Talk:Incel/Archive 11

This has been discussed before in Talk:Incel#Incels_primarily_white? and Talk:Incel#"Often_white"_is_inappropriate_in_the_lede_of_this_article.

but I have sources not just argument

Looking at demographic variables, profile seemed to emerge—while incels were not more politically right-wing or disproportionately white (see Appendix 2/Tables 10 and 11) as they are often portrayed in popular mainstream media (Bates, 2020; Romano, 2018; Srinivasan, 2021), they were more likely to be living with either a diag-nosed (34%) or undiagnosed (24%) mental health condition (see Appendix 2/Table 6) and more likely to be NEET (not in education employment or training), lower educated, and still living with their parents (see Appendix 2/Tables 7, 8 and 9),which may in turn have deleterious effects on their ability to form romantic relationships.

^[1]

In fact, the paper says that incels are disproportionality BIPOC ...though not by that much. I feel poetic justice would have us add that to the lede.

A significantly smaller proportion of incels were white (63.58%) compared to the proportion of white non-incels (75.13%), while the proportion of BIPOC (black, indigenous, or people of color) incels was greater than the proportion of BIPOC non-incels

I suspect that what's actually going on parental income during childhood, but obviously that's pretty hard to show.

I'd argue that this is the WP:BESTSOURCE, even though it's a study, because studies are better than newspaper articles, and actually asking asking people is better than analysing their posts for themes (which is what most of the earlier literature did), with all the limitations that come with Qualitative research.

P.S An earlier argument in some of the posts was a pedantic "mostly white" doesn't mean disproportionately white. This seems like a bit of a silly argument given I very much doubt the reader will read it like that. Also incidentaly they are no more right leaning than average according to this paper. Talpedia (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

First of all, the phrase "mostly white" is not used anywhere in the article at the moment. The phrase actually used in the lead is "often white", which is significantly less strong than you're making it out to be, and your citation doesn't do anything to change that, since we were already talking about 50-60%, and your paper shows 65%. The pargraph in the demographics section is considerably more nuanced, and includes caveats already.

I'm not super familiar with this journal, but this study is already used in the article, and frankly I'm not personally super convinced by it, though I didn't object strongly enough to remove it from the article at the time it was added. The main author is a grad student, and the research was done as part of their master's dissertation; per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence, and I don't think "significant scholarly influence" has been demonstrated here. Furthermore, it's a primary source, with data drawn from moderators of the Incel.wiki page, who shared a link to our survey on their pages encouraging incels in the community to participate, which honestly doesn't strike me as a particularly representative sample for several reasons. In fact, the author highlights "asking people" as a key limitation of the study, not a benefit. I don't think this study is particularly usable, and hoenstly after looking at it more closely, I'm actually more inclined to remove the sentences attributed to it in the demographics section than use it more extensively. Interested in other opinions, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to do a bit more reading before being pinned down to much - but let's give a provisionally response. Let's leave the specific details of wording for now, because I think questions about sourcing and fields is going to be deciding here.

frankly I'm not personally super convinced by it

I don't disagree but I'm equally unconvinced by everything else. It's basically the only thing we've got given that the earlier research is based on pretty suspicious methodology from qualitative analysis on biased samples of posts using an inductive / abductive mode of analysis to infer race from text, rather than the hypothesis based methods more common in other fields. I would have far preferred if there were more statisical studies before such a strong claim was made by scholars and reporters, and if there was a statistical review. Given this my feeling is kind of "no one knows but there is some white supremacy mixed in". I'd also prefer if people weren't actively using claims about incel radicalization for broad political purposes in my country including suggesting referring people to terrorist prevention organizations such that the accuracy of these claims becomes very important. Not wikipedia's concern of course (WP:RGW), but it makes we very interested in this topic and the need for good scholarship.

I'm not clear what I might want and what ours choices are.

• I don't feel the evidence is strong enough for wikivoice in the lead either way - I think the claim should be removed from the lede given the uncertainity.
• I'd probably like the source included in a section discussing race, caveats and all, that mentions the limitations of the discourse analysis approaches and the (assuming there are sources - one of the psychiatry reviews was moaning about this - but I'm not sure it mentions demographics directly)

It's also worth noting that this review doesn't mention race at all ^[2] so the absence of comment could be interpreted as this not being WP:DUE and there not being consensus.

The issue of course is the wikipedia dislikes trusting individual's assessment about source reliability preferring more "bibiometric" type arguments (as you have used). In such circumstances I've seen people make arguments based on which fields a topic "belong too". My opinion tends to be that if you have two fields which aren't pseudoscientific both views should be expressed.

Some arguments with decreasing amounts of "subject specific knowledge"

• Statistical claims about belong to psychology not discourse analysis
• Both the views of psychology and sociology / social sciences should be represented in the article because these are distinct fields.
• This claim lies within the domain of psychology or psychiatry.

Direclty, addressing some points

significant scholarly influence

The study gets cited in this review in "sexuality and culture",^[3] (no longer a pre-print) it does not however get cited in either of the psychiatry reviews I looked at. I guess we would just cite this review rather than the source directly. My real argument is "everything is terrible" but converting this into bibliometrics this becomes - "the literature on the topic outside of discourse analysis is so small that any publication is massively influential"

particularly representative sample

I don't disagree. But these criticisms apply equally well to the preexisting research.

Talpedia (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with talpedia on the subject of race. 'often white' doesn't mean anything in anglo-forums based out of USA, and it reads unhinged. If the point is to point out white supremacy on the forums (of which there is a lot of, sanctioned by minority staff on the forums), there's sources for that and would be best just to say that explicitly. Also Talpedia your deleting of sourced info involving suicide encouragement is odd. There's plenty of sources on that, even in the last two months, including the recent ISDGlobal report and secondary commentary on it. 2600:4040:4030:5000:3367:6585:CF1F:252C (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

> Also Talpedia your deleting of sourced info involving suicide encouragement is odd.

Did I do that? I think this just got moved: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incel&diff=1141591156&oldid=1141498538&diffmode=source

Think you would get farther just by editing that particular sentence on race in the lede and sourcing it properly, that's like a 5 year old sentence, or a slight variation of one. ie before all the sources you are referencing 2600:4040:4030:5000:98F9:C300:62F7:6D82 (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure there was a bit of discussion here so I thought I should talk where first. Talpedia (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Overall talpedia, I would advocate a rollback of your additions involving violence and suicide, including the implication all violent incels are just wanting notoriety rather than actual violence. The emergence of violent incels from certain blackpill forums (since 2021, eg Davison and Genco) alone is proof against your insinuation. I agree that sources establish the existence of 'peaceful incels', but the worst incels of course have legal and practical reasons to claim they don't desire violence they advocate, and citing their whitewashing as as truth makes no sense..2600:4040:4030:5000:98F9:C300:62F7:6D82 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know I was making this implication. My addition was that about 1 in 10 incels admired these people https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incel&diff=1141587595&oldid=1141585708&diffmode=source Talpedia (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"x out of y incels are" isn't an intelligible statement using any of the definitions present in the current article. Incels from a particular forum? Anyone self-identified as incel? As of now this article is written as a proxy for incels.me, although not officially. In that respect, I would consider the vast majority of those in incels.me supportive or sympathetic to violence. They've had over 5-6 years to change that perception with increased media scrutiny so all these academic articles acting like 2018-2020 incels.me never existed isn't very persuasive. 2600:4040:4030:5000:BFD9:4D65:D363:B3EF (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

If we're to take the subculture definition seriously, "x out of y incels are" is especially non-sensical as subcultures don't have members. Anyone trying to quantify the beliefs of all punk fans based on surveying two punk forums I'd also consider laughable. How could you possibly quantify that? Soft science academia is a joke and most published research is wrong. 2600:4040:4030:5000:96F8:E747:4BF3:77D1 (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

:shrug: define a condition of membership and analyse members, I'm summarising a review. I don't disagree that identifying membership is methodological dififcult. On the other hand if you go to a punk gig at random and everyone is an anarchist that's pretty different from 1 in 100 so the data is a useful in a sense. Talpedia (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Going to a punk gig to make conclusions on the beliefs of a global subculture without memebership would make no sense. Just as these survey articles make no sense with regards to the subculture definition. Back to the subject at hand, if you want to change the race sentences, I'd suggest just editing them and sourcing them correctly. The talk page is a garbage can for stuff people don't want to deal with. 2600:4040:4030:5000:96F8:E747:4BF3:77D1 (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I'll give people more time to reply and if people don't respond in a material way make the chagne. Talpedia (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I share some of WK's concerns. I also don't think we should be determining the lead based on "poetic justice". I do, however, wonder if we should simply remove the statement about race from the lead, since over the last few years sources have emerged drawing that into question. I think the demographics section does an adequate job of describing the available research and the fact that various sources have come to contradictory conclusions, but it would be tough to reflect that succinctly in the lead. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I also don't think we should be determining the lead based on "poetic justice"

Nor do I. That was mostly a bit of WP:FORUM comment. I was just expressing annoyance at the ease with which peopole were willing to describe incel movement as a "white" movement based of limited evidence, and now limited evidence points the other way. It's sort of a statement of the worlds hypocrisy - but I would propose caution in both cases not poetic justice.

I think we should remove comments about race from the lead given that there seems to be a lack of consensus.

Alos, I think "Researchers from the University of Texas ran a poll of self-reported incels, which found that 63.58% of those who responded identified as white, a smaller percentage than expected" should read "smaller percentage than the general population". Talpedia (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

General population of *what*? The study draws no such conclusions, making that statement original research, and even if it did, it's not a reliable source. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"draws no such conclusions"

Look... I'm not just making things up:

"A significantly smaller proportion of incels were white (63.58%) compared to the proportion of white non-incels (75.13%), while the proportion of BIPOC (black, indigenous, or people of color) incels was greater than the proportion of BIPOC non-incels (36.42% vs 24.87%), X2 (1) = 6.56, p = 0.01"

They got a general set of responders and then compared the incels to the non-incels.

We are already citing the source in the text, but I've address some arguements about about reliability. Namely that it is the only source out of psychology addressing this claim, and the discourse analysis approaches are questionable. Talpedia (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Those are all within the context of the study's sample size; it's "fewer white people than the rest of the sample". The study doesn't generalize that out to mean that the incel subcommunity has fewer white people than the "general population", and saying it does is original research. As I said, how would you even define "general population"? General population of the Internet? The US? The world? The study doesn't indicate anything of the sort, and we shouldn't either. it is the only source out of psychology addressing this claim means absolutely nothing about whether this source is reliable; I know that WP:OTHERSTUFF is about deletion discussions, but the general principle works here, too. You need to prove that this source is reliable, not that there aren't *other* reliable sources. You linked to WP:BESTSOURCE above, but you're misinterpreting it; that talks about how to choose between sources that are already reliable, not how to determine whether a source is reliable in the first place. That's why it's part of the NPOV page, not the RS page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm using general population to mean "those outside the group in the study" it's fairly standard usage no OR but I'm happy to use more technical language, really the point is that in the study being incel would appear, based on the research makes you less likely to be white. "than expected" -> "than non-incel's within the study"?

"You need to prove that this source is reliable" it's already in the article, I'm just proposing improve the summary. If you wanted to delete the source you could make an argument for that.

Other stuff I could address, but it's moot unless you want to delete the source. Talpedia (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

being incel would appear, based on the research makes you less likely to be white -- this is original research; it is an interpretation of the data in the study that the study itself does not say. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Fine, it's good thing I'm writing it in the talk page then. Are you having with "than non-incel's within the study" versus "than expected"? Talpedia (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Not particularly; it's wordier without providing any additional information. I'm not opposed to it super strongly, but it doesn't seem like an improvement. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess "than expected" feels kind of meaningless to me - how are we to know what the researchers expected. How about "than non-incels"? Talpedia (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hm, that's fair, but we definitely need to avoid saying things that could be misinterpreted as talking about non-incels in general. I'd say "than the control group", but that's not really accurate, since this is a survey and not a true experiment with a real control group. Your earlier formulation of "than non-incels in the study" might be the best compromise. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Talpedia (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Talpedia: If you are still interested, you may want to take a look at my last reply over here regarding "racism". See: [Aug 7, 2023, 14:08]. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

This citation basically represents an evidence of pure WP:OR that gathered a bunch of newspapers (amounting to WP:NOTNEWS?) to draw conclusions. It seems like high-profile admin is involved into this article. Is it even safe to put a tag over the top? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's "safe"; do you have any reason to think it wouldn't be? But I don't agree or understand why you say it's OR. The reason all the sources are there, broken up into individual words is that people (usually with an agenda) have incessantly challenged each word there, so each word gets a specific citation, and we group them together like that so the sentence^[1] isn't^[2][3][4] an unreadable^[1][5][7] mess^[5][12] of footnotes^{[1][2][6][9][10]}. What original-research conclusion do you think is being made here? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Rules are rules. You don't make research on Wikipedia to prove some words that generally characterize a movement or set of beliefs by using newspapers. There are folks on wiki who would even argue that news aren't WP:RELIABLE sources. But this is highly contentious topic I guess. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

...they might argue that, but that would be wildly against the current consensus, which is that newspapers can be/are reliable sources. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Previously, it was already pointed out that some pieces were WP:OR: see this March 2020 post; didn't go deep into archives though. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is OR? The citation is simply a WP:CITEBUNDLE, which is fairly common practice on Wikipedia for reasons Writ Keeper already explained. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The issue of the news sources was already raised before: see 14 November 2021 (archive) and as the time passes it's more and more concerning cause many sources are 2018-affixed. Regarding the said bundled citation: it is used in two places and used to support facts that aren't supported in exactly same way that some other sources do (both cited and not cited).

In the second use case the bundled citation it's the sole source, which, by looking at the statement it's used against, is WP:OR. The other citation (i.e. (paywalled, Burton, Anthony (2022)) is NOT used in both places as the first one, but to my surprise down below it's used to support a contradicting (to the intro) statement (regarding endorsement of violence):

Others take the more nihilistic view that nothing will change society, even violent acts, and focus their efforts on constructing a scientific justification for this nihilism.

— ^[1]

Therefore I question the way these citations are joggled. The intro makes misleading impression that all "incel"s, inceldom, and incelosphere do is discussing something radical (which is not true and partly explained in the article). This is especially questionable if compared to Feminist and Radical feminist articles, which clearly distinguish non-radical and radical members and their discurs/agenda. This article doesn't enjoy the same treatment. I guess this is result of terrorism-related news coverage and studies with heavy bias and general lack of independent overview on motivation behind incel identity and actions.

There is a bunch of sources that are enlightening on inceldom.^[2][3] The first one is bordering overview.

References

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

First of all, master's theses are generally not considered reliable sources. Second of all, yet again, this article is about the online subculture that refers to itself as "incels", not the "state" of not-having-sex-despite-wanting-to that could be referred to as "involuntary celibacy". The online subculture is characterized by that list of adjectives supported by the bundled cite. The Wikipedia article doesn't say that those adjectives characterize *anyone* who wants sex and isn't having it; it characterizes the members of the specific online subculture that is the subject of the article. Again, the subject of the article is *not* "anyone who doesn't have sex despite wanting to"; only those people who define and refer to themselves as "incels" as part of the online subculture. Third, I'm still not actually clear on what your problem with the sentence is? You're kind of vaguely waving at the sentence and saying OR, but you're not actually saying *which* concepts in that sentence are OR. Maybe you could give a specific example of a change you'd like to see implemented, so we can understand your point better? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Intro

Discussions in incel forums are often characterized by resentment, misogyny, misanthropy, self-pity and self-loathing, racism, a sense of entitlement to sex, and the endorsement of violence against women and sexually active people.[5][17]

Ideology present in incel communities

Many incel communities are characterized by resentment and hatred, self-pity, racism, misogyny, and misanthropy.[17]

Take a look at the above two excerpts taken (August 7, 2023 Permalink). The bundled citation [17] is used to support completely different statements. Somehow "discussions" (most sources discuss discussions and forums that were held back in 2018) turned into "communities". The news from this [17] citation are used to achieve WP:SYNTHesis which is in fact is evidence of WP:OR. This is by intent I'm sure. If you scrutinize sub-sources used inside [17] further you will find even more disparaties. Hope this is clear. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 04:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not clear, as these statements do not conflict with each other. Given that we're talking about online forums, where the actual content is basically 100% discussions, talking about discussions within the communities vs. the communities themselves is drawing a distinction without a difference. And, you understand that the bundled citation is more than one source, right? It's made up of 13 different sources, so there's a lot of ground that group cite can cover. Finally, doing a quick spot check of the sources, I don't see any problem with them: literally the first source I clicked on (source [7]) includes this sentence: The incel community exists in a dark corner of the internet, infamous for its sexist, racist and homophobic language, where cyberbullying and posts normalizing rape are common. So, no, I don't see how that doesn't support the language it's being used to cite, or how anything in here is OR.

What do you want to change these sentences to? If all of your complaints and insinuations about the evil Wikipedia editors conspiring against you boil down to is removing the words "discussions in" from the first sentence, then we can do that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for writing lengthy replies. My concern is that the sources in the intro were lightmindedly cherry-picked to demonize (international?) inceldom meanwhlie omitting all others important circumstances.

The very first source from the bundled citation which is used repetedly says the following:

A small radical fringe believes that violence, especially against women, is an appropriate response — that an “Incel Rebellion” or “Beta [Male] Uprising” will eventually overturn the sexual status quo.

— ^[1]

Only a tiny percentage of incels seem willing to turn to violence or terrorism, and the movement isn’t a threat on the level of an al-Qaeda or ISIS.

— ^[1]

And then you go back and all of sudden you read that incel community is characterized by ... the endorsement of violence against women and sexually active people which is a bit contradicting to the source. Don't you see a problem here?

...literally the first source I clicked on (source [7]) includes this sentence:... This [7] source is citing some individual called James Ellis from Canadian TSAS. No way this may be considered a WP:RS. The same goes to NYT who cites (must be a joke) sociologist. These just lack factual scrutiny and basis. There are more issues: somehow, the Spiegel source is used to "support" the January 2020 report by the Texas Department of Public Safety. No kidding. Meanwhile being nothing more than first hand report on 4chan and some other incel forums. The racism tha is discussed at length in this article the Spiegel article actually attributed to a minority facebook group which was later deleted, as they admit (possibly) - at their own request, revealing their interest and lack of independence in this topic. Etc. etc.

...What do you want to change these sentences to?... I would suggest overhauling the intro. It would be the first good step. The second would be dropping the most of media reporting and upgrading them to newer and secondary sources keeping intro WP:NPOV and in compliance with MOS:INTRO. If you noticed many news sources are simply outdated as they are dated from 2017 to 2019. The other suggestion would be to get more eyes and hands on this article. Currently a half of the article is basically written by GorillaWarfare (should I say? a very controversial wiki-personality). AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? What exactly is controversial about GW?

There's a difference between "endorsing" violence and actually perpetrating violence. It's obviously true that only a very small percentage of incels actually do violence, but many more who endorse the violence of others when it happens; the very article you're citing, for example, says of Minassian that he has become a hero to many incels by killing ten people. It does say that the incel community is not monolithic and that Some of these moderate incels actively police the extremists in their midst, which is exactly why we use softening words like "often" and "many" in the Wikipedia article. But it then goes on to say that many incels have a much more sinister, and specific, worldview, and that they are men on various online forums celebrating violence and forming a mutually supportive echo chamber that justifies harming others, especially women, in the name of the incel uprising. So, no. It is more or less fair to say that source 1 doesn't wholeheartedly support the notion that incels often endorse violence, but it certainly doesn't contradict it. If source 1 was being used to cite that claim, then you might have a case--though even then it would be arguable at best--but it's not; instead, there are three other sources supporting that.

If you want to argue that newspapers aren't reliable sources, or that sources older than five years or whatever are no longer reliable, well, WT:RS or WP:VPR are there for that, but, y'know, good luck with changing the long-standing sitewide consensus on the definition of a reliable source. In the meantime, you haven't presented any reliable sources of your own that support the notion that there's anything wrong with the article as is; one isn't reliable, and the other says: We argue that incels’ focus on technology reinforces essentialist views on gender, buttresses male domination, dehumanizes women, and minimizes incels’ own misogyny, which doesn't strike me as in any disagreement with the content of the article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that this article should make note of the fact that "incel" can refer to a life circumstance as well as a subculture, and provide information about both definitions. 205.189.94.8 (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a recent reference resource that could help the section on Incel#Of reporting and research. It's called "Intervening in Problematic Research Approaches to Incel Violence" https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1097184X231200825

It is, however, restricted access for the time being and so I'm not sure if it could be used for the article. (But the pdf of the article was sent to User:GorillaWarfare who would know the Wikipedia policy.)

Thebetoof (talk) 08:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thebetoof: I've stuck it in the ref ideas template at the top of the page. I don't have a moment to read through it and incorporate it, but perhaps someone else will. As for the paywall, that's no problem: WP:PAYWALL. I believe this source should be accessible through The Wikipedia Library. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 18 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Manofthewater (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Vanessaamartinez.

— Assignment last updated by Vanessaamartinez (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

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: ${\displaystyle 0.91\times 0.55\approx 50.1\%}$. ~Anachronist (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Injecting unwarranted race hatred against White people, based on an isolated reference in the article look like a subtle hate crime. Please remove that isolated reference in the article, which is unsubstantiated by other quality and diverse references. Now, incel as "unable to get a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one" can happen anywhere, any place. Because of studies in white or European ethnicity groups and relative lack of such studies elsewhere is no reason to peddle hate here. 173.72.54.107 (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@173.72.54.107 ...hate crime against white people to report on a source? i think it should be removed because its anglocentric, not because... its... a hate crime? theres no anti white hate crimes commemorative (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The incel "movement" is not about racism. This is lazy thinking. This is much overlap between this group and others, with the common theme of victimization by society, but it is not accurate to characterize incels as white, or "supremacists" of any sort. This is cartoonishly stupid, as if the author(s) think anyone they disagree with is a nazi. 2601:47:477F:F240:6935:9FE1:C756:EC1D (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@2601:47:477F:F240:6935:9FE1:C756:EC1D I dont think calling the authors of the article stupid and putting them in a charicature of your view of their supposed ideology is appropriate for Wikipedia. commemorative (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

How does 'they are described as' count as something factual? I can describe the Presidents of the US as as reptilian aliens from Alpha Centauri, so can I then factually include it on the Wikipedia article as factual? It is 'factually' based on assumption, and even worse, as you noted, to the exclusion of studies that contradict it. 193.119.44.239 (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

If you can get that published in reliable sources and journals, perhaps we can talk. I'm not sure which sources you're referring to as being excluded. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It's inappropriate and should be removed. Commemorative1 (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The claim is based on research done in the United States of America by the study of a limited group of people which, for obvious reasons, does not include all U.S. incels. Incidentally, the phenomenon is also present in other regions of the world. It makes no sense to include this globally inaccurate information in the lead. 37.0.81.237 (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

If you could provide reliable sources backing up those claims, it would be very helpful. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

There's a sizeable Japanese incel demographic in Japan, with east asian countries having incel terrorism like the US.^[1] I think it's pretty anglo-centric to have often white in the lede. commemorative (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC) commemorative (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Commemorative1 @Dumuzid The sources in this Wikipedia article specify that the study is done on a sample of 151 self-identified male incels – so by excluding the female sex and with limited numbers of respondents.

The incel-related forums are composed of anonymous users, so precise and necessarily correct demographics are not possible. However, we know for certain from the sources provided (e.g., the study, published in Evolutionary Psychological Science) that these are studies done in the U.S., thus not valid globally.

Apart from Asia, the phenomenon is also present in Europe; ethnics is not uniform there:

https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/whats-new/publications/incels-first-scan-phenomenon-eu-and-its-relevance-and-challenges-pcve-october-2021_en 37.0.81.238 (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The one source you have provided (thanks for that) does not really address ethnicity beyond incel beliefs, and somewhat obliquely then (e.g., "German girls hate ethnics"). The rest of your argument certainly makes reasonable points, but I am afraid as currently presented it cuts much too close to original research. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Change this:

the term rose to prominence in the 2010s as it became _closer_ associated with an online subculture

to this:

the term rose to prominence in the 2010s as it became _more closely_ associated with an online subculture Roxwye (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/democratic-theory/10/2/dt100207.xml?ArticleBodyColorStyles=pdf-4278

This article would help expand upon the history of the forums and how "incel" evolved over time.

Thebetoof (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Nicholas Cruz isn't an incel he had a girlfriend Octalh (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@JusticeAccount3: Regarding this revert, can you please clarify what in that source supports that that individual "worshipped" Elliot Rodger? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

maybe I should've said "supported"

why is it such a big deal for you? JusticeAccount3 (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Because your source didn't support the statement, and we require all claims in Wikipedia articles be verifiable. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I swapped in a better source and changed to "praised" per the source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Under History, first sentence: "The first website to use the term "incel" was "Alana's Involuntary Celibacy Project", founded in 1997 by a university student living in Toronto, and known only by her first name, Alana, to discuss her sexual inactivity with others ..."

Request: REMOVE unfounded claim of studentship in Toronto. Sources do not corroborate this claim.

Further, many sources claim Alana graduated from Carleton University, which is in Ottawa. Eg. From [148] (cited on the page): "In the 1990s, [Alana], then a student at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, created an all-text website she called "Alana's Involuntary Celibacy Project.""

Updated sentence (CHANGE TO): "The first website to use the term "incel" was "Alana's Involuntary Celibacy Project", founded in 1997 by a student at Carleton University in Ottawa, and known only by her first name, Alana, to discuss her sexual inactivity with others ..." TPana (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The BBC article cited for that sentence says: She was living in Toronto, Canada, and started the website, Alana's Involuntary Celibacy Project, for those who were struggling to form loving relationships.. I feel that mentioning what university she was attending is a little too much detail, personally, but YMMV. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we should just update it to say she was a Canadian university student? I'm not sure it's terribly important for the article to mention whether she was living in Toronto or Ottawa. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, for sure. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

https://pt.icct.nl/sites/default/files/2024-03/Research%20article%20template%202024_Kelly_0.pdf or https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/en/publications/victim-violent-vulnerable-a-feminist-response-to-the-incel-radica

"Victim, Violent, Vulnerable: A Feminist Response to the Incel Radicalisation Scale"

Thebetoof (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Whoever is writing all of this is extremely prejudiced against autistic people, people with social anxiety, and otherwise socially awkward people. This article is blatantly insulting to innocent people and it has no right to exist on Wikipedia or anywhere. I DEMAND THAT YOU CEASE AND APOLOGIZE!!! 37.0.88.17 (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

What about autistic people? This article has very little to do with them. They're mentioned in passing in the Mental health section, in the context of saying that some members of the incel subculture are autistic, but it says nothing about autistic people as a whole. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

"what about autistic people?"

They are almost all involuntarily celibate. Incel is not a label that is only self-applied. It is also an epithet used on socially awkward and/or unattractive people. This use of the word is not discussed in the article, which repeatedly uses the phrase "self-identified". Most of us were not self identified. We gave in, accepting the title. No one chose this. 2601:47:477F:F240:6935:9FE1:C756:EC1D (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

That is not what the reliable sources say; the reliable sources say that "incel" is a subculture, and while its members may or may not have chosen their state of "wanting a sexual partner but not being able to find one", they certainly did choose to associate with this subcommunity and make this a part of their self-identity. Nobody forced people to create and post on r/incels or whatever. To reuse my old analogy, "not being able to find a sexual partner" doesn't make you an incel--in the sense that reliable sources and therefore this article are talking about--any more than "generally not wanting fascism" makes you a part of Antifa, even though the literal denotation of the term "antifa" is just a contraction of "anti-fascist". If you find yourself using the word "incel" to refer to yourself, but find everything that this article describes about the beliefs and behavior of incels repugnant, then congratulations--you're a decent human being, and you should start considering whether you should find something else to refer to yourself instead, because this is what other people will infer about you when you use it for yourself.

Anyway, if you want this article to discuss the intersection of the incel subculture and autistic people, you will need to find a reliable source that explicitly connects the two. If you want the article to talk about the word "incel" as an insult specifically used against autistic people, you will need to find reliable sources that explicitly discuss that specific subject. You would certainly need a reliable source to support the assertion that "almost all autistic people are involuntarily celibate". Even then, this article might not be the right place for it--the word "gay" has a long and storied history as an insult that is not discussed at all in the LGBT community article. But regardless, without reliable sources that discuss and support these claims, there's really nothing further to discuss. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Personally, I think it's a little presumptuous to assume that autistic people are incels. GMG^talk 14:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  Definitely, as one of the Autistic People, would prefer if we don't add "Autistic people are incels" to the article, I do sincerely apologise to the original poster though. commemorative (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

🙄 Roxwye (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

as an autistic person I think autism has some kind of relationship with incels: being introvert, excluded, having little social skills with people you are interested to etc, and it doesn't mean autistic people are bad, it's just that they tend to fall for those extremists trap more easily Avistemp (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

This is definitely true, autistic people are going to be more likely to be lonely, and lonely people are more easily radicalised, but I don't think that's the sort of thing that needs to be put into the article unless there is sufficient sources and it fits due weight. commemorative (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The article briefly mentioned autistic people but I agree that it needs to be elaborated on more. At least it's stated that autistic people are at a disadvantage in some way, even if it's just socially. I do not think the people writing this article would maintain a neutral tone since society has always had nothing but scorn for them. I don't have any respect for the mental health industry and what it stands for. Look at how they handle the whole "loneliness crisis" thing. I don't believe in magical thinking. 2D Is Better Than 3D (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Incel is self-evidently a form of sexual slander, used to attack rather than discuss. It is a sex-based slur, since it is oriented towards men only, and also discriminates on the basis of relationship status. It's core claims about some amorphous unfuckable menace are obviously incorrect on their face, since basic criminology 101 is that violence is highly correlated with reproductive success. It has even been postulated as a reproductive strategy. This is very clearly a politicized term, with zero consensus about that to which it refers, if anything. It is associated with far-left extremist ideology and groups which typically support cross sex hormone use, forced race training, and intensified discrimination in hiring/legal system.

This is a core problem with this sorry excuse for an article. It is an exercise in elaborate contempt for reality and the obvious competency crisis afflicting our institutions.

If you want to contest this specific criticism that this article is itself a form of biased, sexual, political henhouse behavior with no academic value please do more than assert, lazily, that my concerns are too "general." That is extremely specific.

This article is predicated on political lying. It violates Wikipedia's tenets of neutrality. You can't dispute this, so you have to exclude the topic from the debate. 2603:9000:E700:6050:7D54:9757:72A0:AB00 (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2024‎ (UTC)

I mean, I can certainly dispute it, from the fact that it is often a self-given label to the fact that the first person to use the term was female. Your critiques will be more effective if you cite to reliable sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dumuzid I'm completely ignoring the IP's comments, but it can happen. TERF was a self-given label that was later claimed by the same group to be a slur. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair point! But I still think it is evidence contrary to the idea that is a self-evident form of slander. Have a nice weekend! Dumuzid (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: This is probably a little off topic, but I'm not sure I understand how TERF is a self-given label. GMG^talk 12:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I guess it was coined by a radical feminist, though not necessarily one who is anti-trans. But it did come from with the radfem groups EvergreenFir (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense Dumuzid. However, WP:RS do indeed assert that 'incel' is used as slander, and unfortuneatly to a "ubiquitous" extent. Often against men who arent in a relationship, but not involved with the sub culture. While most of those WP:RS have been purged from the article, a few remain – see "Incel" has also come to be used as an insult against people who do not necessarily identify with the subculture, but who are perceived to be sexually inexperienced, undesirable, or unpopular in the Lexicology section.

It may be worth pointing out how "incel" has came to be such as impactful slur. Pior to the creation of this article back in 2018, the few quality WP:RS using the term incel invariably did so with the literal meaning (i.e. synonymous with "unwanted celibacy" , a term scholars are increasing using now incel has became such a pejorative.) As such, pre 2018 use of the word incel in the high tier WP:RS (there were admittedly exceptions in lower tier sources) often involved looking at incels sympathetically. Just as intended when the term was originally coined by Alana.

It was this article that redefined incel to refer to a self identified member of the sub-culture. As has been forensically demonstrated on this talk page, the 2018 sources that were cited in support of the term being used primarily to refer to members of the subculture did not actually contain that usage. But the article still redefined the term that way anyway. Due to Wikipedia's influence and the articles high ranking in search results, the new meaning was swiftly adopted by journalists & academics. This led to the creation of many thousands of WP:RS reflecting the then new useage. Which in turn allowed the development of the long standing sentence in the lede introducing incels as characterized by deep resentment, hatred, hostility, sexual objectification, misogyny, misanthropy, self-pity and self-loathing, racism, a sense of entitlement to sex … If one manages to read that full sentence there are over a dozen dehumanising nouns and other intensifiers that are liable to evoke repulsion against incels. It's arguably the most expansive demonising sentence in the history of humanity.

Such a lede might be more understandable if Incels really were largely comprised of misogynistic alt-righters. But they're not. His Majesty's government has just published findings from the worlds largest & most rigorous study of incels to date. (Which has been widely reported both state side & in UK, hence the recent influx of IP interest) It emphasised incel's "very poor mental health” and the fact that incels are politically centre-Left on average. ( But the "5% who agreed that violence against individuals that cause incels harm is often justified were politically centre-right”)

Getting back on topic , even back in 2020 sources were reporting that incel was used as a ubiquitous online insult against less romantically successful men. Sadly according to a 2023 finding from Pew Research, almost 70% of US young men are now single (showing that "Incels aren't even a minority group anymore" as another source put it.) That's an awful lot of young guys in the cross hairs for the ubiquitous insult, which many will internalise with all sorts of adverse consequences. Such as the unprecedented recent finding that Gen Z males are now more anti feminist than their older peers. And sadly, with so much distress in the male half of the youth population, young women aren't immune to contagion effects. Among young women, indicators of poor mental health, suicidal ideology & actual attempts have risen sharply since 2019. (Much more sharply than among men, and mostly due to reasons unconnected with incels -cf. Jean Twenge -, though it is a factor.)

Its not all doom & gloom. The 2023 result found only about 30% of young women were single – far less than less than for young men. The discrepancy is in part due to polygyny. And partly the welcome fact that women who lean that way are now more free to form Lesbian pairings. But a far bigger factor is parings with senior men. At least on a secular & individualist level, the benefits when a heterosexual middle aged man pairs up with a new young women are considerable. There can be a months long surge in testosterone, which among other benefits is anxiolytic & often promotes good sleep. With other pleasure inducing hormones, the overall long term effect is better than is possible with any recreational drug. Nothing lasts forever, but with the competition from young men much reduced thanks to the ubiquitous, confidence destroying "incel" insult, it's easy for a senior man of even moderate desirability to find another interested young women. And once again all is groovy.

Still, as a member of that demographic myself, Im confident that only a minority are selfish enough to welcome the help of Wikipedia here, given the impact on less privileged groups. Accordingly, I suggest re-writing this article from scratch. As per my offer back in 2020, I'm happy to do all the work myself, if that's agreeable? ( Im not though up for is engaging is lengthy talk page discussion as happened back then. After many hours of discussion, consensus for most of my proposed changes to make the article more sympathetic to incels was finally achieved on this talk page. Only for most of the improvements to be reverted a few days later! Despite having rewrote many controversial global scope articles, usually the hundreds of hours of research I put into article improvement result in my work remaining in place even more than a decade later. So I'd like to have a plurality of 3 admins agree to my rewrite proposal, without having to further discuss. ) If that's not possible and admins prefer to address the issues here themselves, I'd respectfully suggest they consider going for greater fidelity to what the quality WP:RSs actually say, and closer adherence to WP:OR and WP:NPOV. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Speech aside, let's look at your sources:

• this study draws a distinction between incels and people experiencing "unwanted celibacy", yes, but since does specifically use the word "incel" fairly freely, I don't see how one can resonably conclude that it's drawing a distinction because "incel" is pejorative. Rather, it's doing so because it, like this Wikipedia article, is drawing a distinction between "people experiencing unwanted celibacy" and members of an online community whose main stated grievance is that they desire to have romantic and sexual relationships but are unable to do so. In fact, it says explicitly that we use the term unwanted celibacy rather than involuntary celibacy because the latter term is sometimes used to refer specifically to Incels (e.g., Moskalenko et al., 2022), whereas we posit an association between unwanted celibacy and misogyny that applies generally. It's doing the same exact thing this article is doing.
• You use this study as an argument against incels being misogynistic and alt-right. It certainly supports the idea that incels aren't exclusively alt-right, but funnily enough, the Wikipedia article never actually disagrees; the most it does is say that there is overlap with right-wing groups (usually attributed, not in Wikipedia's voice). It does say that incels are misogynistic, but so does this source: Participants perceived high levels of victimhood, anger and misogyny. They also acknowledged a shared worldview among incels which includes identifying feminists as a primary enemy.
• the source cited in this edit you linked is from UnHerd, which is not a particularly reliable source. ref
• this does not directly discuss incels, and so isn't relevant (and is a blog).
• this is a blog hosted on Medium, making it an unreliable, self-published source.
• this isn't relevant.
• this isn't relevant.

So, I'm curious what *actually* reliable sources you're intending to base any rework of this article on, because none of these seem to be both reliable and supportive of your intended changes. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The proposed rewrite would still prominently feature the fact there's much misogyny on incel forums. Inline with what you say, that not something even the most incel-sympathetic quality sources deny. Sorry for giving the wrong impression there.

The re-write would be based partly on the collab between Austin & Swansea universities. Per it being hailed as the biggest and most rigorous study of incels to date, its more compassionate and realistic take should supersede much of the older, low quality sources used in the article. (Though I concede this argument will be stronger once it completes peer-review and is published in a reputable journal.) I've about 35 academic & quality journalistic sources in mind for the re-write. But if admins dont buy the case that this article is harmful due to the way it intensifies the incel insult, I'm not sure it would help to list them out. The sources could be dismissed as cherry picked, and in a sense rightly so; they're outnumbered > 10:1 by less compassionate WP:RS (albeit that wasn't the case prior to the redefinition of the incel term by this article, soon after its creation back in 2018.)

The source for the insult being 'ubiquitous' may have been published in unherd, but it's author is James Bloodworth who has impeccable left wing credentials. He's been featured by Bernie Sanders and hailed by Nick Cohen as the "best young leftwing writer Britain has produced in years". In the last few days alone, multiple IPs have complained about the insult being "used on socially awkward and/or unattractive people.". A large majority of young men experience at least short periods of social awkwardness. The article currently has other sources about the slur being used on non subculture men. I'm not seeing how it can be disputed that it's a thing. As per sources above, there's evidence over 10 million American young men haven't had sex once in the past year, with a much higher percentage who are single. That's a huge number of targets for the incel insult! Which per basic sociology since the time of Goffman risks being internalised, with devastating consequences for the youths self esteem. I'm not claiming that Wikipedia is mostly responsible for this phenomena, not even 1% responsible, but we are but we still moving the dial in that direction.

If admins dont approve the rewrite I hope they'll at least consider addressing the "characterized" sentence that opens the 2nd para of the lede. Don't think there's any one source that comes anywhere close to packing so many dehumanising and contempt inducing nouns in their introduction to incels. Granted, as an encyclopaedia it's often a good thing that we offer more comprehensive descriptions than any single source. But in this case the lede is acting as an attack on a group, with collateral damage including intensifying the world's single most confidence destroying insult against non subculture but romantically unsuccessful men. WP:BLP does in part discourage attacks against groups (Albeit it's complex, can need in depth discussion; I'm not claiming there's a blatant violation here, just that it should be a consideration.)

Look, no reasonable progressive could fail to understand the good faith reasons for any activism behind the 2018 redefining of the incel term. Many would see it as a good use of WP:IAR, per the potential to oppose the alt-right. But surely it's now clear the article is somewhat missing the mark in that regard, and may even be self defeating to progressive causes. So it would be nice to have a more do no harm, NPOV approach. I'm still happy to be the one that does the work for this, if it's agreeable. But I've already given the reasons why I'm not up for a repeat of the extensive source based discussions I had here back in 2020. I'm going to return to this page in a week's time. If I don't see a plurality of 3 admins approving the re-write proposal, I've going to leave this topic for at least another year. End of conversation. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Look, the first sentence in the summary of your purported (unpublished) best source says: Incels are a sub-culture community of men who forge a sense of identity around their perceived inability to form sexual or romantic relationships. If you're expecting that to support your desire to "reverse the redefinition" or whatever, I don't think that source is going to help. If you want to rewrite this article to be about "unwanted celibacy", you're going to need sources that actually discuss it in those terms. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

(I am Vidauty but lost my password. Sorry.)

I see three substantial concentric groups, and a sterile debate over labels.

1. All who are reluctantly celibate (FeydHuxtable's focus).

2. Those who commiserate about it online (a small subset).

3: The Single Issue Fanatics that the current article describes (Writ Keeper's focus).

Maybe the solution is 2 (or 3) separate articles? Maybe most of Group 2 are in Group 3, but presumably Group 1 deserves attention, and that is what FH wants to write. 2A02:C7C:566D:2E00:5093:D3BF:D89B:D404 (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "deserves attention" is not an inclusion criterion for a Wikipedia article. The article involuntary celibacy used to exist along the lines you suggest, but it was repeatedly merged into other articles or outright deleted (even to the extent of being salted) by community discussion and consensus due to inadequate coverage in reliable sources. That inadequacy needs to be addressed before any other articles could exist. One or two of the above-cited sources might be helpful in that regard, but it'll take more than that for an article to be warranted. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

(Vidauty again.) Thanks. I now see how the page (broadly speaking) makes sense as a description of Group 3, and that the absence of a Group 1 page is true to your general approach. But would it not be good to insert at the top (or in the Disambig) a line to warn other visitors against misconstruing it in the same way that FH (and I) did? Or are we too eccentrically outlying (if that's not tautologous) to be regarded? 2A02:C7C:566D:2E00:5093:D3BF:D89B:D404 (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, to have such a note in the actual mainspace would go against the guidelines on hatnotes and disambiguation pages, both of which are intended to help guide readers to other Wikipedia articles that they might've intended to go; both explicitly disallow entries for things that aren't actual articles. (And I think that's fair, to avoid things getting too navel-gazy.) However, there is an FAQ at the top of this talk page that covers this very question pretty definitively, although it does get a bit lost in all the other stuff at the top of the talk page. Here's a direct link. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

(Still Vidauty.) Thanks again! That all three FAQs are along similar lines suggests that this concern is more than idiosyncratic, but I guess it's just one of those cases where a system is simply not capable of common sense, where everyone can see it's bad and nothing can be done. It may even be a price worth paying for the benefits of consistency etc, but I hope you will not blame me for being disappointed. 2A02:C7C:566D:2E00:5093:D3BF:D89B:D404 (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Just look at it this way: what if you went to an article on violent crime and said that violent criminals in America are “often black”? Hmmm? Alexandermoir (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

So you are equating incels to criminals? Dumuzid (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

pretty sure it was just an example SawKyiv (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

And I am pointing out what I think is a flaw with the example. Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The point is that a stigma is attached to both. And that the user was alluding to a supposed double standard.

A better example might apply to "antisemitism in the US". In the US, it is notably more common among hispanic/black people, ergo one could say most antisemites are non-white. Thus one could lead with that and be just as innocuous as in this article. 2605:8D80:483:4E79:951B:72AA:266D:294F (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, the often white should be removed. There are a ton of incels in South Korea also for example. 66.44.95.66 (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

While incels are typically associated with right-wing political beliefs, it seems kind of silly to add the sidebar with the conservatism series to it considering most of the articles listed in it are about intellectual and political movements and not about internet subcultures. It just objectively seems very out of place. Tucc1988 (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Any overlap between incel and conservatism seems tangential at best. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Also agreed, the sidebar was a new addition in the last day or two. I've removed it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

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

please remove all mentions of self-identified incels being “mostly white,” being involuntarily celibate, and thus some people identifying as such results from sexual frustration from frequent rejection or a supposed mental/physical impairment.

https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/english_editorials/1161072.html

https://www.counterterrorismgroup.com/post/executive-summary-prevalence-of-incel-ideology-in-east-asia

https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n12194/pdf/04C_huang.pdf

incel ideologies are very prevalent around several south east asian countries and limiting this community to “mostly white” people is an unfair and biased generalisation Big Mocc (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done There are several sources in the article confirming that the subculture has more white men than men of other races. Your sources only prove that Asian incels exist, which the article does not dispute. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The study group from the source in the article included a significant portion of participants from the United States and other english-speaking countries, and because of this the racial demographic skews towards being mostly white.

Additionally, mentioning the racial identity of the individuals in the study is extraneous to the article's main focus. The racial background does not significantly contribute to the understanding of the study's findings or its implications.

Moreover, the article for gun violence in the USA does not clearly mention in the lead that they are committed mostly by African Americans, if race is deemed irrelevant in that context, why should it be included here? Big Mocc (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I’d recommend reading the multiple discussions on this topic in the talk page history so we’re not retreading old ground. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The one, singular discussion you are referring to did not come to any conclusion Big Mocc (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with Big Mocc here. The lead sentence implies that incels have a higher proportion of caucasians than the general population, but the cited source says the proportion of whites is lower than expected. If you're going to sample a majority-white population, it isn't surprising to find majority-white sub-groups like incels, but it is surprising that this majority is smaller than expected from the surveyed population.

This little factoid isn't relevant for the lead sentence. The section on demographics goes into more detail about the subtleties, but the lead doesn't adqueately summarize it. I agree it should be removed or clarified. Simply saying "mostly white" isn't an acceptable summary. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a whole group of cites for that particular claim. I’m not particularly familiar with the newest cite that you seem to be referring to (I think it was added since the last time we went over it), but if I’m understanding it correctly, it’s not describing the proportion of incels who are white, but rather the proportion of white people who are incels. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

What "newest cite"? It's in the first sentence of the article. And what that sentence is describing is ambiguous, as you just demonstrated by your reading of it: the citation does describe the proportion of incels who are white, and goes on to say that this proportion is less than expected. The sloppy language in the lead sentence can be interpreted different ways, and it comes across to me as implying that incels are disproportionately white. The demographics section gives a better discussion of this. Remove it from the lead, or summarize it better to comply with WP:LEAD, which is currently does not. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The term “white” here serves no purpose other than to be weaponised against people of that race, nowhere else on Wikipedia is race mentioned so blatantly, and where it has absolutely no effect on the outcome of the study’s findings Big Mocc (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that anything is being weaponized. Rather, I have two concerns here, both regarding our content policies: A cited source is being misrepresented, and WP:LEAD is being violated by failing to provide an adequate summary of the body text. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Understandable, although that was my very first impression upon reading the article Big Mocc (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. I have no opinion on the matter, but given the contentious nature of the topic and the disagreements between editors, it's clear that this would need some kind of consensus before it could be implemented. M.Bitton (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The term "incel" is self-named. So, it can't be pejorative. The category should be removed. 178.121.24.248 (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It can be used in a pejorative context, usually in comparison with "chads". Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Don't disagree but the article doesn't seem to convey that, or at the very least doesn't say "pejorative", in a particularly meaningful way outside of a single sentence. Most I could find was "Incel" has also come to be used as an insult against people who do not necessarily identify with the subculture, but who are perceived to be sexually inexperienced, undesirable, or unpopular.[144][145] Like any virtue or vice, they can always be used in some pejorative sense - but to categorise them as such probably needs more than a couple of pop-culture sources. Koncorde (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Concur. Memes on twitter dot com are not encyclopedically relevant. If "Incel" is being used pejoratively we need reliable sources that say so. Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, there is a clear consensus. Can anyone remove the category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.120.0.61 (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

How does "'Incel' has also come to be used as an insult" not support the inclusion of the category? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

See above. There is nothing to add. Almost any term (for example, feminist) can be used in pejorative sence, but it doesn't mean that term is pejorative. 178.121.0.83 (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Also agree it would require a reliable source. Category removed. Mathglot (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@ModernDaySlavery: Hello.

This is regarding this revert.

• Prażmo, Ewelina (June 24, 2024). "Affixmaxxing or the emergence of new derivational affixes in online discourse: A construction morphology approach". Topics in Linguistics. 25 (1): 70–82. doi:10.17846/topling-2024-0005.

The source lists dozens and dozens of terms, but "gynocel", "gynecomastiacel", and "mentalcel" are not given any particular weight or emphasis. The source lists eighty-one "_cell" terms, and implies that this is not a comprehensive list. None of the three you have chosen are specifically defined by the source, so the meanings are only indirectly implied from context. The source cannot be used for these definitions, nor to imply that these terms are specifically significant.

Topics in Linguistics (published by the Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra), is obscure. All sources are judged in context. Why this source for these arbitrarily-selected terms?

Your edit summary that this is a "commonly used term in incel community" is a form of original research. If you have a reliable source saying these terms are commonly used, please cite that source. Grayfell (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/news/incels-are-not-particularly-right-wing-or-white-but-they-are-extremely-depressed-anxious-and-lonely-according-to-new-research 2409:40E5:1:3B84:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

That says they're still majority white. Also the author uses convenience sampling so we can't draw many firm conclusions EvergreenFir (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Also the paper in question is bad in a whole bunch of other methodological ways. For instance: tiny sample sizes. Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@ModernDaySlavery: Hello. Start using article talk pages, please.

Regarding this revert, thanks for fixing the typo, but the cited source doesn't describe 'chadfishing' as science. Per the source: One way that incels weaponize their subordination is by Chadfishing, creating a fake dating profile with an attractive man’s photo and then mistreating women who match with the profile. In a thread receiving more than 100 replies...

It the goes on to discuss how some incels use this as proof of their own inferiority, but nothing about this forum chatter can be described as science. Further, the source doesn't say chadfishing is motivated by science, the source clearly attributes this behavior to "weaponized subordination, wherein men strategically use their perceived subordinate masculine status to legitimate their degradation of women." Again the goal is to degrade women, not to perform science. This is, maybe, a form of pseudoscience, but even that would need to be more clearly spelled out by a reliable source. Grayfell (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The Blackpill section gives a quote by Zack Beauchamp, who expressed a judgment over this set of beliefs. I find myself questioning whether this judgment has any encyclopedic value: the cited article is of a journalistic nature, not scientific, and its author is not a sociology scholar.

I am afraid that the section is not delivering a neutral POV, but rather some "common sense" about a set of beliefs that is "uncommon sense". Granted, the quote definitely describes the characteristics of many blackpilled men, but the question is whether those characteristics are inevitable in all people who share those beliefs. I tend to think that a man doesn't necessarily have to oppose women's sexual emancipation just because he believes he's biologically doomed to be celibate.

I wouldn't want to suggest that the quote should be entirely removed, but it should be clearly flagged for what it is: an opinion piece. Xelloss (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The quote in question:

The black pill has been described by Vox correspondent Zack Beauchamp as "a profoundly sexist ideology that ... amounts to a fundamental rejection of women's sexual emancipation, labeling women shallow, cruel creatures who will choose only the most attractive men if given the choice".

The use of this quote aligns with MOS:QUOTEPOV, and you have not presented any evidence from other reliable sources to suggest that it is inaccurate. Moreover, the underlying Beauchamp article isn't some puff piece; it's a deeply researched multi-thousand word deep dive into the topic. So, I don't see a problem with the quote. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Your reply doesn't really answer my objection.

I have stated that the quote is from an article of journalistic, not scientific nature, and nothing in your words proves the opposite.

In other words, you're reversing the burden of proof: it's not up to me to show that there are inaccuracies in that quote, but up to whoever wants the quote in this page to prove that it reflects scientific consensus. The fact that it is a "multi-thousand word dive" (dive!) is irrelevant, when it lacks reputable scholarly citations.

Since when we publish opinions instead of science on Wikipedia? Xelloss (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd encourage you to read more about how Wikipedia defines reliable sources. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

This is entirely dismissive, admin. I'm not disputing that the opinion may be cited, but that the way this article is written doesn't clarify that it is an opinion. It invites the reader to take a summary judgment at face value, as if it were of a scientific nature.

Except that it's not of a scientific nature. Xelloss (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Xelloss: Ed has already explained that the quote aligns with MOS:QUOTEPOV (and I agree, as well as WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). How would you propose rephrasing that section? I don't see how there is any implication that this is some sort of scientific statement, particularly given that Beauchamp is identified as a Vox correspondent in-text. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I have already addressed the issue about guidelines by explaining that the matter is not about whether this quote is allowed, but how it should be framed.

Since you are asking me how I would rephrase it, I'll take a few days to look into that matter. Xelloss (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

We should clarify that "mostly white" only applies to United States and Canada, as the samples in the cited sources are selected from these two countries. With the rise of incel culture in Asia, especially China and South Korea, "mostly white" doesn't represent a worldwide view of the subject. KomradeRice (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Credible sources say mostly white. Your WP:OR is irrelevant. 24.126.13.54 (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The 2025 British crime drama Adolescence revolves around the killing of a young girl by a 13-year-old boy, whom she bullied for being an incel. The third episode shows the boy expressing incel views, including his belief that he is ugly. AmericanPharaoh10 (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Unless there is a source referring to that episode using the word "incel", or unless the episode explicitly refers to it, we can't include it. Doing so would violate WP:SYNTHESIS. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The second and third episodes explicitly use the word "incel," and reference other parts of this article like the 80-20 rule. AmericanPharaoh10 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Here's a link to the clip of them using the word incel in episode 2

https://clip.cafe/adolescence-2025/incel-katie-called-jamie-an-incel-what-does-mean/ AmericanPharaoh10 (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

A few articles discussing this.

interesting take from a teenager.

There is more but some of these might be suitable? Knitsey (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Those last three are suitable, coming from actual journalists. The first one isn't. Go ahead and summarize the gist of those sources in a sentence or two, and put it in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

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

I request that the graphic/image at the top of the page dedicated to "Incel" be removed or changed. The current image intentionally depicts the incel as noticeably short (not only shorter than the man, but shorter than the woman as well). Short men are routinely marginalized and negatively stereotyped in media. The current image would be better placed in your page about "Height Discrimination". Please consider changing or removing this harmful stereotype. Thank you for reading. 216.80.58.254 (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with the reasons provided, but I do think we should remove the image. I don't see it as an informative representation of the subject, which is not primarily about anger toward couples, and it's a particularly odd pairing with the current caption. Pinging SSCreader, who added the image. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I think if you changed the caption, it would be okay? The image itself seems relevant, otherwise its just text. SSCreader (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Not all topics can be easily illustrated, and this image is not doing that effectively. I've removed it per WP:BRD, but this discussion may conclude with a consensus to re-add it.Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I am writing to discuss the phrase in the lead section that describes the incel subculture as "racially diverse, but mostly white,". I believe this descriptor might be inaccurate based on the very first source cited for that claim (https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/news/incels-are-not-particularly-right-wing-or-white-but-they-are-extremely-depressed-anxious-and-lonely-according-to-new-research). The article from liberalarts.utexas.edu explicitly states in its title, "'Incels' are not particularly right-wing or white, but they are extremely depressed, anxious, and lonely, according to new research"

Further research, such as an online poll conducted by the Anti-Defamation League in 2020, found that while roughly 55% of respondents identified as white or Caucasian, the remaining 45% were from various other racial and ethnic groups (https://www.adl.org/resources/article/online-poll-results-provide-new-insights-incel-community). Additionally, a 2024 report by the UK government on predicting harm among incels found that in their US and UK sample, while the majority were white (58.1%), 42% self-identified as a person of colour (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/predicting-harm-among-incels-involuntary-celibates/predicting-harm-among-incels-involuntary-celibates-the-roles-of-mental-health-ideological-belief-and-social-networking-accessible).

Given that the first cited source directly contradicts the "mostly white" claim and other reliable sources indicate significant racial diversity within the incel subculture, I propose revising this sentence in the lead section to more accurately reflect the available evidence. Perhaps something like: "Incel... is a term associated with a mostly online subculture of people (racially diverse and mostly male and heterosexual)..." or a more nuanced description that reflects the findings of the cited research.

Phykings (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

This...is...actually extremely well argued. GMG^talk 00:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Since there was a lot of discussion on this topic and it seemed somewhat controversial on this page, I wanted to look into it. (I'm the same user now writing from another account.).

I've now completed a review of the sources cited specifically for the claim that the incel subculture is "mostly white" in the lead section. I have found that the findings from these sources do not consistently support this descriptor:

• The first source (liberalarts.utexas.edu), as previously noted, appears directly contradictory to the claim it is cited for.
• The Washington Post and NBC News (2018) sources seem to provide anecdotal quotes rather than comprehensive data-driven conclusions about the subculture. The Washington Post also references a 2001 study of a small sample (82 individuals), which provides old and limited data.
• The ADL (2020) poll, as previously discussed, indicates significant racial diversity, with 45% identifying as non-white, a finding the ADL itself describes as adding "nuance" rather than strongly confirming "mostly white."
• The Guardian, The Atlantic, and CBC.ca (2018) sources, based on what i have seen, do not appear to even mention demographic data regarding the overall racial composition of the subculture.

Additionally, other research I found, such as "Characteristics of Incel Forum Users: Social Network Analysis and Chronological Posting Patterns" by Stijelja & Mishara (Tandfonline, 2023) (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1057610X.2023.2208892#abstract), notes that survey-based studies "suggest that Incels... who do not differ demographically from the broader population based on geographical, ethnic, or religious identification data."

Based on this review of the cited sources and additional research, it seems the evidence does not strongly support the current "mostly white" characterization.

Thanks again for your time. DomitorVesti (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I'm good to change this and will do so if nobody takes exception. GMG^talk 21:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the body, specifically Incel#Demographics. I can see a case for removing this from the lead. If they 'do not differ demographically' than mentioning racial diversity at all seems more confusing than helpful, and the body is a better place to add nuance. Grayfell (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Taking on the points identified in the order they were presented:

1. My assumption is that the University of Texas source was cited because it showed that 63% of incels are white. At a nearly 2:1 ratio, that is indeed "mostly". Moreover, headlines are not a reliable source.
2. The Washington Post and NBC News provide quotes from "an associate professor of sociology at Grinnell College who studies subcultures and masculinity" and "the director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project", who are topic experts and probably shouldn't be contextualized as "anecdotal".
3. We could quibble over a preferred wording, but 55% is a majority and the definition of "mostly".
4. To the final three sources used in the article, I'm assuming that they have been accidentally mixed between citations 2 and 3 over time (I can see the latter in the source code but the reference doesn't seem to work in the article).
5. You gave a great quote from that study, but I see in the US Census that the US is 58.4% "White alone, not Hispanic or Latino". Again, while we could quibble over the exact word to use, that's the definition of mostly.

Also, DomitorVesti, you're going to need to stick to one account in the future. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I understand that percentages like 55% or 63% are a majority. However, i fell that in this context the term "mostly" can imply a more overwhelming predominance. As you noted with the US Census data (58.4% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino), the general population in Western countries like the US and UK is already "mostly white." If the incel subculture's racial composition is roughly similar to the surrounding population (around 55-63% white compared to ~58% in the US and 64.3% white compared to 83.0% in the UK), is "mostly white" a particularly distinguishing characteristic of the subculture in the same way that being overwhelmingly male (studies consistently show 95%+) or predominantly heterosexual (though exact numbers might vary, certainly the subculture's focus is on heterosexual relationships) are? These latter characteristics describe a far greater deviation from general population demographics than the racial composition appears to.

The ADL itself frames their own results as adding "nuance" to the common presumption of incels being largely white. Similarly, the University of Texas source mentions "A smaller proportion than would be expected by chance identified as white. (...)" These specific qualifications from the sources cited in the article suggest that "mostly white" might be too simplistic a descriptor without acknowledging the significant racial diversity present.

On the point about the expert quotes from The Washington Post and NBC News: I agree that the individuals quoted are experts in relevant fields, and their insights are valuable. My point is simply that these appear in the articles as expert characterizations or observations (made in 2018 in the context of specific events) rather than as conclusions derived from comprehensive, broad-based demographic studies of the entire subculture's racial makeup. The survey and poll data provide a different type of evidence regarding the actual composition of communities studied more broadly. DomitorVesti (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I am also in favor of removing "mostly white". As I stated in a discussion above, "mostly white" is easily misunderstood to mean "disproportionately white", which is the opposite of what the sources say. Race isn't a distinguishing characteristic of incels, so we have no business pretending that it is. The lead sentence especially should not be misrepresenting the cited sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

It's been a month after this discussion was started and over a week since my reply above. I have removed "mostly white" from the lead. I wouldn't mind changing "racially diverse" to something like "racially in proportion to demographics" or something better. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I would support leaving any mention of race out of the lead. GnocchiFan (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. The sources did not strongly support "racially diverse" as a defining trait, nor is it clear what this precisely means, nor would the lead be the place to explain in detail. I've removed this from the lead. Grayfell (talk) 07:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Mi compa, habla tambien del Temach por pasar estas ideas incel DuxPepe (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Necesitariamos fuentes fiables sobre el y su relevancia.--MattMauler (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Tambien vea es.wikpedia.org y https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel si quieres contribuir en espanol--MattMauler (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Someone reverted Molly White and Simonm's invaluable contribution to this wiki 100% accurately describing incels as mostly white. Someone please revert the lede back and don't let the evil white incels win. 24.126.12.64 (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

One thing I try very hard to avoid is edit warring. If an edit I've made has subsequently been reverted, especially if it has been reverted more than once, I will take it to talk. And I will also admit when consensus is against me and will subsequently drop the argument. I do think Molly White's statement regarding the demography of incels is due and is accurate. However I would never ascribe a moral character to any skin colour. If it's been removed again and I missed that removal I'm happy to have a discussion about it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that the removal is that terrible. I think that the line was defensible, particularly in the times when it was "often white" rather than "mostly white", but I don't think it's so important that it must be specifically called out in the lede. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Did you know...that consistently using people's usernames, instead of singling out one person's real name while using others' usernames, is just as easy, is less confusing, and doesn't give the (mistaken?) impression that you're trying to single someone out for harassment? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Blackpill has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 22 § Blackpill until a consensus is reached. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Blackpill (disambiguation) § Requested move 23 June 2025. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@ILoveHirasawaYui I am a little bit concerned that your recent edits represent a somewhat WP:EXTRAORDINARY revision, particularly with how you are effectively claiming in wiki voice that these new papers definitively prove prior research outmoded. It seems a bit undue with its definitive tone. Now I have read one of your four sources and do believe it is due inclusion. I just worry that your framing seems non-neutral. I will read the other three though and will not make any further reversion until I have thoroughly reviewed your sources. Simonm223 (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I reverted. Pretty standard WP:BRD situation. Thanks for diving into those sources, Simon. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok so notes:

1. This article was published in Feminist Inquiry in Social Work in 2023. It discusses how incel communities construct race in some detail and ends up... ambiguous. The conclusion states It is relatively easy to dismiss incels as entitled, violent individuals representative of toxic masculinities, but it becomes a bit more strenuous to blame them for their inability to attain the impossible standards of desirability that whiteness sets forth. Their racist misogyny is repugnant and unacceptable. However, rather than condemning them, this study urges social workers to undertake a closer, more nuanced understanding of their perceived (and perhaps very real) grievances. It's definitely a reliable source but it doesn't do anything to undermine previous literature. It is due inclusion in the article but, on its own, is not due rewriting the lede.
2. Taking the Black Pill: An Empirical Analysis of the "Incel". I accessed via Wikipedia library so no direct link. It is also reliable, published in Psychology of Men & Masculinities in 2021. I think it is also due inclusion in the article. It discusses race and racism in the context of Inceldom as a white supremacist belief system which includes both white and non-white participants who feed into hegemonic white masculinity. It also does not do anything to contradict prior research.
3. This article was published in The Communication Review in 2025. It talks about race less than the prior two articles but does note On dating apps, research suggests that over 90% of non-Asian US women who state racial preferences reject Asian men (Robnett & Feliciano, Citation2011). Incel forums allowed him to connect with other Asian incels who had these experiences. Specific subgroups raised by participants included “the black manosphere,” “MRAsians,” “currycels,” and “ricecels.” Each had dedicated forums or Discords to discuss ways in which they have been discriminated against. This layered analysis can be superficially aligned with feminist intersectionality, though the underlying framework is incompatible This presents a weak opposition to prior research describing inceldom as supporting or upholding white supremacy through the presence of two non-white participants. However they were labeled P6 and P8 which implies a majority of participants were likely white.
4. Actually provides full demographics for its study participants saying, "participants were predominantly Asian (n = 9) and White (n = 8). Other participants described themselves as Hispanic (n = 2) and multiracial (n = 2)." and Asians were the majority in the sample over whites. However the sample sizes are minuscule. This particular study had 21 participants listed here. That is not a representative sample. This paper is, however, also a good find.

All in all I would say that @ILoveHirasawaYui did a very good job finding reliable sources. However none of these sources seem to support that we can say with certainty that incels are not "mostly white". I think it would definitely be a good idea to explore the complicated relationships with race these studies piece out in the article body though. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got "rewriting the lede" from. I don't wanna change the lede, I think it's pretty good as it is. But those studies warrant making the changes I made to the Demographics section, don't they? Number 4 literally says "Recent research suggests that common perceptions that Incels are almost all White are inaccurate", not based on its own sample but citing numbers 1 and 2 (and another article which I couldn't access). And I cited number 3 because it says that incels are "ethnically diverse", contrary to the sources currently cited in that section, which say that incels are "primarily white" or "young, frustrated white males".

Also, I didn't remove the sentence that said incels are mostly white, I just changed "most" to the more specific "55% of", because that's what the cited source says. Sure, 55% is technically most, but as it stands, the Demographics section says that incels are "predominantly" white, which isn't true, and cites older sources that are rebutted by these newer ones. 💖平沢唯を愛しています💖 (talk|contribs) 04:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, if we do add a section about non-white incels, should there be a sentence like "Among non-white incels, the acronym "JBW" (Just be white) is often touted to reflect the perceived advantages white men have in dating"? I can find many good sources on this. 💖平沢唯を愛しています💖 (talk|contribs) 08:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

It's been about a week with no response, so I think it's safe to just be bold and restore my edits now 💖平沢唯を愛しています💖 (talk|contribs) 03:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The blackpill should be its own seperate page, I'll make a draft for it but the user is right that its become much more broader, it encompasses looksmaxxing, superdeterminism, eugenics, and some of what he sourced of nihilist and doomer attitudes. This isn't talked about enough on red pill and blue pill and there's significant coverage on blackpill ideology recently for it to warrant its own page. Aradicus77 (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Working on the draft at Draft:Blackpilled (it's called that for now but I'll submit it for a move to Blackpill when it's finished. Aradicus77 (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@Aradicus77: Re: : As explained in the section I linked, As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, that's fine then. Thank you Aradicus77 (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)