Talk:Incel

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)

Involuntary celibacy is not a thing. It is a belief of the people that subscribe to the "incel" subculture. Wikipedia is not here to sanction a set of beliefs. 2603:7081:6300:249C:7D3E:F8FE:C18E:BA41 (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Correct, unless it is somehow enforced coercively, which I’m not sure is a notable topic. Dronebogus (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

There's a non-insignificant amount of academic studies on forced celibacy in prisons and the mental health ramifications of such. Some even use the term 'involuntary celibacy'. I can link them if you wantBashfan34 (talk) 17:50, 11 September 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)

The 91% figure isn't "wholly arbitrary", it's basic math. If 55% of incels are white, then for "most" incels to be discussing whiteness, then 91% of those 55% would be discussing it, that is: $0.91\times 0.55\approx 50.1\%$. ~Anachronist (talk) 12:04, 10 September 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)

I found what used to page for involuntary celibacy that was then converted into a redirect to this page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/842912658 Ganondox (talk) 21:41, 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" [1] 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)

Seems this study was rejected based on it being a primary source. Just a 2 second search on Google finds a secondary source from an outlet currently cited in en.wikipedia.org/w/Incel https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/inceldom-income-inequality Bashfan34 (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Worth also adding that this study with secondary sources didn't use the term 'involuntary celibacy' primarily, but rather 'incel'. It would make a worthy addition to the page. Material conditions matter. Not everything is about identity. Bashfan34 (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

New study that could be incorporated in the page

The Journal of Online Trust and Safety has a peer reviewed article titled Predictors of Radical Intentions among Incels: A Survey of 54 Self-identified Incels on the topic of incel and radicalisation. After a quick reading, I think it might be worthwhile to incorporate it in the page (it also list others studies). As it seems to be a rather controversial topic, I would prefer have someone more knowledgeable with en.wp rules see what can be used from the study. Misc (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Here is another study which needs incorporation -- one of the few to incorporate primary responses from self-identified incels -- it refutes much of the standard narrative. For example, the sample skewed to the left politically and there were fewer whites than the surrounding population.

Costello, William, Vania Rolon, Andrew G. Thomas, and David P. Schmitt. 2022. “Levels of Well-being Among Men Who Are Incels (involuntary Celibates).” OSF Preprints. June 3. doi:10.31219/osf.io/tnf7b. Cabalfanger (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

See WP:PREPRINT. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson revisted

The section Incel#Justifications_for_beliefs that mentions Jordan Peterson, has been discussed previously should be revisited because it is misleading in what it fails to say. While there may be some people who hold those opinions and perceive Peterson as supporting them, his own words are to the contrary , he has "repeatedly and very publicly" told young men and women that they should "think very hard about their own personal shortcomings and not the evil of the opposite sex, and that they should in consequence strive to amend themselves in the very ways that would make them attractive." Source The National Post September 3, 2022.[2] Some version of this point should be included, you do not need to agree with Peterson and his pull yourself up by your own bootstraps attitude to self improvement but he has clearly stated it over and over again and it is misleading to omit it. -- 109.79.67.41 (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's look at it by source. The third source, a NYTimes article not about incels, says that Peterson had sympathy for Minnassian and proposes 'enforced monogamy' as a solution to male sexlessness. Second source is a Webarchive of a Spanish elconfidencial.com article, which does not mention Peterson at all, but instead Gilmartin. Same with the last source, the Elle source, which only mentions Gilmartin.

The sources don't say that incels cop from Jordan Peterson. While I don't doubt some do, (and more likely Peterson was inspired by incels originally than the other way around, as that NYTimes article suggests) Wikipedia's policy is to use correct sources, of which it is not doing for that claim. Bashfan34 (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

A way to word that sentence using the sources provided in the article, if Peterson had to be included, would be,

"Some incels justify their beliefs based on the works of fringe social psychologist Brian Gilmartin.[elconfidential][Elle] American psychologist [[Jordan Peterson]] has stated that without widespread monogamy, women crowd around high-status men, leaving low-status men sexless, angry, and sometimes violent.  Jordan uses self-described incel and serial killer [[Alek Minassian]] as an alleged example of a low-status man lashing out after allegedly being left out of mating. Jordan further states that socially, "enforced", [[monogamy]] would cure incel [[anger]].[NYtimes]"

Bashfan34 (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Considering that Jordan Peterson source doesn't really belong in that sentence if you read the sources. It would be better in a section about monogamy vs. polygamy. You could then also add that other writers have said similar things, like the prominent, early feminist Charles Fourier's essay Hierarchies of Cuckoldry and Bankruptcy where he states, "The sixth objective of [monogamous] marriage is to provide a poor man with a wife in regions where he is deprived or where polygamy or the sale of women holds sway" Bashfan34 (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

If I understand correctly you are saying the current wording needs to be improved to better reflect what the sources actually say. That would be great but in the meantime I would again suggest that editors first add a counterpoint to state that Peterson has spoken against incels, even if some have taken his description of the problem as somehow endorsing their own response to it. -- 109.76.196.148 (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

No one really decides any of these things. This entire article is under the purview of one hyper-authoritative administrator since 2018. Should they decide to swoop down and grant your request to change existing original, existing content in any manner that changes meaning of sentences, you'd be among the first. Keep filing complaints about the article, or edit it, and they'll (they'll being a few veterans) ban you and claim consensus, as they have at least 3 or 4 people, even before they moved to other wikis. Bashfan34 (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Too heavy on Anglosphere and lack of consistency with other articles

Anglosphere focus

Incels have been reported on globally, with forums and prominent figures in multiple non-English speaking countries. This article is almost exclusive to incels in 2-3 Western countries. While WP has other language wikis, en:wiki is not just about the West. A good article would incorporate more from foreign language RS coverage, of which there is a ton. If people want links of examples, I can send them.

Consistency

There are two articles here about incels I've found on WP, Jack Peterson (spokesperson) and here at incel. Think there should be a link up btw the two articles more of for the first to be deleted. If he was the only incel notable enough to have his own WP page, then he should be in here imho. If he's not notable, then his page should be deleted. Just consistency. Bashfan34 (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Improved the Jack Richard Peterson article to fit WP standards more, and fleshed it out. Added link btw incel and there. As far as I can tell these are the only two articles about incels on Wikipedia, and wanted consistency. I didn't create the Jack Peterson page and its former version has been what appears to be a self-authored (ie Jack authored) blight on this wiki for years. If people believe Jack Peterson article should be AFD'd, I'm not necessarily against that, but have improved the article as it exists the best I can Bashfan34 (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Added Diego, Twohey, Lamarcus, etc arc

As its less newsy now. Was described as valuable on talk before. Thank you Bashfan34 (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent Wa Post news article

Recently, Washington Post, puts this media arc further in incel territory. Taylor Lorenz wrote a news article on this while also naming the forum founders and mentioning that Cloudflare is protecting their forum https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/22/incels-rape-murder-study/ Added Wa Post source to article Bashfan34 (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Naming of site

NYtimes didn't name the site but spoke of it as a single incel forum, and used subtle language which seens to imply existence of different types of incel spaces. CCDH called .is "the incel forum" but mentioned there are others. Wa Post calls .is even more vaguely "the forum". My uninformed guess is that all three just don't want to drive traffic to the site. Additionally, this seems to be Wikipedia's policy. So in the WP section about .is I just call it "Reddit offshoot". Thought "subreddit offshoot" might be more appropriate but that makes it sound like it's a subreddit, which it's not. So keeping it at Reddit offshoot just because it's an offshoot of a Reddit subreddit. If someone can think of a better name to call it, I would be happy. Not trying to place blame on Reddit for its exstience, but due to the fact that the newspapers of record are not explicitly naming the site, and only its founders, could only come up with "reddit offshoot forum". Bashfan34 (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

If someone can come up with a better name, please edit it. Like Wikipedia veterans, I also share a reticence to list its URL on Wikipedia. Its the academic sources and digital journo type places that continuously name it. This forum has hundreds of academic sources and a few digital news places which explicitly lists its URL, but the newspapers of record choose not to, only the founders. With this new Wa Post article, it seems the forum could easily have its own WP article, but not going to author that. That would just be unnecessary stress. Think will just stop thinking about this topic while I'm still feeling relatively emotionally ok. Bashfan34 (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:HARM, WP:BLP & WP:ATTACK & concerns

Hello y'all. How nice to see familiar editors here joined by enthusiastic newcomers. Unfortunately, concerns have developed with recent edits. Such as mentioning the real names of internet people who have always tried to remain private. And mentioning the real name of the suicide forum. Granted, a few unquestionably mainstream papers have covered the Incel topic in similar manner. But just because a few US broadsheets show zero sympathy with one of the world's most marginalised demographics and have chosen to risk alienating their genuinely progressive subscribers, that does not mean Wikipedia ought to follow suit. We have different content guidance to comply with, in this case including WP:HARM, WP:BLP & WP:ATTACK.

After NYT exposed the suicide site and told readers its real name, for several days its new registrations increased by about 2000% . More responsible coverage like Vice's dont use its real name. (Its called Suicide Solution in the linked article).

I see an understandable decision has been made not to name the most prominent incel forum. So why are we naming the suicide site which we're blaming for 50 deaths and possibly hundreds more?

Granted, a case could be made that SS is a net +ve for those suffering from suicidal ideation. There's a reason why it attracts many more members than liberal dominated suicide related sites. Visitors appreciate the relatively relaxed moderation, the genuine concern they receive and the lack of useless platitudes. As the Vice article quotes: I've received more genuine support and empathy in this forum than anywhere else ever in my life. No doctor, psychiatrist or therapist could ever come close to this kind of honest and sincere support. But our article gives no hist of potential positives of the suicide site, so it could be seen as irresponsible to drive more vulnerable people to it by naming it.

Even if we removed all mention of the SS site, another concern is mentioning the real names of those who founded / sysadmined the most prominent current incel forum. Per WP:BLP and especially WP:ATTACK, we should avoid material that is "entirely negative in tone" about named living individuals. Granted, the info in the article is not poorly sourced, and as such is not a blatant policy violation. But I feel it's unnecessary, largely tangential to the article topic of incel, and has strong attack page qualities.

Accordingly, I've be reverting to a 15 September version that doesnt have these concerns. Some arguably good edits may be lost in the reversion - if they dont relate to the specific concerns, they can be added back without further discussion. But per WP:Burden, neither the name of the suicide website nor the real names of the private individuals ought to be re-introduced without first achieving consensus for that here. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The names are published in 3-4 New York Times articles, Wa Post, Jezebel, Daily Kos, PBS, WBUR among many others, so no, it's not against Wikipedia policy to reiterate what's in the news Bashfan34 (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

There were less sources to Josh Moon's name so not sure what your goal is here Bashfan34 (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Just a few articles with the full names, note about half are newspapers of record, go complain to them

"A newspaper of record is a term used to denote a major national newspaper with large circulation whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered authoritative and independent;"

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/09/22/incels-rape-murder-study/
• https://nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/09/us/where-the-despairing-log-on.html
• https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2022/01/18/suicide-websites-caution
• https://jezebel.com/study-incels-are-getting-more-predatory-radicalized-1849574213
• https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/9/23/2122870/-One-path-to-mass-violence-is-to-rationalize-the-right-to-exercise-male-power
• https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/why-a-website-with-explicit-directions-for-suicide-remains-active
• https://fr.techtribune.net/google/les-legislateurs-exhortent-les-entreprises-technologiques-a-attenuer-les-dommages-du-site-web-sur-le-suicide/213186/
• https://gatopardo.com/reportajes/el-extrano-fenomeno-del-suicidio-en-uruguay/
• https://foreignaffairs.co.nz/2022/01/04/mil-osi-usa-trahan-leads-bipartisan-call-for-action-to-stop-sanctioned-suicide-website/
• https://trahan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/doj_sanctioned_suicide_letter_final_dec21.pdf
• https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/09/podcasts/the-daily/suicide-investigation.html
• 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/
• https://allnewspress.com/deutsch/gesetzgeber-fordern-technologieunternehmen-auf-den-schaden-der-selbstmord-website-zu-mildern/
• https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/21/technology/suicide-website-google.html

Many also contain life background and city location, I didn't add that stuff. NYTimes said on TV and in their articles they found the names in an Epik hack, so don't go accusing WP editors -shrug-. Bashfan34 (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Here's the Washington Post quote eg

The forum was founded in 2017 by Diego Joaquín Galante, known online as “Sergeant Incel” and Lamarcus Small as a response to Reddit banning the subreddit /r/incels. It offers an invitation-only Discord server for its members who have posted more than 400 times to the site, and an active channel on the chat app Telegram. Moderators of the forum also maintain a Twitter account that promotes incel ideology and attacks perceived critics.

— Taylor Lorenz, for Washington Post news article

Bashfan34 (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Granted, a case could be made that SS is a net +ve for those suffering from suicidal ideation. There's a reason why it attracts many more members than liberal dominated suicide related sites

— FeydHuxtable

Your concerns about "liberal bias" in denigrating SS, has no relevance as to the reliability and content of the sources listed Bashfan34 (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Since adding the names (which are in newspapers of record, as shown above), an "incels.me spokesperson" even posted a torture threat on my talk page, which I webarchived. I'm well aware of the dangers of linking reliable sources here, I do not care Bashfan34 (talk) 12:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable, you've shown up here in the past to "completely rewrite" this page, which Gorilla and others rightly rightly shot down, as the article is fine. Wikipedia consensus is that it's about a particular subculuture, not 'involuntary celibacy' as you proposed. Your proposals via this page have not been in consensus since at least 2020, link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Incel/Archive_6#Tobias_Rathjen_and_the_Societal_impact_of_this_article Bashfan34 (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Especially when policies like WP:BLP & WP:Attack are in play, you really should gain consensus here on talk before restoring the challenged changes. I'm going to give you pass for this borderline edit warring as a relatively new editor, and per many valid reasons for being passionate about this topic. But please try to comply with WP:BRD more closely in future.

Thanks for backing up your position with good sources, and for the mostly accurate statement of past history on this page. It might be a bit of a stretch to say Gorilla "shot down" my re-write proposal - as you generously alluded to yourself, after long discussion I gained consensus for most of my changes back in 2020. (Allbeit only very briefly, other editors quite swiftly changed their minds.) I'd argue 2020 editing history has little relevance here however. Back in 2020 I was mostly arguing for more sympathetic coverage per NPOV. The balance of coverage in WP:RS has shifted since then, and I'd not currently make those same arguments. The concern today relates to WP:HARM, WP:BLP & WP:ATTACK. Let's set aside the mention of Sergeant Incel's & his buddy's real name. Some see the good sergeant as someone of exceptional courage, willing to take risks to help suffering people that most of society ignores or dismisses with platitudes. Others see him as one of the worst folk on the Internet, promoting misogyny and preying on the most vulnerable. Whatever the case, higher authority will ensure the Sargent receives rightful reward or punishment.

So let's focus on naming the Suicide website. I notice your bravery in not being swayed from a cause you believe in even by threat of torture. That might well of been a false flag by the way; still, I admire your courage for that immensely. But it's largely irrelevant to the WP:HARM concern. It's the danger to our readers I'm concerned with, not the danger to editors, which I'd judge to be very low (though not non existent). Regardless of whether one sees SS as a overall net +ve or -ve, its undeniable that publicising it has risks. Its well recorded that the site sometimes gives specific advise on relatively pain free suicide methods. Some young people go through suicidal phases and then recover, going on to have happy & fulfilled life. Finding a site that gives specific advise on methods can obviously make the difference between a tragic death and a happier outcome for both the individual and their family & other loved one. This is why even the partly sympathetic Vice article I'd linked to cites multiple experts in Suicide Prevention talking about SS being an "atrocity" & similar. For me at least there's an overwhelming strong case for not naming is and so as not to funnel more readers to it. We should at least learn from NYT's mistake in boosting the site's sign up rate (for a few days) by 2000%.

I'd said before I was going to stay off this page for at least a few years and I intend to honour that. (This little appearance has been to cash in the exception I allowed myself here.) I think me bowing out again may also be good as you may consider my views suspect on this topic per being aware of the 2020 history. So bye for now, but please do consider the policy based case for at least not naming the suicide site. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Your suggestion about not naming sanctionedsuicide is reasonable thank you for the suggestion, so edited it to say 'suicide site'. No versions of mine had the gTLD, because sources didn't include it, but sources do called it SanctionedSuicide. The SS part has become more minor though vis-a-vis this article after Taylor's Wa Post article and others explicitly naming the founders and going into specifics about the incel forum and not just SS. You noted the sources for the names of .co/.me/is fits Wikipedia standards. I think I ultimately agree with what you said about not not naming SanctionedSuicide, and I thought I accomplished that by not putting in the gTLD. Renamed it to "suicide site" think this is a fair compromise. The single paragraph on SS isn't *super important* to this page, but the CCDH did reference it in their report hyperfocuesd on incels, and newspaprers of record chose to discuss the incel site in context of the SS site. There's actually enough sources to give .co/.me/is is an entire page, not just a section here, but the newspapers of record covering it, is why I added it, without listing a URL for either forum. Thanks for your civil engagement, needed to talk to someone civil today. Bashfan34 (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Double checking the sources, the big sources actually don't name 'sanctionedsuicide', only small ones like KFOX, CBS21, and ANSA.it. Big sources just say 'suicide site'. That appears to have been a mistake of mine and I apologize, now it just says 'suicide site'. Bashfan34 (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)2

On a brief note of WP:FORUM, about your concern of 'liberal bias' in negative media coverage about SS and .me/.co/.is, I swear to God on my mothers grave up and down that relaying truthful information contained in newspapers of record about these sites is not a liberal or conservative issue, it's non-political. These are emotionally predatory forums which lure adults unlucky in love into a bizarre suicide cult. Attempts to make them not a suicide cult failed, and some of those who attempted got too stuck in it. These forums I mentioned are now basically the only admin-hosted self-identified incel forums and as a result of the inevitable media attention their cult exploded December of last year Bashfan34 (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, even though like 100% of the sources I added are liberal, liberal royalty/giants even, there is a single conservative source on this with the same framing, I just didn't think it counted as a reliable source by Wikipedia. It was the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property, but that source is bloggy, and probably fails WP:GNG. Anyway with that source in mind, and considering no other conservative sources commentated on it, I'd say the framing was bipartisan. And actually the liberal sources don't appear to be making the media story a referendum on the complete existence of pro-choice suicide sites, only the conservative source seems to call for a total annihilation of those. Some of the reporters I linked stated in publicly available interviews they simply had misgivings about the way the sites were run, noticed a buzzfeed article (an article about a young death on SS, which notes "strange overlap of disturbing online community, in particular an incel forum"), questioned the moral fiber of leadership on SS, and were doing regular reporting on online harms leading them to do investigations/exposes for news articles. Can't speak for them though, not involved with them, so I could be wrong about their intentions for writing news articles. Only relaying what's in their newspaper of record articles. Bashfan34 (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey – thanks so much for the fair and open minded response, and for your editing the article to address some of the concern. It's deeply appreciated especially as there might be some reason to suspect I was coming from a conservative or possibly even manosphere perspective. You made some most interesting points here, some but not all of which I whole heartedly agree with. I dont wish to elaborate here partly due to the WP:Forum reasons youre already aware of. Im not sure whether you like to discuss this sort of thing on your talk. If you do, please ping me there. Or come to my talk or even email be if youd like to discuss more. Im slow to reply sometimes, but I do always reply. Or if want to leave it at this, happy editing and look forward to maybe collaborating on some other topic in the future where our PoV might be more aligned. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

"Virgin with rage" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Virgin with rage and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 30#Virgin with rage until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Size of communities

There's two sentences in the main article on community size

Estimates of the overall size of the subculture vary greatly, ranging from thousands to hundreds of thousands of individuals.[25][26]

and

Estimates of the size of incel communities vary,[41][105][115] and range from the thousands, to tens of thousands, to hundreds of thousands.[25][38][99][26][23]

The sources in the first sentence claiming tens/hundreds of thousands are all from 2018, with the second adding some sources for 2019. This may have been true for those years. However, the CCDH report released in September analyzed every single post from the largest forum during all of 2021 and most of 2022. Over 19 months, it said the "largest forum" (they meant incels.is) had only 4,057 active users. They also say only 400 users account for 3/4s of the total forum posts.

Thus, according to the CCDH, the largest community seems to essentially be only 400 people doing most of the posting, with 3,657 users chiming in.

All mentions of the CCDH currently in enwiki are Taylor Lorenz referencing the report. I will probably directly reference the report to adjust or add to those sentences, to give a clearer picture. Unless people claim the CCDH on its own is not reliable, in which case I won't, or you can just revert adjustments/additions to those sentences Bashfan34 (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Psychological Root causes?

The article reads as if the authors have basically given up on incels and incels are like orks or something that should be hated because they hate and the light of love should not reach them. One sided article that yet again just shows how little wikipedia is able to understand and neutrally reflect "right wing positions". I think the article makes this dark, sad and hellish situation just worse not better.

The lack of knowledge shows up for example in the red-pill section where the "white-pill path" is not even mentionen. And what is more important: WHERE IS THE SECTION ABOUT THE UNDERLYING PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUES AND A PRESENTATION OF HOW TO EXIT THAT HELL? Just a small, shellow section that just says "no-one cares!" Peterson has written tons of stuff about how he thinks those boys can be brought back into some form of light. A position many mismatched, for him supporting this hell, which he doesn't. Non of this is in the article, which is interesting because WHY this is happening is the actual intersting point for people with compession for others being in hell. Also the role of shallow solutions like SSRI and other serotonin drugs and how they amplify this hell is not included. DO YOUR HOMEWORK and GET BACK TO AN ACTUAL NPOV WIKPEDIA especially with everything "on the right"

And why is there no section on criticism about incel-isolation? Again no points of how to reintegrate and rescue these people from their hell. Not NPOV 2A01:598:B184:2B4:35C8:92D0:62E6:C67D (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a self-help center for people with psychological issues. We write about what is relevant and what can be found in reliable sources. Zaathras (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The help part and more so the research on the courses is among the most important parts. People reading this article might want to know why this is happening, not just bathing in how bad those people are. Also Peterson's books are probably among the most reliable source in this specific topic. Hence should be included. 2A01:598:B184:2B4:35C8:92D0:62E6:C67D (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Incels primarily white?

Incels (in the original sense as involuntary virgins/non-sexual actives) are very much more common in Japan and South Korea. So get the racism out of this article. 2A01:598:B184:2B4:35C8:92D0:62E6:C67D (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

They actually are not. Informal polling of the incel community has reported 55-60% identify as white. Zaathras (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Once again, this article is about the internet subculture, *not* about the "original sense", so your concerns are misplaced. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

yes hikimori is a large part of that culture. Or else change the title to (US-centric view on incels) or something similar. (-- me being not from the US) 2A01:598:B184:2B4:35C8:92D0:62E6:C67D (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)