Talk:Incel

The article needs a section dedicated to proving that the black pill ideology is objectively false using scientific studies. It is crucial to show young men that the extreme claims made by hardcore incels are incorrect and that this ideology can be extremely dangerous. It can lead to depression, body dysmorphia, harmful practices like bone-smashing, and, in extreme cases, even suicide or violent outbursts. The idea that one's lack of a romantic partner is solely due to physical appearance is an oversimplification. In reality, the reasons are often far more complex. Most people regardless their gender experience periods of involuntary celibacy at some point in their lives. The real question is: should this define who you are? Should a struggle confine you? The black pill ideology teaches that it does, which is why it is so important to debunk it. I strongly urge you to include a section dedicated to exposing the flaws of the black pill with factual, scientific evidence. Cherubionita (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

"lack of a romantic partner is solely due to physical appearance" That is news to me. When it comes to attracting potential romantic partners, the socioeconomic status always seems to be more important than the physical appearance. To paraphrase something that my brother has been repeating for the last 30 or 40 years: "the one with the greatest wealth gets the greater number of lovers. The one with no wealth gets no love." Dimadick (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Well you don't have to convince me about that black pill is not real! :) Cherubionita (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Cherubionita, a prerequisite for any such section would be reliable sources to support it. *We* as Wikipedia editors cannot be the ones to debunk anything; we can only relay the debunking done by reliable sources. Do you have any? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I can provide you only scientific studies that indirectly debunk every claims of the black pill. Like this one: https://datepsychology.com/male-attractiveness-and-sexual-partner-count/

As you can see according to numerous studies male attractiveness not a good indicator of success with women. It is a minimal difference between the most attractive and the least attractive men sexual partner count by life time.

I can provide a compilation about these to debunk one by one every claims that black pill has. Cherubionita (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

While I personally agree with you that the various incel pills are entirely nonsense, the source you provided looks to be WP:SPS - as such it's of limited use within the context of Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately the article linked to debunking blackpill as pseudoscience is not a scientificly debunking the blackpill. Actually the methodology used in the article is mainly nitpicked posts from incelforums. This is not scientificly debunking the philosophy of the blackpill. Nor do I think one can scientificly debunk such a sociological claim. I would argue that argument based on evolutionary biology or psychology would be much better fit for "a scientific attempt". KalleHmath (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. To use words like "pseudoscientific", we don't need things to be directly debunked to every random person's desired threshold of confidence; it's enough to cite that reliable sources consider it pseudoscientific, as the source in question indeed does. And regardless, something doesn't need to be "scientificly [sic] debunk"ed to be considered pseudoscientific. "Pseudoscientific" and "false" are not identical in meaning. Many scientific theories have been disproven; that doesn't make them pseudoscientific, and inversely, many pseudoscientific "theories" have not been scientifically disproven. Indeed, a key feature of many pseudoscientific "theories" is that they are unfalsifiable; that is, they can't be disproven, because they don't say anything coherent enough to disprove, or they don't stand still long enough to be disproven, or any number of other things. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

"The blackpill is comprised of commonly held beliefs, such as hypergamy, the 'just be white' (JBW) theory, the 80/20 rule of dating, lookism, the halo effect and sexual racism that rely on pseudoscience" is false statement. There is statistical data and it is well agreed on evolutionary biology that a hypergamy is real. Lookism, halo effect and sexual racism are all as well scientificly proven in psychology and sociology. KalleHmath (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Wikipedia's policies require us to stick with the book from the academic publisher and not the statement from an anonymous person on a talk page calling it 'false'. MrOllie (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Well the sources are on the wikipedia pages of those topics such as the page of hypergamy. KalleHmath (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

No. This would make the article seem less neutral. MoJoBroBro (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey Cherubionita, could not agree more that countering the black pill is vital. Id class it as a second order problem on a level with AI & climate change. While it may be a net consoling & protective influence to a small minority, it's a clear net negative for tens of millions of young men & women across the world.

This said refuting the black pill effectively is a little more challenging than perhaps meets the eye. Even if your link was a meta-study in a top journal rather than just a blog, us including it in our article might do more harm than good. The article is largely aiming to disprove the popular wisdom that the type of men incel call Chads commonly have the most sexual partners. It's not trying to disprove the central black pill point that Incel's romantic status results from their looks. In fact, parts of it reinforce the black pill. Direct quote: Additionally, it may mean that being mid is sufficient. The “looks test” is binary. You pass it, you’re in, and from that point you can choose to pursue casual sex or you can choose to have a relationship. You meet the threshold.. with the obvious corollary that if you're below mid and you don't pass the threshold , you're not in the game and aren't going to get any sex, just as the black pill prophets preach.

It would sadly likely be no more effective than to repeat common gaslighting from the BrazillianMartian IT era "TeeHee Inkwell! Looks don't matter silly! I'd rather date an ugly 5'4" Janitor who is kind, than a Brad Pit lookalike who is mean. It just so happens I'm dating a 6'3" Timothée Chadamet type, but the only reason I'm with him is his caring personality."

Let's review how your concern is covered in the top tier reliable sources - as Writ Keeper is saying these are really important if you want to change content here on Wikipedia. As of 2025, you get a largely different picture depending on what discipline you look at. In sociology and related fields, the attitude to incels remains broadly hostile, with little analyses of value. Albeit things have improved a little in recent years e.g as per this relatively compassionate 2024 systematic review: The incel phenomenon: A systematic scoping review . (This one is open access and you can read for free, other sources are behind paywalls unfortuneatly)

The CVE and especially Cognitive science fields mostly take a much more sympathetic and insightful view on incels. It was from CVE that we had probably the first journal article to discuss the need to refute the blackpill in a sensible way (2021). As the below review level articles show, in Psychiatry there's much emphases on incels wellbeing and promoting their best interests, including mentioning the importance of helping them move beyond their black pill outlook, but there's little in the way of actual debunking of core black pill concepts: Psychosocial Characteristics of Involuntary Celibates (Incels): A Review of Empirical Research and Assessment of the Potential Implications of Research on Adult Virginity and Late Sexual Onset or Involuntary Celibacy: A Review of Incel Ideology and Experiences with Dating, Rejection, and Associated Mental Health and Emotional Sequelae

This just released study does specifically debunk certain black pill attitudes: Seeing through the black-pill: Incels are wrong about what people think of them But if focuses on showing that how contrary to what Incels think, the general public is largely sympathetic to incels, would like them to have romantic success, and mostly doesnt blame them for their predicament. But even if incels believed this (& ~90% of hardcore incels won't IMO) I don't think it speaks to your central concern.

As you suggest, there are indeed extreme incels who claim a mans looks are the only thing that matters for dating success, with some even saying it's been like that forever. Which would be contrary to the finding of virtual every single 20th century study that's considered this question. But pointing this out is only going to debunk the weaker versions of black pill ideology, making black pill overall even more potent. The smarter research cells already know a mans looks used to be far less important, having reviewed for example the Personal sections of late 19th & early 20th century newspapers, where they report that single women often said they don't care about looks , and never give good looks or height as a required characteristic- just good character, money and sometimes status or class. But the world has changed since then. Young women now earn 9% more than young men across the UK, with a similar situation existing in some US localities (though not at State level AFAIK, and certainly not nationwide.) A minimal level of good looks is now considerably more important for a young man's dating success than it was even 15 years back. There's no up to date high quality source to refute this unfortunately, nor is there likely to be for some years (though would love to be wrong.) Countering the black pill here needs some subtlety, though I'm going to go out on a limb and say you have been helpful in this regard. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Making a seperate article for the Blackpill, it's been denied numerous times by a seperate person who seemed to not have updated it when giving feedback, but right now working on it at Draft:Blackpilled before it should be moved to article space. Does further talk have to be done for this? It currently ties into Looksmaxxing and the Manosphere. And seems to be its own vast ideology seperate to Red pill and blue pill. Aradicus77 (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

If you go through Google books and search involuntary celibacy through the 19th century, there's many books that showcase the term, it seems to be a term that's been around for a while before appropriated by the incel subculture, so I'm making a seperate page for it at Draft:Involuntary Celibacy. There's also many articles by the Guardian and New Yorker regarding the trend of involuntary celibacy in general besides the incel movement so its useful as its own page. Aradicus77 (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you deleted my previous comment (see WP:TPO), but I'll put it here again: See point one of the FAQ regarding the subject of this article, which is the online subculture and not the circumstance of sexless people more broadly. Existing articles on sexual frustration or celibacy are more suited to those topics. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I deleted my whole thread there, not your specific comment. Why make that accusation? If threads are concluded they get deleted, which is normal on wikipedia. Now this new thread is about a completely different topic which is that of creating different articles for Blackpilled and Involuntary Celibacy, which you have ignored and just pasted what you said last time which has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Let me repeat what I said, the articles you linked are not at all the places for talk about "involuntary celibacy" or the "blackpill" those topics need their own articles. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Deleting threads is not normal on Wikipedia. Threads may be *archived*, but that is an entirely different process. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

How do I archive a thread properly? This seems like semantics. I made a thread a while ago here and it seems its no longer here, so it's been deleted, you can call it archiving but I still feel that was an accusation, when what I did was in good-faith and not in a way to "silence" or censor what they said. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Anyway this still has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll work on the articles. I just wanted to leave a heads up. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

You can archive conversations by moving them to the talk page archives (linked in the template at the top of the page), but more normally you can just leave them to be auto-archived by the bot. While you can remove your own talk page comments, it's frowned upon to remove them once someone has replied, and you should not delete other comments. If the past thread of yours you're alleging was deleted and not archived is the February 2023 section about Henry Flynt, it was archived, not deleted: Talk:Incel/Archive 10#Avant-garde musician Henry Flynt coined the term "involuntary celibate" in 1974 after being called a "creep" by Helen Lefkowitz in 1956.

My reply, which I've copied here, is quite relevant to the comment you've just made anew in this section. You're proposing creating some new page about the pre-online subculture idea of "involuntary celibacy", and as I said previously, there have been plenty of conversations about that precise thing on this talk page that lead to FAQ#1 and #2, and the general consensus that such material is best put at sexual frustration or celibacy. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, but there's not a single mention of "involuntary celibacy" in sexual frustration or celibacy. Given the extensive writing on the topic. It does seem it's eligible for an article now. Back in 2021 I asked about this and they said there wasn't enough coverage. But the looksmaxxing wave recently has led to a lot of prominent newspapers writing about the topic of "involuntary celibacy" as well as the blackpill. Here are some examples:

https://www.vox.com/culture/390911/luigi-mangione-uhc-shooter-manifesto-reddit-blackpill

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/apr/26/the-rise-of-voluntary-celibacy-most-of-the-sex-ive-had-i-wish-i-hadnt-bothered

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/20/involuntary-celibacy-incels-problem-right-to-sex-not-the-answer

Anyway, this talk page isn't really the place for this. I'll just keep writing the articles and move them to article space when they are done. Draft:Involuntary celibacy and Draft:Blackpiller just leaving them here in case of anyone who previously was working on similar articles stumbles across this thread Aradicus77 (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Apologies there's one mention of it in sexual frustration but still it's very peripheral and not indicative of the larger subject matter. It is also only used as a link to this article, which further states why there should be a seperate article for that concept. Since involuntary celibacy is not synonymous with the incel subculture that came later. People have been saying "involuntary celibate" for over 100 years. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I also previously mentioned in the thread that the term "involuntary celibate" was originally used for women. And the connotation with males came later. At the moment, it would also be good to have that involuntary celibacy article as to have a Femcel and Volcel article later down the line as those topics have also seen renewed talk in the media. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given that articles very similar to the one you're drafting have been repeatedly deleted at AfD, with the most recent deletion discussion resulting in an panel outcome of Overall we find there is a stronger consensus to delete the page and prevent its recreation. The deletion arguments are more numerous, better based in policy, and less well refuted. The consensus to salt the page comes not only from a large number of delete voters, but also a number of keep voters, who note the amount of community time wasted with the continual recreation of this page, a new page like your draft likely needs to go through WP:DRV. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The blackpill article was incredibly biased and undersourced, with it reading as if the user was part of the community and trying to promote it. The involuntary celibacy page was also similar in being either biased or undersourced. My page when its finished will have at least 50-60 distinct sources, most of them coming from reputable sources. At that point there would be no reason to delete the article. At the moment my draft hasn't been finished but when it does it will go through WP:DRV or Wikipedia:Requested moves Aradicus77 (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Also the blackpill article was given feedback and the user abandoned it and didn't update the article only to keep re-uploading it to be reviewed. That's why it appears to be deleted numerous times. I'm a good writer and don't use AI or whatever nonsense I've seen people using on this site when making articles. These pages are necessary to better map the phenomena of involuntary celibacy and its subsequent subcultures. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for notable topics. And these 2 topics have become increasingly notable in the past few years. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The fact it's also being called a neologism at (Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination)) Shows how little people even know about the topic. Looking through many previous writers used bad sources or mainly original research. I can notice the one issue the article involuntary celibacy will have is the lack of substantial secondary sources for its earlier examples. But for Draft:Blackpiller it should be fine. Also Red pill and blue pill should be split into 2 different articles, one discussing the concept. And the other related to the manosphere. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Also the last deletion of involuntary celibacy was 10 YEARS AGO. Wow. There's way more talk about this topic now than there was in 2015. It should definitely be able to go through AfD. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to your plan to recreate the article on "involuntary celibacy", not the blackpill draft. I have my doubts that there's enough for a standalone article about blackpill (not to mention the increasingly long list of subtopics from this page you're talking about splitting out), but it's your involuntary celibacy article that I was saying should go through DRV, not the blackpill one. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Ahh. I get you, but still it feels like it's been a while since it was last deleted. The blackpill article was deleted I think June 2025? But it was really badly written.

What in particular do you doubt about the blackpill article? The concerns listed in the old involuntary celibacy page seemed valid. As I've been researching there is a lot more talk surrounding just mention the term "involuntary celibacy" or it not being properly defined. There aren't like official books just surrounding it, but there are many studied that were made between 2020-2025 which didn't exist 10 years ago. So we'll see.

Sorry if I came across a bit hostile btw. Thank you for replying and for your contributions. Aradicus77 (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

You do know that we deleted a previous article on "involuntary celibacy" due to POVFORK concerns, right? Guy (help! - typo?) 13:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible that there was some recent surge in interest by scholars in the use of the phrase "involuntary celibacy" a century ago and I just didn't notice, but my suspicion is that any new studies from 2020–2025 would have to do with the subculture (i.e. this page, not the one you're proposing). I see that all of the sources in your draft, save for the primary source from the 1700s, describe this topic. But perhaps you have more waiting in the wings, and we can discuss it at the DRV when you're ready to give it a go.

Regarding the blackpill article, I'm just a bit skeptical that there's enough material to justify a standalone page, rather than a subsection at this article or Red pill and blue pill. I could absolutely be wrong there, though — like I said, my concerns have to do with the other draft. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

You'd be right about that. It does seem a lot of this is still being talked about in culture. It would be fine to expand the blackpill section at Red pill and blue pill, but it would probably be far more possible for the split between the red pill blue pill concept associated in fiction and the Matrix and the manosphere. Also I wanted to ask if any additions on "series" to this page were possible? I felt something like "this is a series in extremism" or "series in terrorism" or "series in hate"... etc. That I've seen on other pages fit with the Incel subculture page. The community is rife with misogyny and extremism full stop.

Again thank you for replying and genuinely apologize for previous friction. I really do want discussions on here to be amicable and encourage people to want to be on the site, and I feel bad for the way I was writing before. Aradicus77 (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

You're thinking of sidebar templates (more at WP:SIDEBAR). Which one were you thinking should be added? I'd note there are two navboxes (alt-right and manosphere) at the bottom of the page, but I'm not aware of sidebar templates that make sense. A quick search of the talk archives suggests that the conservatism sidebar was being used on this page for a bit, but it was determined to be too tangential a connection to justify the sidebar.

No worries about the friction, and I appreciate your hope for amicable conversations on Wikipedia. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

So I'm again coming here to ask about either another article being made or a seperate article for the blackpill or other aspects of involuntary celibacy / the history of "inceldom". This article by the New York Times cites the work of writer Michel Houellebecq as presaging many of the themes found in the incel community, to the point the writer even says that Houellebecq, "understood what it meant to be an incel long before the term became common." https://web.archive.org/web/20180712205347/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/12/books/review/michael-houellebecqs-sexual-distopia.html (Keep in mind this article is almost 10 years old and Houellebecq's work began in the early 1990s!)

I won't add this at the moment because I will get a barrage of out of scope or some other excuse with people reverting the information but it's been kind of absurd that no other content besides a select few studies and articles have been allowed on this page and any outsider coming in to expand from different perspectives is shunned down. The incel as mass murderer is just one aspect of this whole schism. This topic spans several articles. You can already see by how big the see also section is on this page how vast this topic is. Even the idea that the incel community is a split or subsection of the manosphere on this article makes no sense. The New York Times writer even said of Houellebecq's work " At a time when literature is increasingly marginalized in public life, he offers a striking reminder that novelists can provide insights about society that pundits and experts miss."

Hope this doesn't fall on deaf ears. Aradicus77 (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

A single book reviewer's opinion about Houellebecq's purported insights does not outweigh WP:RS. The relevant place to add this material is at Michel Houellebecq if anywhere. Draft:Blackpill has been declined twice as largely redundant, but Draft:Blackpilled exists (and should probably be merged into the former). Feel free to be submit either draft to Wikipedia:Articles for creation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

A lot of people were active discussing and working on this article, but it still lacks the proper definition or description for the word incel or who belongs to that term:

a) Are all people having difficulty with starting romantic relationships (e.g. due to social anxiety, traumatic experiences, ...) and discussing those difficulties online, incels? Are there good and bad incels with the later having additional mysogynistic and violent philosophies? In that case the article has to balance much more those differences and change words as 'often' to 'some few'.

b) Or are incels a single sub-culture with those bad traits. In this case the self-definition in the first paragraph just does not describe incels well, and it should be clearly contrasted that most people from this definition (unable to find a romantic partner) are not incels, and beside the name the sub-culture is much more specific.

c) Or there is no common definition among reliable sources. Then the article should also state this.

Sebastian --88.217.185.170 (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Incels as currently understood are men who can't get laid because of their toxic misogyny. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

How is this a good definition when there are people associated with the subculture who are non-violent or are not misogynist and have just either been socially inept or impaired by their looks? The documentary. The 2011 documentary Shy Boys: IRL by director Sara Gardephe showcases one character who says he only goes on the forums because he has no friends and doesn't partake in anything the other misogynistic boys in the documentary believe or say about women. While the pickup artist who is a rampant misogynist is the one that has had the most dating experience.

Basically incel = involuntary celibacy and is a short-hand for it. But in the modern sense it's strictly to refer to an internet subculture. But this nuance should be clarified like the OP says Aradicus77 (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

It's (b). What exactly is unclear about An incel [...] is a member of an online subculture? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

How come specific etymological history is relegated to note sections?

The "black pill" being coined on the site Omega Virgin Revolt in 2012 has been pushed down to the bottom of the page. As much as this article is trying to outline the "philosophy" of the community. It also feels like it misses the point of an Encyclopedia by not outlining the evolution of the terms and the history of it. Aradicus77 (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Because we go by the best available sources such as scholarly and peer-reviewed journals and books, which tend not to dwell on the exact circumstances surrounding the coining of the term "black pill". Why do we care what the specific name of the website was anyway? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Because encyclopedia's focus on history? Why is it that this page is the one that stresses on specific peer reviewed journals and books while the hundreds of other pages I've edited on Wikipedia are fine with adding information like this based on just one article by the Guardian or the BBC? And it's completely uncontested. What I'm seeing here is some kind of loop-hole being used where by saying we only go with "best available sources" (to avoid being accused of WP:OWN).

It's actually limiting the "kind" of sources that would be controversial or challenge public consensus on the history of this term and community and so relegates everyone to use the same sources made by the "same" kind of people. Which perpetuates the same agenda on the topic. People have added scholarly sources before that take a deeper look into the topic, mostly focused on the history of the term "involuntary celibacy" and other stuff of that manner and it gets removed either with the response that the scholar is not "notable" enough or some other nitpick. And I don't understand why, the article itself says "incels", "black pill", "looksmaxxing" are not scientifically backed up ideologies and phenomenas. So why do scholarly journals even matter? Why does public consensus such as what would be said on a news article not be as valuable to understanding the community? Why not have a specific section with scientific analysis while also having other more broader sections on the topic?

The thing is my edits are barely ever about the community and more specific tid bits of history that has been removed throughout the article, like origins of terms, years they were coined... Which is all pretty important as people think this community started a few years back when it has roots in the 1970s...

Open-discussion on a topic like this is necessary, but given the social climate of today it seems that will take a long time before this topic is given the right amount of nuance. Aradicus77 (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

The hundreds of other pages you have edited are not this page. We go by reliable, published sources, not whatever individual users happen to think is important, nor by public consensus, whatever that means. An encyclopedia like Wikipedia is a summary of accepted knowledge on a topic. Going into obsessive detail over the specific origin of a term would be giving it undue weight. If you have other scholarly sources to present, feel free to do so here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

• I think that real issue here is that the "pill" section has grown too much and should be spun off into the main article. A more lengthy etymology would make plenty sense there.

And anyway, the black/red pill thing goes beyond incels. See for example "Black Pill" (2024) by Reeve. GMG^talk 23:49, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Disagree; the "black pill" is a specifically incel worldview, whereas the "red pill" metaphor is more widely used, particularly in the wider manosphere. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Then as much as that's the case, black pill should have its own article, linked to in summaries here and at the red/blue article. Any way you look at it, ten paragraphs with more than 1k words is pushing it for a subsection. GMG^talk 07:12, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Or we could drastically cut down that section, since a lot of the sourcing is just news stories about Jordan Peterson etc. We can retain the main ideas by summarizing the best scholarly books and papers. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

since a lot of the sourcing is just news stories about Jordan Peterson That doesn't seems especially accurate. GMG^talk 10:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson etc. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Well that's inane.

Besides that, no, the section doesn't seem to be particularly overwhelmed by news articles, and there is no prohibition against using them. This is especially true on contemporary topics. GMG^talk 15:03, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I never said there was a prohibition. But just because we can doesn't mean we should. Especially when there is more authoritative sourcing from scholarly books and journals. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Reword the following in the section, if not move it a paragraph up where analogous information is stated:

Current wording implies it was chronologically at that time (In 2020 [...]), and per WP:SAID and WP:SCAREQUOTES, it is less precise. @Sangdeboeuf. – ~2025-43559-22 (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done FMRadio :3_{(chat | edits | she/her)} 21:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Thread retitled from The article is biased.