Talk:Incel/Archive 10

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The article "Incel Activity on Social Media Linked to Local Mating Ecology" 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) — Bashfan34 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Willwill0415 (talk · contribs).

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. 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) — Bashfan34 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Willwill0415 (talk · contribs).

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) — Bashfan34 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Willwill0415 (talk · contribs).

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) — Bashfan34 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Willwill0415 (talk · contribs).

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)

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)

The last recommmendation I've heard from Wikipedia admins to those who want to cover involuntary celibacy/involuntary sexual abstinence/forced celibacy etc is to add it to some sort of related page like 'celibacy', as they did not want a standalone article for it. Despite Wikipedia being perhaps one of the only places that had a standalone article on it for over a decade. Bashfan34 (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll compile some sources on the topic though, as there are a bunch. I'll put it in my sandbox or something. Bashfan34 (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

And in fairness to the denialists, what people mean by 'involuntary celibacy' on Wikipedia talk so far doesn't seem close to the literal term 'involuntary celibacy'. As 'celibacy' term has origins in marriage, and marriage is increasingly unpopular. Making the term 'involuntary celibacy' an increasingly outdated term, which in sources prior to the 1900s, mostly refers to women who did not get dowries etc. So you can find more stuff about the modern intended meaning(s) of 'involuntary celibacy' under 'involuntary sexual abstinence', 'involuntary partnerless...ness", 'forced abstinence'. 'forced sexual abstinence' etc perhaps. A lot of sources discuss negative health effects of involuntary sexual abstinence in prisons and mental hospitals, just as an obvious example. Bashfan34 (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC) — Bashfan34 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Willwill0415 (talk · contribs).

What you think the term may literally mean or derive from is not really important, what matters is how the term is commonly used as covered by reliable sources. An "incel" is a subculture of sexually frustrated men who desire sex but feel they are being (wrongfully, in their heads) denied. Zaathras (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Not really what I was talking about at all but I'll respond anyway. Am skeptical most reliable sources refer to it as a subculture, or that that is the most common definition in such sources, even limiting it to secondary source news pieces. Because I remember how that was introduced into this WP page, ie very early. My guess is most refer to it as a movement, but will get back to you on that Bashfan34 (talk) 03:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, let's just use the sources provided before jumping to new ones. The first source used calling incel a 'subculture' in the Wikipedia article is a Vox 2018 article. However, they use the term 'incels' plural, which makes more sense as a subculture... brand, as that's the brand Lamarcus, and earlier, whoever ran r/incels clearly went with. The pluralized word, not singular. Second is a New York Times article which calls 'incel' an 'ideology which is the manifestation of a movement'. Third source calls it a movement that has subcultural elements. So, the sources there do not establish 'incel' as a subculture. All it does is show disagreement on the meaning, or, the presence of multiple meanings, none of which, using those sources establishes 'incel' (singular) as subculture. Bashfan34 (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Spending a lot of time with the 3, 2018 news sources of WP incel lede, I found that Taub says 'incel is an ideology', Beauchamp says 'incel is a subculture', Beauchamp and Mezzofiore say 'incel is a community', and Beauchamp says 'incel is a terrorist movement'. Given those were the sources for subculture, and that's not what the sources all say, edited it to reflect the sources present in the sentence. Bashfan34 (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC) — Bashfan34 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Willwill0415 (talk · contribs).

Including Chair of the House Intelligence Committee and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/schiff-durbin-demand-google-and-youtube-crack-down-on-dangerous-incel-content

2600:4040:403C:F300:A96A:58FC:BBB:FAB6 (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11920-022-01382-9.pdf GMG^talk 17:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

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 want Bashfan34 (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC) — Bashfan34 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Willwill0415 (talk · contribs).

That’s actually interesting, possibly article-worthy, but “involuntary celibacy” as in forced celibacy is not the same as “inceldom” (undesired sexlessness as a self-identification) at all. “Incel” means an ideology and subculture based around that label, case closed. Dronebogus (talk) 09:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

Virgin vs Chad, very funny but a bizarre choice to represent incels as it’s usually just used to mean “loser” thing vs “cool” thing in a tongue in cheek way; the original image with captions was also an obvious parody. Dronebogus (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

And most people here presumably care about accuracy, would like to also amend the second sentence of the main article (after the lede). The first sentence after the lede was factually wrong, when it said 1993. Now it's slightly more accurate. The second sentence says Alana's last name wasn't known at the time. This is incorrect. She used her last name to advertise her forum every time she did, you can see that by going to Google Groups and searching her name, as Google Groups have archived all the relevant Usenet posts. When the first two sentences of an article are inaccurate, it's ok to do original research. That or delete the article for being a premature take on a topic, where facts are not currently a concern for journalists 2600:4040:403C:F300:494C:D5CE:66A2:C454 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Just one example of how even the first two sentences of this article are provably wrong https://groups.google.com/g/alt.support.shyness/c/qsZKuUTf2dk/m/h3zK9DUEf3QJ 2600:4040:403C:F300:494C:D5CE:66A2:C454 (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is not that the last name was unknown in some absolute way, but rather that she was known only by her first name on the relevant website. If you would like to propose better wording in accordance with the sources, please do! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why you're asking me to consult secondary sources when they refused to even fact check the date of creation of the "movement". The reason the secondary sources say no one knew her by her last name is because she requested journalists not associate her last name with the subject. She says that on her LoveNotAnger website. If the sources on this subject don't care about facts, then they are awful and not worth buildling an encyclopedic article over. I mean good god they leave out more than two thirds the history and then get it wrong 2600:4040:403C:F300:F7A:E246:2476:2C4 (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Also the third sentence is also factually wrong. 2600:4040:403C:F300:F7A:E246:2476:2C4 (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Look if all Wikipedia is is a Google aggregator, you can get an AI bot to do that in 10 years or so. I assume part of the reason of the ignore all rules rule, is to deal with water is wet type stuff, that an AI bot would miss. And even the first few sentences are saying sky is green type stuff. 2600:4040:403C:F300:F7A:E246:2476:2C4 (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Not all reliable sources are reachable via Google, but that is the general sort of idea. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Every source is in this is reachable via Google search or Google Scholar. The first few sentences of this article are wrong or misleading or obfuscating obvious facts, Wikipedia should fix it imho. Then should fact check the rest or delete the article for being a premature take on a topic. 2600:4040:403C:F300:F7A:E246:2476:2C4 (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Difference between AI bots and humans are humans care about accuracy 2600:4040:403C:F300:F7A:E246:2476:2C4 (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand the article is protected and requires autoconfirmed access, but why not simply achieve that and fix it yourself (in accordance with Wikipedia policies)? Dumuzid (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Because everyone who tries to fix it gets banned through lies. The only accurate stuff in this article is in spite of the active moderation, or because that which was written was about people the moderators didn't like 2600:4040:403C:F300:F7A:E246:2476:2C4 (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay then. Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Former and temporary Velvet Underground member Henry Flynt was a philosopher, musician, writer and activist connected to the 1960s New York avant-garde, he coined the term "involuntary celibate" in a 1974 manifesto entitled "Blueprint For A Higher Civilization" after being called a creep by Helen Lefkowitz in 1956, he called it the "creep theory" and gave a lecture on it in 1962, the manifesto contains early examples of the ideology of incels. http://www.vasulka.org/archive/Artists2/Flint/Blueprint.pdf Aradicus77 (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Aradicus77 (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

You would need reliable, secondary sources connecting Flynt's writings to this subculture for it to be included, otherwise you're in WP:SYNTH territory. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Father's fighting for access to their children and men's rights activists in general are not by definition misogynistic and that word should be removed. 108.52.223.8 (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The best place to discuss that would probably be at Talk:Manosphere; there appear to be scholarly sources there which characterise the manosphere generally in those terms. We defer to the sources. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Quote from Wikipedia Incel description: "Some people who identify as incel have other physical disabilities or psychological disorders such as autism spectrum disorder, and body dysmorphic disorder." I strongly object to the outmoded description of the autistic spectrum 'disorder' as either a physical disability or psychological disorder. This is hugely offensive to those of us on the spectrum. Please rephrase the quotation to remove the offensive description. it is derrogatory and for many of us, completely untrue and smacks of prejudice and lack of understanding. Thank you, from a 61-year-old gifted, independent, educated woman on the autistic spectrum. 95.147.247.115 (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I also concur on making this article Szaszian or Antonuccian, as the idea of mental illness itself is bigotry and often promotes maltreatment of those who are neurodivergent 2600:4040:4030:5000:DCBD:E737:E7C5:E288 (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

This sort of change seems reasonable to me as long as we aren't hiding material. Would something like "neurodivergence" work? I guess the statement is "this relatively rare construct is present amongst incel'" Talpedia (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

"diagnosed with the label of x", rather than "have x mental disorder" etc etc. 2600:4040:4030:5000:96F8:E747:4BF3:77D1 (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmm "label of x" feels a little value-laden. But yes, the diagnosis construction before, and used elsewhere are you happy with "autism spectrum disorder" which is presumably what the source uses? Talpedia (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Neither myself or the OP think it makes sense to pathologize mental states. Especially in the complete absence of reliable biomarkers in the brain to establish existence of any disease. The word disorder is a bit better than illness but is still used to pathologize 2600:4040:4030:5000:96F8:E747:4BF3:77D1 (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Like I'm not disagreeing. The issue is that you've got a phrase with formal diagnostic criteria (albeit applied in a social setting) so if you change the name you potentially disconnect the thing you should be pointing at. I was hoping I could avoid a bunch of reading by asking you because you might be informed on the matter, and for example be able to tell me that "diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorder" is identical to "autistic" or "diagnosed with autism", or you might say no these things are quite different. From a precision standpoint "diagnosed with autitic spectrum disorder" feels like good trade of between not accepting that the diagnosis is anything more than a label with some criteria, while not changing terminology or introducing the term label which feels potentially distracting and value-laden - I'm happier with construct.

I have no particularly desire to pathologize mental state merely accurately reference literature in a way that does not argue one way or other about "realness" of the label is that is to people's liking Talpedia (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Mental disorders, even including to the lead editor of DSM-IV, are all just social constructions at the moment. They're a collection of labels used to manage or identify individual behavior, and nothing more. 71.171.90.218 (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Elimination of the words "disorder" and "illness" from Wikipedia articles making statements about alleged mental illness makes the most sense. Eg as the aforementioned lead editor of the DSM-IV said "there is no definition of a mental disorder. It's bullshit. I mean, you just can't define it." 71.171.90.218 (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I've adjusted the wording: Some people who identify as incel have physical disabilities or psychological disorders such as depression, anxiety, autism spectrum disorder, and body dysmorphic disorder.

However, I think if you want Wikipedia articles broadly to stop describing autism as a "disorder" that would require a much broader consensus. At the moment, Autism spectrum describes autism as a "neurodevelopmental disorder". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)