with this incel group are not guilty of killing six people and injuring many more. It is as if we decided to illustrate our article about Hippies with a portrait of Charles Manson. Not neutral. Cullen328 (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Many people think of Rodger first when using the word incel – do we have a reliable source for this statement? Not every article needs a photo to illustrate its subject, and in any case a simple photo of Rodger is incapable of illustrating an abstract concept like "incel"/"involuntary celibacy" and so fails WP:IMAGERELEVANCE. We should also consider whether making a notorious murderer the face of the subculture will serve to amplify a cult of personality around him within said subculture. I've removed the photo in light of these concerns. The article already links to Rodger's bio for those who wish to learn more about him. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with Girth Summit and Sangdeboeuf; this article does not need an image, and certainly not this one. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

You three make some good points. I looked at other articles dealing with abstract concepts and not all of them feature an iconic photo. It would be unfair to use a photo of one single person to represent an entire subculture. --TheWikipedian05 (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Elliot Rodger did a lot to kick off the incel movement, but he never self-identified as an incel. The inclusion of his picture would be suspect.

I think the most appropriate image to use for the article would be this one - it's the most iconic image of the incel community.

However, I am not entirely sure about its copyright status. KarakasaObake (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Elliot did self-identify as an incel in some of his puahate posts I💖平沢唯 (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

"Often white" is inappropriate in the lede of this article.

You could say the same thing for virtually any large group. But we don't. We don't say that doctors or ballet dancers or geeks are "often white," even though it's assuredly true.

It's a weasel phrase. "Often white" - what does that even mean? What numerical threshold does a group have to cross to be considered "often white"? About 17% of professional basketball players are white - are professional basketball players "often white"?

And the sources cited don't particulary support the assertion. For example, source 23 from the Anti-Defamation League, "Online Poll Results Provide New Insights into Incel Community," says the following:

While roughly 55 percent of respondents identify as white or Caucasian, the remaining 45 percent of are equally divided among a range of ethnic and racial groups, including Black, Latino, Asian, Indian, Middle Eastern or Other/Not Sure.

Is 55% "often white"? Well, maybe - it's a weasel phrase - but considering that 81% of incels are from North America and Europe, white men actually appear to be *underrepresented* among incels, compared to the general population.

It would only be appropriate to say "often white" if the community was specifically about whiteness in some way - and no sources make any kind of case for that. It's baffling that anyone thought it was appropriate to put in the article.

The actual body of the article goes into detail about the nuances of race in the incel community. It isn't appropriate for the lede. KarakasaObake (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The inline source used for that claim goes into significant detail about how the community is "specifically about whiteness"--see section "4.2. Abduction and ethnic identity". I think the discussion of whether this belongs in the lede is fair, but I don't think it's so cut-and-dry that it should be removed beforehand. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no section 4.2 in the article.

There is, however, a section 2.3, which includes the text "and, among non-white incels, the "just be white" (JBW) theory, which suggests that Caucasians face the fewest obstacles to relationships and sex," explicitly refuting the idea that the community is "specifically about whiteness." KarakasaObake (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure which article you're talking about, but I'm talking about this one, which has a 4.2 as I described. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I thought you were referring to the Wikipedia page itself. But the source you're referencing also explicitly refutes that the community is "specifically about whiteness." From the source:

"data suggest their orientation towards race and ethnicity is complex. Some incels advocate White nationalism, others discuss White privilege and intersectionality, while others still argue that incel-status trumps all other forms of identification"

"incels have (surprisingly) multifaceted discussions of race, ranging from support for White nationalism to critiques of White privilege. While social psychological theories predict that race/ethnic identity should operate as the more salient group identity in this context, we document instances where the opposite is true and incels assert the primacy of their incel identity"

And, again, you could say the exact same for doctors or ballet dancers or geeks: some advocate White nationalism, some discuss White privilege and intersectionality, and some are uninterested in racial identification. KarakasaObake (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but doctors don't, as a whole, discuss their race as an inherent part of their being doctors. That paper shows that (presumably) an absolute majority of incels are white, and that self-definition as either white or less-than-white and is a strong trend in incel communities, which is not true of doctors or ballet dancers, so I don't think that's an apt comparison. Yes, the paper does also show that there is a current of inceldom-trumps-ethnicity, but I don't think that goes a long way towards saying that race is irrelevant to the topic. And that's just one source; there are three others in the inline citations to that statement. "Assessing the threat of incel violence" talks about The white supremacist discourse pervasive on incel forums. The WaPo article goes out of its way to say that What makes the incel culture different is that these are primarily heterosexual white men.... The NBC article talks about how “They’re young, frustrated white males in their late teens into their early twenties who are having a hard time adjusting to adulthood. They’re the same kinds of people you find in white supremacy writ large,” Beirich said. “They have grievances about the world they’ve placed onto women and black people.“ If these sources think it's relevant, I don't know why we wouldn't too. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Incels also don't, as a whole, discuss their race as an inherent part of their being incels. Some do; most don't.

The only academic source we have on the issue is the one we've been discussing: Halpin and Richard's "An invitation to analytic abduction." They actually examined the community and said they were "surprised" by the multifaceted discussions of race taking place there.

Frankly, that is a far better source than WaPo and NBC. And Halpin and Richard specifically discuss how the popular media is misreporting incels:

"Using abduction, we've highlighted surprising findings: not only do incels discuss White privilege and intersectionality, but some members situate “incel” as a master status that unifies men across racial and ethnic groups. This finding reveals that incels are more heterogenous than reported, particularly in the popular media..." KarakasaObake (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

"some" =/= "most". "most don't" is unsupported by the current sources. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

"Most do" is also unsupported by the sources. The sources do say that about 55% of incels are white, so in order for "most" incels to be discussing whiteness as an inherent part of being incels, about 91% of white incels would need to be doing that. There is no claim in any source that this is the reality. KarakasaObake (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed (except for the wholly arbitrary 91% threshold), but the sentence in question didn't say "mostly white", it said "often white", which, given the information in the sources, is not realistically disputable. We have thre or four reliable sources that say that race is a relevant subject w/r/t incels, and one reliable source that says it's sometimes relevant and sometimes not, not being definitive either way--that sounds like a convincing reason to keep the sentence to me. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

This is very derogatory towards women

This article claims that women are more violent in relationships (when this is not true), that women are “child–like” and cry a lot, and get angry etc. Incel’s are literally complaining about not getting sex and feel entitled to women giving them sex. 2A00:23C8:116:7601:F889:88BE:B7F2:B3B1 (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you are talking about? I searched the article for both of your objections, and I see nothing in the article that says anything like what you are saying above. Please clarify and provide exact locations and quotes of the problematic text. --Jayron32 12:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this page about incels the subculture or involuntary celibacy?

Because if it’s about the former then we need a separate article for the latter. That would fix a lot of the problems with this article. ILoveHirasawaYui (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

It's about the former, and the latter has not proven to be a notable subject in its own right as of yet, so it doesn't get an article. If you have multiple reliable sources that discuss the topic in-depth, separate from the subculture, then you're welcome to try to draft one yourself. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I found a few: Denise Donnelly, Elizabeth Burgess, Laura Carpenter, Theodor F. Cohen, Brian Gilmartin and Menelaos Apostolou. Are these good enough? I💖平沢唯 (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I recall that in the past (before the Incel community became notorious) either this page or another was about the latter topic, and so would have previously met notability requirements. I doubt it’s actually become less notable, and instead it’s just become overshadowed by the incel community. I recall the page discussed things like the definition of involuntary celibacy, a history of the term, and potential causes of involuntary celibacy. Ganondox (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Who wrote this, the huffington post cultural editor??

This article has many unsubstantiated accusations and patently false assertions.

It really needs more sources. Especially when lumping all 'manosphere' organisations under the labels of misogyny, a word as over-used as it is misunderstood. As far as I can tell the driver for these organisations is apathy, not anger. 80.229.191.1 (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you want it to change, then like you say, you need to provide more (reliable) sources to support your change. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Misconception of the term "hypergamy".

This is a petition to credible sources for a dubious excerpt (Incel - 2.4). Or, if not, then a petition to remove the excerpt.

This part of the text below refers to a misconception of "hypergamy". The correct definition of this term is different from that shown in the excerpt. If this excerpt refers to a common misconception among incels, please provide a link to a trusted and reliable source in the text that supports the sentence.

"It includes the belief that 80% of women are attracted to the top 20% of men, an application of the Pareto principle that is referred to among incels as the "80/20 rule", and the belief in "hypergamy", or that women will abandon a man if they are presented with the opportunity to have sex with or enter into a relationship with a more attractive man."

You can find the correct concept of the term "hypergamy" for example on the Merriam-Webster dictionary page, in its entry.

Gufiguer (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Origins of the term in the lead

Beginning a discussion here to see if we can come to an agreement on whether the lead ought to include a mention of the origin of the term. As I mentioned in an edit summary, I don't think this detail is particularly leadworthy—Alanna coined the term, but her community was a pretty different beast from contemporary incel communities. It's a small portion of the history section—proportionate to its lack of mention in many if not most sources about incels—and is sized similarly to other grafs that aren't mentioned in the lead, so I don't think its omission is inappropriate.

Its inclusion also makes the second sentence of the lead quite long (even more so if it was edited back to properly reflect the fact that discussions in incel communities share the listed characteristics, and to restore "resentment" which keeps being removed for some reason). There are some other issues with the text that was introduced that I can go into if there is consensus to include the detail in the lead, but I'll save you the reading for now.

Pinging Loginnigol, Praxidicae, and Anachronist to weigh in if they like. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree with GW here. It seems like providing proper context for this would be impossible in the lead section - better to do it in the body of the article. The origins of the term are not fundamental to understanding what the concept is today, which is what the lead should focus on. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that it probably should be in the lead, but not worded like it was. Maybe something like this - The term incel originally came into prominence on a website designed to connect individuals who identified as involuntarily celibate. ShaveKongo (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

That alternative is fine with me. Given that there is a significant amount of space devoted to the history of the term in the article, a brief mention in the lead is warranted. The WP:LEAD guideline exists for a reason. That is why I restored it, although it seems I was quickly reverted. The "status quo" revision is unacceptable because it states only the current situation, and says nothing about history or origins, thereby failing to summarize the body text in accordance with WP:LEAD. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The "History" section devotes one paragraph out of seven to the origins of the term, and half of that graf is describing the originator's view on how the meaning changed. Including that in the lede seems disproportionate. I'd say that the bare-bones etymology in the lede now is satisfactory. XOR'easter (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it isn't satisfactory if it fails to provide relevant historical context. Anyone reading just the lead section would come away thinking that the term "incel" started out from day one with all the baggage of its current meaning. It certainly isn't "undue weight" to include relevant context. Brevity isn't a valid reason to exclude it. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

But does the main text of the article establish that part of the history as "relevant context"? I'm not convinced that it does. If a reader stopped after the lede, would they be missing out on an essential aspect of the modern situation, or a bit of ironic trivia? I'm inclined to think that it's closer to the latter. Moreover, the suggested addition ("...came into prominence on a website...") reads as redundant with the text already in the intro. If I saw that and didn't know that there was history it might be hinting at, I'd think, "Yes, you already told me it's an online subculture thing." XOR'easter (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

To summarize the below, I tend to agree with XOR'easter. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

sideshow from a globally-banned editor
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Agree with Anachronistic. I don't think opposition to them is malicious, just misguided. Because simple subtraction can conclude it's not trivia as XOReaster suggest. A majority of the history of self-described incel forums is between 1997 to start of r/incels posting(2016). A friendly reminder that RS and therefore this page is missing history on the majority of the life of self-described incel forums, ie from 1997-2013 (17 years). 2013-2016 was mostly love-shy forum, which this article does go into more than 1997-2013, but it's arguable whether or not it was self-described (I think it was, but RS is not always explicit on that). This page, with the exception of a paragraph covers 2016-2022 (7 years). 7 years is a strong minority on the history of a collection of communities claimed by the article to be spanning 26 years. This is mostly self-evident from the page, and doesn't take special knowledge to arrive at that conclusion imho. RS and this page does indeed mention the self-described people started in 1997, and gives hints at Cernan's forum at least in a sentence, so some sort of timeline using timelines are in RS (starting at 1997) may be helpful to give readers a perspective on how this page doesn't cover a majority of this history of the term. If it is a subculture, subcultures have histories. Also, as a sidenote, the 17 years of self-described forums went Alana (1997-2003ish) => Lee's forum (2004-2006) => Cernan's forum (2006-2008) => Bella's forum (2008) => Kaycee's forum (2008-2013) => unknown owner forum (2013). Each of those forums were separate communities, and were not an umbrella community. For example, Alana was not on the forums during and after Lee's. And Kaycee's forum is argued to have been a part of a hostile takeover of Cernan's, as both Cernan and Bella were not welcome on it (as far as I know). Kaycee's ended in 2013 and was a heavily moderated any-gender-allowed forum, likely responsible for this lost documentary. 2600:8806:0:C2:60EB:1F8C:E6C3:8B49 (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC) If it's the conclusion from the Wikipedia community that lack of RS on 1997-2013 automatically makes all of 1997-2013 "alana's community", then Alana should indeed be in the lede, as "her community" was the vast majority of the life of self-described incel communities. If it's instead the conclusion that 1997-2013 is a black hole, of which there is no way to determine if the communities were singular or separate (or even to establish a basic history of them), there isn't enough RS on the timeline of the topic for this to be a non-userspace/draftspace page imho, as almost all RS is articles addressing the communities after 2016. tl;dr 7 years of something out of 26 does not an article make, and to suggest so is not in the spirit of building an encyclopedic article. 2600:8806:0:C2:60EB:1F8C:E6C3:8B49 (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC) The latter is what Wikipedia concludes, to the extent that it concludes anything at all, which is one reason why people (including me) feel that mentioning Alana in the lead is unnecessary, since it's not particularly relevant to the current understanding of the term. You seem to agree with that, as well, given your post above: Each of those forums were separate communities, and were not an umbrella community. Not sure how you're then drawing the conclusion that that means that this article should be draftified (thought that's a whole different conversation anyway); the post-2013 meaning of the term "incel" is the topic of the article, so the fact that we don't have sources for anything before that is not particularly surprising or a problem, since--again--that history is included for completeness but not tremendously relevant to the article's subject. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Not sure how you're then drawing the conclusion that that means that this article should be draftified. Because the article only gives a few sentences on the majority of the history of the self-identified communities. I hear some reading this thinking "but why should we care if we've already overemphasised and WP:nothenews'd Judith Taylor in 2018 to citogenesis our own now-minority-RS definition of incel-as-primarily-a-culture" Because if each 1997-2013 community is meaningfully separate, then they have their own culture, of which would be included in an encyclopedic article about the "culture of incel". For example, incelsupport.org was genetic determinist culture in the last part of it's life. incel.myonlineplace emerged as a negative reaction to that in 2008, taking an opposite approach, with a culture of believing in incel as something one can work their way out of. All this stuff, while it might seem boring, is culture of incel, and missing from the article. What I'm mentioning is even part of the majority of the culture so far, and is not in RS or this article, but simple math also shows this portion is missing. As the article mentions brief asides of these communities existing in the 2000s and 2010s. The article as it is, is structured "incel started with Alana in 1997"...[virtually nothing]..."culture of 2016+ forums". That's not encyclopedic as it's missing most of the culture. People are must likely going to be saying this for the nest 9 years here, as what I'm saying will be true for 9 years. And I won't be telling them to come here to say it. If anyone does the math they'd know this article doesn't have enough RS to conclude about 26 years, as it is defined in the lede at least. Even after 50 years, that 17 years is still almost a third of the history lol. 2600:8806:0:C2:60EB:1F8C:E6C3:8B49 (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC) No, if each community was separate, and they have their own culture, then they're only passingly relevant to the subject of this article, which is the post-2013 culture that has generated coverage in RSes, not the "culture of incel", whatever that means. If they're only passingly relevant because they're separate cultures, then they're not important context and don't need to be included in the lead, which again is what several of us are saying. Once again, as the box at the top of this page says, "This article is about a particular misogynistic online subculture of people who self-identify as "involuntary celibates" or "incels" based on their inability to find a romantic or sexual partner. It is not about all people who are unable to find a romantic or sexual partner or all people to whom the phrase "involuntary celibate" could be applied, but only to that subculture." I get that you don't like that; you're far from the first. But AfD is thataway. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Your sort of shifting the goalposts. It doesn't matter if the term incel is deemed a culture or not. If it's deemed a culture, and one which (you are laying down a law?) that it can only be about a strong minority of the history of the culture, then it should be titled Incel (2013-) or something like that, as that would give readers the impression that Wikipedia is ok with writing articles when most of the history of the culture is not in RS JoarFF (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Not really? The goalposts are the same they've always been; that FAQ at the top of the page is long-standing. For the title, see WP:TITLE; we don't put parentheticals in the title if there aren't any other Wikipedia articles to disambiguate from. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC) You are still arguing in bad faith. I'm already ceding to you that it can be a culture. If it is a culture, you are laying down an unnecessary law that the topic is only post-2013, justifying the existence of an article missing the history of it. Which it doesn't justify. If punk subculture was 60 years, and we only knew 20 years of the history of it, when research and writing on it was just starting out, it would make sense to title the article Punk (year-of-date-of-start-of-comprehensive-knowledge - now) etc. Especially if we had reason to believe in RS that the first 40 years of punk were entirely or very different than the last 20. The only reason to not do that would be a dishonest attempt to paint the first 40 years as the last 20 for people who don't read tiny disclaimers in the body of the page. imho JoarFF (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC) But...you (or at least, the IP editor, which I'm assuming was you) said yourself that each forum was a separate community and separate culture. This article is, and always has been, about one of those cultures, the one that is covered in RSes and therefore notable. The others are not notable for their own articles, and, since they're separate cultures, are not particularly relevant to this one, even if they did have coverage in RSes (which is still necessary for them to be included here). And no, it would not make sense to name the punk article that, because again, that's not how Wikipedia does article titles; we don't do parenthetical disambiguations unless there are multiple Wikipedia articles to disambiguate between. There's presumably been more than one John N. Smith in the history of the world, so by that logic, we should rename that article to John N. Smith (film director, born 1943), but we don't. Article titles don't have to uniquely identify their subject from every other possible subject in the world, only from every other extant Wikipedia article, which incel does. If those other "incel culture" topics ever become notable and get an article written, then this article may be duly renamed (though possibly not even then, given WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). That's how Wikipedia titles work, and it's fair if you don't like it, but again, this section is not the right place for that discussion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Ok, so if incel is a post-hoc appropriated term to attempt to umbrella multiple, antithetical, cultures over time, and you are laying a law (out of nowhere) that the existence of one culture justifies an an article painting the rest of the cultures as it, then it would indeed make sense to split the article by year, if WP has to follow your assertion. And why is that? Subcultures are not people, there can be multiple of them. If what we know now as of Punk subculture hijacked (within the last 5-10 years) an original culture that was three times as long in duration with the exact same name, it would make sense to separate the hijacked one by the community that hijacked it. Because an encyclopedia is about documenting how things work, not aiding and abetting hijackers while violating WP:NOTHENEWS, just to justify the aiding and abetting using citogenensis. Joan N. Smith cannot be multiple articles but multiple subcultures can. And what if we cannot separate the article by year? The way that RS supports that is by separating the article by name of forums. Your argument is that incel is just incels.is (previously r/incels). So we should just have an article on them then, which others above agreed to but no action was taken. At the end of the day, it sounds like I"m talking to a brick wall. Dosens of people have come to this page with valid arguments about why this page doesn't make any sense. There's people going on TV saying that "chad and stacy are incel terms" which made all of social media laugh, as it was clearly a 4chan, not an incel set of terms. That most likely was citogenesis from this article. This nonsense. This article also needs more than one writer. Sites that show how many edits were contributed by person show only one person wrote the vast majority of the article over 5+ years. That's too little for a topic that now has policy implications for governments JoarFF (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Another way to look at it is the origin of the term is also the majority of the history of the communities. And communities have cultures 2600:8806:0:C2:9158:2ED4:E9D5:3493 (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC) I think, just, even with RS taken into consideration, this lede and article is way too heavy on Judith Taylor's 2018 quotes in RS and Reddit-centric or derived communities. Whether or not that's RS' fault or the article author's fault is hard to determine. But I don't think readers come away from this page with an understanding of the history of the communities and the cultures contained therein, and that this article is essentially just an attempt to criminalize r9k culture, which is fine, but it's a bit Reddity to do that on an encyclopedia. Or you know just have an article called 4chan culture where it cites RS on that including subsequent grifts like Reddit derived incel forums. 2600:8806:0:C2:60EB:1F8C:E6C3:8B49 (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

This is very degrading and demeaning towards straight white men

Not a forum, respones funny tho Dronebogus (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The rise in suicide of young men often straight and white is rising. And derogatory terms like this are used to put down young white men who cant get girlfriends or sex. The article never talks about the derogatory use of the word and how it basically says that men who cant get sex or girlfriends are basically bad and should be ashamed of themselves. Lefty feminists who are misandristic use terms like this to put down and belittle men and its just sickening and not on. 77.99.182.75 (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Are you just here to complain, or do you have suggestions for improvement, grounded in reliable sources? This is not a forum for discussion of the article topic, it's for discussing improvements to the article. The population of men who don't get laid is vast, and the term "incel" covers a narrow segment of that. You've heard the joke about the difference between a priest and a man who's been married 10 years? The priest is celibate voluntarily. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Oh no, whatever will they do?! PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Not helping, Praxidicae; in fact, very nearly as WP:NOTHERE as the ip's own comments. If you're going to respond to such a rant at all, please keep the criticism on point to policy, as Anachronist and Zaathras have done, rather than engaging in a snarky colour commentary that accomplishes nothing but to potential inflame the discussion further. SnowRise let's rap 00:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Could we see a citation that supports this assertion? Zaathras (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC) IP 77-75, My fellow editors have already addressed the practical shortcomings with your post in terms of accomplishing any practical changes to the article: 1) you have not made clear suggestions based on reliable sources as to what specifically has changed, 2) you have not provided a cogent description (let alone also supported it with support) to support your implication in the section header that the article denigrates "straight white men", 3) your comments veer into polemic screed in places, completely uncoupled from any discussion taking place in reliable sources and apparently reflecting your belief that the term is first and foremost a slur by "lefty feminists" rather than a descriptive one embraced by discrete communities themselves, and otherwise used by social commentators and researchers, which is how the WP:WEIGHT of sources tells us to approach the topic. And on a side note--and this is neither here nor there for any content purposes, but as a strictly educational matter--I thought you might like to know that, while it is true that suicide rates among white males have risen slightly in recent time (relative to other major demographic cross-referenced populations) this actually trends these values towards parity with most other demographics, rather than away from them. In other words, the rates of suicide in this class (as a relative value of overall suicide numbers) have raised very, very marginally to be a little bit closer to the (still significantly higher or much higher) rates in almost every other broad class of demographic population. Again, not terribly relevant to any determination I can see here, but still useful for perspective, since this detail seems to be of such concern to you. SnowRise let's rap 00:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Interesting article on origins of involuntary celibacy

The article "Incel Activity on Social Media Linked to Local Mating Ecology" [4] published in Psychological Science makes the incendiary claim that "involuntary celibacy arises as a result of local real-world mating-market forces that affect the numbers of women and men seeking mates and the likely gains to be made from relationship formation", and performed geographic analysis of Twitter that supported this conclusion. This could be included in some way in the article, given that it is a peer-reviewed study in a major academic journal. Perhaps in the demographics section? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I would be extremely hesitant to place this in the article under current WP:WEIGHT considerations. We're talking about a WP:PRIMARY report that is not as yet discussed or contextualized in a secondary RS, making a pretty strong claim, based on the quality and nature of the evidence: I don't want to dip even my toes into WP:OR here, but needless to say, there are methodlogical complications galore in a study of this nature, and the level of confidence in the conclusions advanced by the authors here is...let's be diplomatic and say "bold". I'm not sure this is at all WP:DUE at this time, and if included, carefully-crafted wording would be required. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: It sounds like we may have to remove much of the demographics section on that basis, as many of the citations are WP:PRIMARY news articles written by journalists based on their own original interviews. There seems to be WP:WEIGHT issues with these femcels, who receive a majority of the section despite being a minority of the community. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

As to the first suggestion, you may very well be right, but it would require discussion of particular examples, rather than a broad-strokes description of the section as a whole, before I could provide my opinion as to any of the standing content and whether it is due or not. That said, news reports are not typically regarded as truly primary works under our policies (see WP:PST and WP:IDPRIMARY), and certainly not primary in the same way as primary research--especially a singular study making a novel and expansive claim based about complex social phenomena based on an analysis of tweets. Reporters are typically WP:independent of the subjects they report on (or are hoped to be); authors of ambitious studies are anything but with regard to their research. Anyway, there may yet be examples in that section where I'd agree with you, but you'd have to be more specific, whereas my immediate comments here are concerned with the specific source you've supplied and the proposal that we add content based on it, rather than the WP:OTHERSTUFF that might be imputed for removal by the same policy argument.

As to the 'Femcel' section being outsized, again, you might be right that a fact or two here could go, but I'd again have to hear specific proposals before endorsing or rejecting any changes. I will say that the fact that it is the largest subsection of the 'demographics' section is a not a very good argument for reduction however: taking a look at that section, it is clear that Femcel section is simply misplaced: if you look at the content of those four paragraphs, there is one sentence that is maybe, kinda-sorta, about demographics. This is clearly a discrete bit of content about a subdomain of the subculture (or a parallel subculture, or however one chooses to frame it). When you recontextualize it like that, it becomes obvious that this content is not particularly outsized as a WP:DUE matter, because almost all of the rest of the article is concerned (probably rightly) with discussing the main and larger portion of the overall 'incel' community, while the femcel section is an important aside that may be of some contextual value to our readers, and seems to be roughly in proportion to size of this community within the overall subculture, when considering its size in relation to the overall article.

All of which is not to dismiss your observations, but to say that I think there is no harm in considering specific proposals for additional cuts, if you or anyone wants to make them. But the suggestion that other stuff might have to go as well does not really directly impact the concerns I have with the study itself (i.e. whether it is WP:DUE at this point, and how we would represent it if we did add content based on it to the article). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)