Talk:Incel

opinions are not citations for statistical claims

According to the article "Self-identified incels are largely white and are almost exclusively male heterosexuals.[4][5][6]"

The problem is that all 3 citations are actually Opinion piece who don't contain any citations to back their opinion that "incels are almost exclusively white male hetrosexuals". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.173.87 (talk) 08:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

None of the sources supporting the claim (and there are six, if you actually look at the references) are opinion pieces. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

For some reason many editors in these areas claim any news piece that they dislike to be opinion pieces.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I actually think the problem is both more neutral and more pernicious than that: there's an epistemological faction today who believe any human interpretation renders information "opinion," and thus the only news articles possible are purely mathematical. But that's really for another day. Happy New Year, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

These people are welcome to cuddle each other at WP:MNA. wumbolo ^^^ 19:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe you've hit the nail on the head. I think this sentiment is a reasonably predictable (but nevertheless highly problematic) result of the reckoning contemporary society is having with ideological polarization and dogmatic factionalism. As regards the phenomena as it has taken form on Wikipedia, you see very similar sentiments expressed on the talk pages for many articles regarding controversial topics, particular when they involve extremist movements/hate groups, anything perceived to be a part of the "culture wars", and politics broadly (particularly WP:ARBAP2 topics). I answer a lot of RfCs as part of my contributions, and I'm increasingly seeing this "opinion piece" argument at the core of numerous intractable disputes. As you hint at, we're not going to solve the issue in this space, but I nevertheless felt compelled to register my agreement with your observation. And fyi, if anyone here ever sees a potentially productive discussion in a community space attempting to address this trend, please consider giving me a courtesy ping! Snow ^{let's rap} 01:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not an autoconfirmed user, could someone add this part? The source is the subreddit of braincels itself (the information will only be there until the subreddit gets banned). The survey was done to 1267 people inside the community.

2019 demographics survey inside incels community hinted that 55% of incels are white, 17% are asian, and 28% are from other ethnicities, while 52% of them are from North America, 32% of them are from Europe, and 16% of them are from other continents. Besides, 68% of them have between 17 and 24 years old, with 10% younger, and 22% older.

No. This is not an acceptable source.--Jorm (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

How is it not an acceptable source? It is a primary source and the biggest poll amongst that community. Are primary sources not acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melthengylf (talk • contribs) 21:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Primary sources are never acceptable about things like this. Ever.--Jorm (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, I did thought it was ok if the statement was a merely descriptive one, but good to know, too bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melthengylf (talk • contribs) 21:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

References

David Futrelle is currently redlinked

I question whether there are really enough reliable sources to sustain a standalone article on David Futrelle, who seems mostly famous for his writings; is there some list that could redirect to?

In the top 10 DuckDuckGo search results for him are Encyclopedia Dramatica and Kiwi Farms entries. He gets cited a little bit in articles linked from Google Scholar, but there's not a lot of content with which to sustain a biography. We have this Time blurb, this Salon blurb, and there's this lengthier treatment in the New York Times, and that's about it.

Maybe someone will create a list of feminist bloggers or list of sites critical of the manosphere, so I guess we can just leave it as a redlink for now. MW131tester (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the redlink. It doesn't really make sense for it to be linked when similarly notable people without articles are not linked in that section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Peterson

The source on incel support for Jordan Peterson is an opinion piece and only mentions that an unspecified person ("someone") got a tattoo of him. It goes on to say that Peterson is "the pop philosopher of meninism", yet in the same article it states that incel "is distinguished from men’s rights activism". There's no statement that incels in general draw from Peterson.

Furthermore, when I look at incel forums like r/braincels on Reddit, they seem to be largely critical of Peterson due to his views on personal self-improvement. A prevalent view among incels is that they are biologically pre-determined to be ostracized due to their physical appearance and "lookism", that any kind of self-improvement is pointless. I would also imagine that Peterson's criticism of incels contributed to their rejection of his views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6H2HmKDbZA&feature=youtu.be&t=4153  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.182.117.41 (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

This article correctly states that some incels support him. That implies that others might hate him. Please provide a reliable source for any additions. wumbolo ^^^ 13:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

As I wrote above: The source that is currently used does not claim that even "some" incels support Peterson. The article links Peterson to something it calls "meninism", which can only be assumed to mean the Men's Rights Activists (as corresponding to the term feminism) and explicitly states that incel "is distinguished from men’s rights activism". I cannot find any reliable secondary source that either confirms or denies a connection - and as I wrote before, such a connection would not make sense, due to the contradiction between Peterson's self-help advice and incel "philosophy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.182.117.41 (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Srsly? It's kind of obvious. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times article used to be referenced here [1]. I think that it has been removed for some reason. wumbolo ^^^ 21:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I removed the Nytimes article [2] because it didn't state that incels supported Peterson, as the wiki article here states. That article uses the word "incels" only once, and says nothing about incels supporting Peterson. Rather, it quotes Peterson saying that the existence of violent men (including incels) can be prevented through western cultural monogamous tradition. (i.e., a re-phrasing of "family values," the usual Conservative/religious solution to everything from school shootings to childhood poverty.) The reverse--any discussion of how incels feel about Peterson--is not mentioned in the NY Times article.

I also tried, and failed, to find any mention that incels supported 'enforced monogamy.' I could only find Christian family-values-types, including Peterson, stating that 'enforced monogamy' (e.g. Christian-style marriage traditions) would prevent incels from existing. For example, this regular NYtimes columnist calling for the "resdistribution of sex": [3], claiming that "unhappiness and sterility might be dealt with by reviving or adapting older ideas about the virtues of monogamy".

I feel like we're confusing a religiously-motivated anti-incel "solution" with something incels thought of themselves. It feels like confusing the people who are against video game violence "because it causes school shootings" with the school shooters themselves. Both have very questionable viewpoints, but they are completely different sets of people.

Corrections are of course welcome. I suspect incel support of Peterson could be found in primary sources, but I didn't look at those, only secondary sources/newspaper articles. The Guardian article currently referenced was the only source (for incel support of Peterson) I could find that wasn't explicitly an opinion piece. JDowning (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

If that piece from The Guardian is the only supporting cite, then the claim should be removed. It's not strong enough to stand on its own, I don't think. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I found and added this article from Vice's Broadly that supports the claim: https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/d3k3ex/jordan-peterson-enforced-monogamy-incels GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I've found 2 more refs: [4] [5] wumbolo ^^^ 09:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

CBC article

Hi, here is a recent article "Incel threat" and "Video documentary" Thebetoof (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check them out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Definition

I find this article a bit embarrassing. At times, it seems to equate involuntary celibacy with the radical politics, hate and outright acts of violence some people have committed. Or more generally, it seems to pigeonhole all heterosexual men into a subculture. This impression is supported by the fact that involuntary celibacy redirects here.
If you want to know: yes, I live an involuntary celibate life myself. And I have at times indulged in self-loathing and self-pity. But I don't even feel remotely related to people who despise womanhood for that, much less to those who commit terrorist attacks. Besides, there is a lot to say about involuntary celibacy. There have been studies about problems people experience with dating (often related to autism or social anxiety), and quite a lot of people specialise in dating for long-time male bachelors. Can we at least have two separate articles, one about the phenomenon and one about the radical subculture? Steinbach (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

If you take issue with the misogyny described by this article, you would do better to work to eliminate misogyny from the incel community than to complain about the fact that we accurately describe it here. We will not misrepresent reality because it offends someone. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Involuntary celibacy as a sociological concept was purged from Wikipedia as a political goal by veteran Wikipedia and ideological feminists that dominate this talk page. Its a 30 or so person "consensus" that roams Wikipedia engaging in political fights under the pretense of preserving Wikipedia. Involuntary celibacy as a sociological phenomena isnt dependent on the misogyny of the incel boards. Thats utterly ridiculous, and the lack of professionalism of the Wikipedia community continues to astound me. Also, note that love-shy redirects here too. This article reads like an encyclopedia dramatica article. If you keep complaining about it, theyll probably topic ban you unfortunately, even though involuntary celibacy (or incels) isnt fundamentally a gender issue. Its a mental and societal health issue as defined by academic sources. Willwill0415 (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)