Talk:Incel/Archive 4

There is no data or evidence cited or provided to support the statement that self-identified incels are “mostly white, male, and heterosexual.”

There probably are intuitive reasons to suspect that most incels are male and heterosexual. The listing of them as “white,” however, does not have such intuition unless you are racist against white people. Period.

If that statement is going to stand, then evidence supporting that statement should be provided. If that evidence is not available, then it is imperative to the integrity of Wikipedia that that statement be edited, revised, or simply removed.

Incels are a popular topic in our modern times and Wikipedia is a common resource for many people. Any false or unsupported statement smearing an entire race should not be tolerated by those with administrative control of Wikipedia pages.

Thank you and I will check back next week to see that this issue has been addressed to reflect the objective truth. Lanebriand37 (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless you (or someone else) can provide reliable sources that state the contrary to what the article does, you'll be disappointed when you "check back next week". --Jorm (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jorm: Thank you for the advice. Here's the first link I can offer from a closed Facebook group that I am a member of: ^[1]

From the article: "A lot of common knowledge on incels, especially in articles surfacing now, is incorrect. Incels are often mistaken for being alt-right but they are remarkably different and detest the label. Incels prefer to be NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training) and live off the welfare state (‘neetbux’)or their parents in order to LDAR (Lay Down and Rot). This is directly in contrast to the small government/individualism behind the alt-right. While the alt-right is often seen as a group for white men, many incels are of ethnic or non-white descent. Incels have been described to have come from the pick up artist community. That’s ridiculous.

Many incels believe that whites cannot be incels, as they are ‘naturally more attractive’ (not my words, calm down!). This runs opposite to the media narrative that is desperate for incels to be white men, in order to maximise public outrage towards a privileged, racist and misogynistic class. Incels are actually a racially diverse group. If someone were to highlight that a lot of the rage from the incel community comes their experiences with racism (girls don’t look at me because I am Indian/Asian/Ethnic etc.) they may inspire some kind of sympathy.

Incels tend to put whites on a pedestal, which appears to be why they are often said to be white supremacists. Racism in the incel community is rife, but this includes a lot of racism directed toward their own identity (often as a form of self hatred). This is as bizarre as it sounds. This was never going to be easy. The incels are a genuinely bizarre community."

There is your first piece of evidence to the contrary to what the article states about the quantitative demographics of incels.Lanebriand37 (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Medium is not a reliable source; it's a blog service. I appreciate you attempting to actually provide a source - no one else has - but it's not good (it's effectively self-published), and cannot be used. --Jorm (talk) 02:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lanebriand37: Please also read the conversations above and in the archives of this talk page where this has been discussed repeatedly. I'm not sure why you're claiming that that statement is uncited; there is a list of inline citations directly following. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: At the time I had a paywall blocking the WaPo article cited here^[2], which is really the only citation supporting the claim that most self-identified incels are white, in particular. I read the other four citations and could find no evidence of the majority race of incels. Since then, I have managed to access the WaPo article, which as far I can tell is the only citation offering the quantitative evidence to support the claim that most "self-identified incels" are "white."

The two pieces of evidence offered by the WaPo article are (1) a quote from an sociologist: “ 'Frustration with relationships and lack thereof are pretty common human experiences. What makes the incel culture different is that these are primarily heterosexual white men who are directing their anger in a misogynistic way towards women,' ” said Ross Haenfler, an associate professor of sociology at Grinnell College who studies subcultures and masculinity" ^[3] and

(2) a link to a 2001 Georgia Southern study ^[4] of 82 respondents (a very small sample) who self-identified as involuntarily celibate, 22 of which are women. The racial characteristics of the population of the 2001 Georgia Southern campus are not considered in the WaPo article--it's a small school in the Deep South, where most of the students on campus were white anyways ^[5], which would likely further bias this lonely sample of a much larger population (i.e. incels across the inter-connected globe). It's not clear to me if the racial composition of the Georgia Southern campus was even considered by the person conducting the original 2001 study. Furthermore, neither Reddit ^[6] nor 4chan ^[7] even existed at the time of this very isolated, very narrow study from 2001. This is literally the only empirical quantitative evidence offered in the article on Incels ^[8] I can find for the quantitative claim in the lede that "Self-identified incels are mostly white," in particular.

If better research and evidence for that quantitative claim can be offered, then please provide it. Otherwise, it's a racial inaccuracy about whites and incels with no evidence to back it up.

Additionally, given the contrarian opinions of possible experts on the subject of "incels" and (from what I can tell) incredibly weak quantitative evidence to support the claim of the demographics of self-identified incels as "mostly white, male, and heterosexual," it definitely seems like a statement that is, at a minimum, too controversial and on ground too shaky to belong in the lede to this article.

I sincerely hope this talk leads to a better Wikipedia page about "Incels."

Thank you, for welcoming me with kindness to the Wikipedia community. I hope I have not disappointed you with my initial contributions, GorillaWarfare Lanebriand37 (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lanebriand37: What about the HoustonPress article? wumbolo ^^^ 15:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Talbot, Michael (April 24, 2018). "'Incel Rebellion has already begun': Expert explains van suspect's cryptic Facebook post". CityNews. Retrieved May 28, 2018., which was trimmed out of the article as excessive citation overkill, also says incel has been "appropriated by groups of disaffected, young white males" and quotes University of Toronto sociology professor Judith Taylor as saying “It is mostly young white men between the ages of 19 and 30 [...] a population that is anticipating a particular kind of social standing that real life isn’t offering them and they are looking for things to blame.” Btw, I notice that most of the citations for that sentence in the article aren't used to cite anything else, so perhaps those could be combined into one ref tag, at which point the City News link could be readded without resulting in overmany blue superscript numbers. -sche (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I've now done that. -sche (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Also, at least to my mind, the bit about the...could we call it..."burden of expected privilege" of being white, straight, and male is the more interesting part of that. That a bit to think about. It's like...not toxic masculinity...but toxic emascul-inity. Meaning maybe if you're brown or gay or female or what have you, you're coached for some measure of marginalization and so maybe you're better prepared for it when you find it? GMG^talk 21:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

If you're coached to expect things, you will be disappointed/unhappy/angry and won't try to be better yourself. This goes for both men and women, and everyone. Asking for help is very welcome, as you already know, but one has to be careful not to tell people to behave like robots. wumbolo ^^^ 21:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, specifically, I was thinking about a discussion I had with one of my friends. He's black and his son is four, and he was talking about having to have "the talk" with him. And I was like "dude, your son is four. He's not having sex yet." But he was referring to "the talk" where you say "You're about to go to school for the first time, and you're black. So some people might treat you differently." I had never considered that that was "a talk" that...well...was so ingrained in the modern experience that for a father talking about his son, it was just "the talk". Whereas part of the shock of these guys was growing up with the expectation of privilege, and then kindof...assuming a social bias...probably because they've never met one. GMG^talk 22:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Got it and I agree with you. Expectations aren't bad; people should aim high and reasonably expect things from others and especially themselves. This way they get to know where the limits are and learn to stay below them. However, impossible expectations and thinking that the society owes one something can only set for disappointment. People are subjective so they can't know exactly when they are doing enough good, and instead of doing the best each time (but not too much; expectations are necessary), they stop attempting to have a balance and give up. We're not talking about people who have been attempting something for a long time, and failing every time. This is a small number of people. We're talking about people who believe they deserve something from the get-go, and are disappointed at the first stop – at young adulthood, when they should be getting their act together. As you said, people are very much shaped by what they have been told since they were young. I'm not saying you want people to be taught to be incapable; we agree that there should be a reasonable middle ground. If you paint one side of the fence and not the other, staying at the painted side of the fence forever will not help you. I assure you, very basic rules will help people. wumbolo ^^^ 23:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good solution! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo:I have read the Houston Press article. Again, that article offered ZERO quantitative evidence for the statement: "Self-identified incels are mostly white." Look guys, I think you guys are probably operating from the best of intentions, but that statement, without serious quantitative evidence to support it, is a blatantly racist smear against white people. I'm not going to question, in this talk, what was in the heart of the person who wrote that statement (with incredibly weak evidence) initially. But the issue has been raised, now. Please do the right thing and revise the article to reflect the truth of the knowledge/information regarding the demographics of incels (most of whom nobody ever sees in person due to the fact that they seem to be observed, mostly, in faceless online forums).Lanebriand37 (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Ping to Wopr, Lanebriand37, and for anyone else who doesn't yet have much experience editing Wikipedia:

Wikipedia deals with just about every controversial subject that exists. We have editors from across the planet, who hold almost every imaginable viewpoint on each issue. In order to make Wikipedia work we needed to create a set of policies (rules) so everyone can work together constructively. One of the main purposes of those rules is to shut down arguments which are unproductive, arguments which often lead to unending internet-debate. To oversimplify down to a single sentence, Wikipedia summarizes what Reliable Sources say. If your concern is that the article is not accurately summarizing what Reliable Sources say, then there is generally some Policy or Guideline which will back you up in getting the article fixed. On the other hand if your concern is that the Reliable Sources are wrong or biased, your arguments will not work here. We do not debate Truth. Articles do not contain Truth. Articles are a summary of what Reliable Sources say. To the extent that articles often resemble truth, that is only because a summary of Reliable Sources is (usually) a good approximation of truth.

Lanebriand37, demanding "quantitative evidence" is a waste of time. We do not debate whether evolution is true, we do not debate whether global warming is true, and we will not debate whether "self-identified incels are mostly white". If many sources on the subject do make that statement, we accurately report that sources say it.

Wopr, accusing editors of being biased or pushing a "political agenda" also will not work. If an editor sees Reliable Sources repeatedly presenting that point as significant, a responsible editor will accurately summarize it into the article regardless of their personal views.

When disputes arise, you'll find that experienced editors can be rather singleminded about Wikipedia accurately summarizing what Reliable Sources say, as defined in various policies and guidelines. Experienced editors can be almost brutal in ignoring and shutting down any arguments which are out out-of-scope of that narrow task. That approach may seem weird or radical, but if you work on a variety of articles you will discover that is is a valuable and necessary means of resolving other disputes. There don't seem to be any relevant facts in dispute here. Many Reliable Sources do make this statement. As other editors have already mentioned, about the only plausible argument you might have would be whether it is Undue Weight to include it in the Lead section. Even if you "won" that argument, the statement would still appear in some other section. Alsee (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a beautifully written response. While I have "thanked" Alsee with the thanks tool, I want to do so again in public so that my support for this is fully known. So, thanks!--Jorm (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

And of course my response was removed. And I got accused of racism at the same time. Apparently opposing the idea of inserting race-baiting into wikipedia articles is racism, somehow. Really classy. Others are free to write responses to me and tag me, and that isn't removed as "not a forum", but I am not allowed to respond to them. Of course. My responses are removed, and I'm pretty much unilaterally being censored here, and it already has gone into the racism accusations. And then you all still keep denying bias. I suppose the ban is just around the corner. Wopr (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jorm: I hope you don't mind I've re-added this—parts of it are definitely forum-y but some parts I think do merit a reply. @Wopr: Just letting you know I've restored your comment. Sorry for the weird placement; putting it somewhere else seemed equally confusing... GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

And who exactly decides which sources are "reliable" and which aren't? For example, the article uses the Southern Poverty Law Center as a source, even though it's infamously and obnoxiously politically biased. Nobody except the extreme left takes it seriously. And that's the problem: Just because an entity may have a nice official-sounding name and some recognition in the media, that somehow makes it "reliable", and any bias that the entity in question might have is happily ignored. The same problem happens with quite many big-name newspapers and news organizations, which are heavily politically biased (CNN and MSNBC being, perhaps, the most famous examples), and do not shy away from spinning, fabricating and distorting stories. But just because these organizations are huge, and have a lot of money and reach, they are conveniently considered "reliable". A "reliable source" seems to me any organization that's famous, and any political bias that organization may have is happily ignored.

Either way, I really can't understand why you refuse to acknowledge that saying "self-identified incels are mostly white" isn't a politically charged and provocative statement that seems to push a narrative. Do you think it would be proper to, for example, say something like "the majority of gun violence is perpetrated by black people" to the lede of the "Gun violence in the United States" article, no matter how factually accurate that sentence might be? Adding such a sentence there would be politically provocative, and one could justly question the motivation behind adding it there. Here, the race of so-called "incels" is even less relevant, and there's even less reason to explicitly state it in the article (much less in its lede). Explicitly stating it there only serves to push a certain political view to the reader. Wikipedia is being used as a political mouthpiece. There is a clear lack of neutrality. (And this isn't by far the only such article. There are outright character assassination articles of certain people in Wikipedia, where "undue weight" is used to the absolute maximum to destroy the reputation of certain people and movements. But that's not really something for this talk page in particular.)

And now I have to wonder: Will I be allowed to respond, or will also this response be quickly reverted using the "not a forum" excuse (even though the "not a forum" page explicitly states that discussion is allowed in the talk page of an article)? Wopr (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wopr: The SPLC's reliability as a source has been discussed several times at the reliable source noticeboard (see this and this or peruse the archives yourself. There is disagreement, but as far as I'm aware it has not been deemed unreliable. You are of course welcome to begin another discussion there if you wish.

As for the gun violence example, I would point out that picking other articles around which to base your points is not a particularly broadly accepted tactic on Wikipedia (see WP:OTHERCONTENT and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists). I'm not particularly interested in starting a discussion here about the content of Gun violence in the United States because this is not the venue for it, but to avoid seeming like I'm brushing it off: the gun violence article you mention does include demographic information in the lead (young, male, living in poor areas, members of gangs). I imagine that race is not included because it is both complex enough and controversial enough (among reliable sources, not just folks on talk pages) that it has an entire ~6,000-word article devoted to it: Race and crime in the United States. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Credit where credit is due: Thank you for restoring my response. (I know this isn't relevant to this discussion nor this article, but just wanted to acknowledge your action.) Wopr (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Be aggrieved or be constructive; if you're constructive, it stays, if you're aggrieved, it goes. Capische?--Jorm (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

So, which source do you think is more reliable, the SPLC, or The Washington Post? According to the latter, the SPLC has lost all credibility, as you can read here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html If even the mainstream media considers the SPLC a non-credible source, why does this Wikipedia article consider it reliable? Would it hurt this article quite a lot if controversial sources were left out? Or is there an agenda being pushed here, and the SPLC is just the perfect "reliable source" for that? (This is exactly the kind of "faux neutrality" in Wikipedia I wrote about elsewhere.) Wopr (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

That is an opinion of the author, Marc Thiessen, not of the Washington Post. --GRuban (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wopr: If you feel that the SPLC on the whole is an unreliable source, that's a discussion better had at WP:RSN. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alsee:Two questions:

(1) If Reliable Sources state conflicting information what is the policy for addressing the conflicting information? (2) Is this article as much of a Reliable Source as those quoting supposedly expert opinion on the demographics of incels?

It sounds to me that Wikipedia, and I didn't know this so thank you for educating me, is not a reliable source of truth. Moreover, it seems that reliance on an ever-dwindling set of Reliable Sources as political tribalism infects the publications which have traditionally been considered Reliable Sources may have had a downstream effect on Wikipedia. That's unfortunate and I apologize if addressing this has caused undue hard feelings. For what it's worth, I think GorillaWarfare was very courteous to me as a newcomer to this setting. It seems to me that the Wikipedia editor responsible for that statement may have been an innocent victim of a deeper problem with reliability in sources as misinformation has arisen just as much, and sometimes more so, in the Information Age. The poor editor may not be the only one who's been mislead by such phenomena of misinformation.

I was asked when questioning the accuracy/legitimacy of that particular sentence in a separate forum if I changed the Wikipedia article because when you raise an issue where you can clearly do something about it, then you are expected to do so. To do otherwise is to identify a problem and not attempt a solution when some path to a solution clearly exists. And that's not really helpful to anyone.

I'm interested in Truth, not content generated by institutionally-defined Reliable Sources. Therefore, I'll show myself out as this is not the place for me. Thank you again, however, for the education and the courteous treatment of me in what is likely to be my one and only foray into the world of Wikipedia editing. Crossing it off the bucket list.Lanebriand37 (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. You may, however, want to address the two questions for others who are confused about the validity or definition of a Reliable Source. After reading that sectionReliable Sources, it is very difficult for me to ascertain whether any of the sources claiming "Self-identified incels are mostly white" are reliable, with the exception of the Georgia Southern study linked within the WaPo articleLanebriand37 (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lanebriand37: 1) Typically when reliable sources are in conflict, that conflict is discussed in the article (for example "Some [reporters|researchers|sociologists] such as foo and bar say a, b, c; others such as baz say x, y, z.") 2) No, Medium articles are not reliable sources (see WP:SPS for the relevant portion of policy explaining why). As for the sources currently used, they are reliable because they are "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Overview). Thanks for joining us on Wikipedia, albeit briefly! GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

(I wrote this before GorillaWarfare's post above, and it basically expands on the same points.) Lanebriand37, we attempt to report all significant views in rough proportion to their presence and weight in the sources (Neutral Point of View) and Due weight). An even split should be covered approximately evenly. When there is an uneven split the predominate view should be covered as the predominate view, with roughly proportional coverage of significant other viewpoints. An alternate view with minimal-or-zero weight in Reliable Sources is considered Fringe, fringe viewpoints generally warrant little or no coverage. For example the Earth article has a single sentence mentioning Flat Earth. Flat Earth is only mentioned for the noteworthy historical significance. It doesn't even mention fringe modern-day proponents.

Regarding Medium.com: As I understand it, Medium.com is basically a high-class blogging platform. Virtually anyone could write virtually anything there, with little or no responsible oversight. That falls under Self Published Source. Self published content is (usually) not considered Reliable.

Regarding what we do consider to be Reliable: In general, newspapers are almost the defining example of a Reliable Source. Newspapers generally apply professional standards in who they hire to write articles, those articles are generally subject to professional editorial review before being published, they generally have lawyers or legal expertise guiding their publishing practice, in many cases they issue corrections for significant factual errors, they generally have a reputation for responsible fact checking. Newspapers aren't perfect, but they have a reputation for being a generally reliable source for information. Note that newspapers generally don't apply the same standards of oversight on opinion pieces. There are tighter rules on where and how opinion pieces can be cited. They are usually not considered Reliable for factual claims.

Regarding your plan to leave Wikipedia: I invite you to give it a second thought. I think you'll find that our approach works really well in general, even if you are unhappy with the exact case here. I also think you might do well here. We don't expect new editors to know how Wikipedia works. New editors often bump into unusual or surprising aspects of how Wikipedia's works. You raised reasonable concerns in a constructive manner. You took a positive interest in understanding our policys&guidelines. You appear to understand the logic behind it, and you appear to respect the result - even if you are unhappy with this exact case. And guess what? Those are exactly the qualities of a successful new editor! What we do is important, and overall it works amazingly well. Most topics aren't controversial. Where controversy does arise we (mostly) manage the near-impossible task of bringing opposing viewpoints together on a result which is acceptable (or at least tolerable) to both sides. Alsee (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The "white" part is incorrect. It should be "Self-identified incels are mostly male and heterosexual." or delete that sentence entirely if we can't find any accurate, logical sources without anti-white smearing. I don't care what the sources say, because the sources are wrong. One only needs to take one look at an incel community on Reddit to see the racial diversity. Lots of them claim to be incel because of being non-white. 70.119.115.82 (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you find a source disproving the mentioned sentence? The Optimistic One (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

A survey from their own primary website: https://incels.me/threads/incels-me-survey-results.43597/#lg=_xfUid-1-1531011579&slide=0 Only 52.8% white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.192.32 (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Given they've said they don't care what the sources say, I doubt it. I will point out, though, that I don't believe {{ping}} works for IP editors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

This NPR article (reputable news source) specifically says that incels are of all ethnicitys, not just white. "However ... when it comes to incels specifically, they're not just limited to young white men — there are men of all ethnicities who are involved in this subculture." That directly contradict the other sources claiming that incels are just a movement of just white males, like the article is claiming right now. Which is incorrect. https://www.npr.org/2018/04/29/606773813/whats-an-incel-the-online-community-behind-the-toronto-van-attack 68.34.237.103 (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

You precisely omitted the subsequent sentence: But at least for a good number of them, these more misogynistic movements can often be an entry point into the more racialized or anti-Semitic branches of the alt-right. "good number of them" seems to imply a majority. wumbolo ^^^ 13:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

This article does not claim that incels are "just white males", it says they are mostly white. No one is trying to say that there aren't incels of all ethnicities. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

70.119.115.82: Alsee made a wonderfully-written point just above this section that you might do well to read. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you should start caring what the sources say. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Amin and Jorm: Preemptively starting a discussion here even though I wasn't involved in the reverting. Amin is right that uncited content is not usually a candidate for reinstatement based on BRD, but the statement is supported by sources in the Incel#Mass murders section. The cites could be moved up, but I will say I've been somewhat concerned about it being in the lead to begin with. It doesn't really strike me as a lead-worthy statement (which I mentioned in a previous discussion), and since the number seems to have been determined by summing the deaths from the mass murders section, I'm worried about WP:SYNTH. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Also pinging Vranak who I believe made the addition. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I appreciate your reasonable assessment of the situation. Thanks for weighing in.

If the bit is both referenced, and is not 'original research', than obviously it can be included in the article. I too have concerns about the death number being that high up in the lead. What if incels are on average much less violent compared to the general population? It would then be misleading (undue weight) to put that frightening number so high up in the intro. Amin (Talk) 23:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems fairly obvious to me that the only reason the general public care one whit about incels lately is that they've been committing so many mass murders. I thought it would be relevant just to summate the collective results of their rage. And I think that fright is an appropriate response to this figure. I mean that's the whole point of lashing out like this, to show to the world how serious they are. And is doing simple addition really synthesis? Is it reaching a conclusion that is not in the source? No, it's just basic math. It's stating the facts as we know them. Vranak (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

>the only reason the general public care one whit about incels lately is that they've been committing so many mass murders

@Vranak: They do? Compared to who exactly? And which method did you use to calculate the percentage of involuntary celibate men? Amin (Talk) 01:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amin: In fairness, I think Vranak is correct that the mass murders committed by incels since ~2014 is the primary reason they've received so much news coverage—just look at how many of the sources in this article mention the killings, or do your own survey of reliable sources and see how many do. Given that, it is not at all undue to mention incels and murders in the lead. There is no statement being made that incels commit more mass murders than some other population of people, which seems to be what you're trying to have Vranak prove with your questioning here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: What about African Americans? In some areas, the news coverage on them is often related to violence and shootings. By your logic, perhaps we should add their total number of deaths in their article's intro as well? Amin (Talk) 02:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This is such an incredibly poor (and mildly racist) straw-man argument that you should be embarrassed for yourself.--Jorm (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Weird, that's now two people in two weeks arguing that incels don't kill people, black people do... Feel free to read my reply in that conversation—saves some bytes in me copying it verbatim here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that black people kill. I'm just using your logic and applying it elsewhere, to show that your logic is flawed. I find it interesting that no counter-argument is presented, and that I am instead attacked ("mildly racist", "you should be embarrassed for yourself") and given homework ("Feel free to read my reply in that conversation"). Why not summarize your counter-argument? Amin (Talk) 07:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully reading it here isn't too much "homework"...: As for the gun violence example, I would point out that picking other articles around which to base your points is not a particularly broadly accepted tactic on Wikipedia (see WP:OTHERCONTENT and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists). I'm not particularly interested in starting a discussion here about the content of Gun violence in the United States because this is not the venue for it, but to avoid seeming like I'm brushing it off: the gun violence article you mention does include demographic information in the lead (young, male, living in poor areas, members of gangs). I imagine that race is not included because it is both complex enough and controversial enough (among reliable sources, not just folks on talk pages) that it has an entire ~6,000-word article devoted to it: Race and crime in the United States. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I read your (largely copy/pasted) reply, and I still don't see any arguments to include the total death-count of people who "may" have been incels in this article. I also did not find an argument for why such a death-count should be included here, while excluded elsewhere like in the African-American article. It comes across as if you're maintaining a double-standard. Maybe I am missing something here? I'm open to be enlightened. Amin (Talk) 03:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Entirely copy/pasted, not largely copy/pasted. Since you didn't want to scroll up and read the reply when I mentioned it, I pasted it here for your convenience. You also evidently haven't read the rest of this discussion, where I have expressed concerns with the death count being included in the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Would you like to summarize your argument for this double-standard? Since, you favour inclusion of death-count when it comes to incels, but go by a different standard for African-Americans.. Thank you. Amin (Talk) 07:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amin: I am really trying to not make you out to be a fool, but good god please just read this section even if you're unwilling to read the others on this talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: There are loads of texts on this page. How would I know where exactly to begin, and where to end? In the time it takes to craft a 280 character tweet, you could have summarized your main counter-argument, and saved us both some time. That would be the more reasonable thing to do, instead of outsourcing the work to me.

"I am really trying to not make you out to be a fool, but.."... Then why bring it up? You're insulting me by dy denial. That's unnecessary.

Amin (Talk) 08:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I linked you to the section, all you had to do was scroll (or ctrl-f if needed). As for why I brought up the "fool" thing, it's because it appears you're replying but have not even read the post I made beginning this section of conversation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I did read it, and I just read your link as well. It did not contain justification for your double-standard to include death-count here, while excluding it elsewhere. I'm getting the feeling that you're happy to reply with anything, except for your actual justification to maintain this double-standard. Amin (Talk) 14:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I've asked you to actually read my comments because I am not arguing for the death count to be included. In the first post in this section you'll see I have expressed concerns with it being included. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I acknowledge that, but I think your reasoning is nonetheless wrong. Your own words: "it is not at all undue to mention incels and murders in the lead." and your basis for this was media coverage on violence and shootings. So your double-standard remains unexplained. It's important to hold users accountable for their words in order to keep them sharpAmin (Talk) 04:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to keep this brief, since as I've said above, this is really not the place to argue the content of other articles. When evaluating reliable sources on the subject of African American people in general, discussion of violence is not predominant. It would be WP:UNDUE to include that in the lead, and there are multiple separate articles (Race and crime, Race and crime in the United States, Race in the United States criminal justice system...) devoted to that particular discussion. In contrast, when evaluating reliable sources on incels, violence is mentioned heavily. If you feel that violence is not mentioned sufficiently often in reliable sources and as such is undue to include in the lead, we can discuss that, but if you're concerned with the content of African Americans or other articles you should take that discussion to their talk pages. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Vranak: My concern is more that providing that number implies that it's a fairly accurate estimation. A third-party reliable source making that estimate would presumably try to find all instances of mass killings that have been committed by people who may be considered incels, and create an estimate from there. Your number is just summing the instances that have been mentioned in this article, which is not a particularly complete listing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• (came here through Teahouse notification by Amin) I also doubt that sentence is lead-worthy. It may be lead-worthy to mention mass murders, because that's what drives news coverage, but not in this manner; for instance incels have been involved in a number of highly publicized mass murder cases or any variation of that would be fine with me (and leave it to article body to describe said cases).

While the current sentence seems NPOV on its face, I would argue it is not when placed in the lead, because it will trigger an emotional response in the reader. I would say the same about any sentence of the form Group X has been involved in Y crimes of type Z in the last year (because any number Y and choice of Z among serious offenses would elicit the emotional response "group X is dangerous", regardless of whether that particular criminality rate is actually higher or lower than that of the general population, whether other sociological factors offer a better correlation, etc.). I would argue the same about the lead of any article "Group X", be it Afro-American gun violence in the US, Romani theft in Europe, French expat rape in Sweden or whatever.

I am not that much worried about SYNTH though, since the body count is quite simple arithmetic. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Revised sentence in lede to remove the "may be considered", as the Mass murders section provides support for the connections. Also took out the "45" but agree that the number is factually correct and also supported by the cited literature. David notMD (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to have this text added to the article please:

In Norway, cand.psychol. Rolf Lindgren has suggested that 22 July terrorist Anders Behring Breivik was an incel.^[1]

Thanks. Collect data (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Collect data: a newspaper which called circumcision barbaric is not a peer reviewed journal which we can use for psychological assessment. wumbolo ^^^ 14:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: I'd say it's not a psychological assessment we're dealing with but (qualified) partaking in the public and professional discourse following 22 July. Also, inceldom's not a diagnosis. According to Anders Behring Breivik#References, it's stated that Breivik's lack of female attention fuelled his hatred against feminism, capitalism, and Muslims. But unlike incidents like the 2014 Isla Vista killings and the 2018 Toronto van attack, Breivik didn't target women specifically but the Labour Party as "profeminist". Nor did he explicitly use the term "incel" (perhaps because he was too old or too proud). But addressing incel-motivated violence cannot reasonably be subject to either incels' self-idenficiation or the nonexisting diagnosis "inceldom". Collect data (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem is, that as far as I understand, this article is about "the group" not about "the state of being". The SPLC does list him as a male supremacist, but Incels are a sub-group of that. You can be a white supremacist without being specifically a neo-Nazi. You can be a radical anti-capitalist, but you might also be an anarchist or a communist. And if you are a communist you may or may not also be a Stalinist or a Maoist. But being a part of that larger group doesn't necessarily mean you are part of any of the smaller groups. GMG^talk 16:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: You're right, Breivik was an incel but not part of the incel community. Perhaps if he were 15 years younger he'd be one. I'll leave it to others to decide the scope of this article and whether "solitary incels" and incels identified by WP:3PARTY should be admitted to this article alongside "group-based incels" and self-identified ones. Thanks to both of you. Collect data (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, in a way it's almost an anachronism, even if it is only a few weeks or months off. I mean, you could say that William Tecumseh Sherman was a white supremacist. If he lived today that would be an understatement, since he openly advocated policies that were much more extreme than the "mainstream" of extremists advocate today. But it doesn't really work, because that view at the time wasn't "white supremacy" it was a qualitatively different position in a qualitatively different time. GMG^talk 21:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with GreenMeansGo on this one, I think. There have been a fair number of incidents of mass violence based in antifeminism and hatred against women (École Polytechnique massacre comes to mind) but I don't think they should be included unless there is a stronger connection to the incel communities—either an indication that the perpetrator was active in these communities, or as in the case of the Las Vegas shooting, if there is reliable coverage of how incel communities have discussed the incidents. Google turns up one reliable source but it mentions Breivik only offhand in a list of other incidents. Other results show some discussion of Breivik in various incel forums, but there is little to no coverage of this in reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

This is assuming all acts of anti-feminist and misogynist violence are incel. Incel violence is incel violence. An easy way to tell if a historical mass shooter is incel if they describe themselves as involuntarily celibate in a public statement before the killings and news sources (especially if they aren't op-eds) reference is as a motivation. The incel forums reference almost all recent notable mysoginist killings. The difference is if the shooter wrote in a public statement beforehand that they (by their own description, regardless if you think incel is a valid thing or not) couldn't have sex but wanted to and it was clear to at least reputable sources that this was a primary or perhaps only motivation. Willwill0415 (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Willwill0415: I think you're misreading what I said—I am saying that incidents of mass violence based in antifeminism and hatred against women should not be included in the article unless there's some connection to involuntary celibacy. I think we are on the same side on this point; I agree completely that anti-feminist/misogynist violence is not necessarily incel violence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

In all the op-eds mentioning Rodger self-identified as incel, they seemed to mean he self-identified as involuntarily celibate, much in the same way Sodini did in his blog posts. In that neither of them used the actual exact term, 'incel', to describe themselves. Can anyone find a part in the manifesto or vlogs or forums posts or trusted sources that actually have any evidence for this? Also, if it's determined that no such evidence is needed, then there is undue weight on Rodger over Sodini Willwill0415 (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Willwill0415: When you mention "op-eds" referring to Rodger as a self-identified incel, are you talking about sources used in this page? Op-eds should typically not be used as sources, so I'm concerned if any snuck in. This is assuming you mean opinion pieces without editorial review; we might be using the term differently.

The relevant sources supporting Rodger being a self-identified incel are (emphasis mine):

1. The Politico article, "How ‘Incel’ Got Hijacked", which says: In the post, now deleted, Alek Minassian announced that “the Incel Rebellion has already begun,” and praised another self-identified incel: Elliot Rodger, who killed six and wounded 13 in a shooting spree in Isla Vista, California, in 2014. Minassian, like Rodger, seemed to blame his violent act on sexual rejection by women, linking himself to a misogynistic culture of “incels,” all male, that has sprung up online. On message boards and in chat rooms, aggrieved men have worn the “incel” badge to justify a sense of victimhood at the hands of women who they feel have spurned them. This is clearly discussing Rodger in the context of the online incel communities, not the more general idea of involuntary celibacy.
2. The Washington Post article, "Inside the ‘manosphere’ that inspired Santa Barbara shooter Elliot Rodger", which says: There [on PUAHate], and on other forums, Rodger identified as an “incel, or “involuntary celibate” — a virgin who couldn’t get girls, even after taking “the red pill.” (This explains fairly clearly how they reached that conclusion, and is clearly referring to the internet communities and not the general idea.)

Two reputable sources explicitly mention that he self-identified as an incel (specifically mentioning the online communities); many others describe him unequivocally as an incel without going into detail about whether he embraced the term or not. I think that's quite sufficient; it's our job to represent what the reliable, third-party sources say, not to try to dig into primary sources and make our own evaluations. But given that, according to the New York Times article, On PUAhate, a site that was taken down after the murders, Mr. Rodger expressed his disgust at women, questioning how they could resist his charms. He would urge other “incels” — or involuntary celibates — to fight back. “One day incels will realize their true strength and numbers, and will overthrow this oppressive feminist system,” he wrote. “Start envisioning a world where WOMEN FEAR YOU.”, it doesn't seem the primary sources suggest otherwise.

If hypothetically Rodger didn't self-identify as incel, I think it still makes sense to mention him more than Sodini; he is frequently referenced in reliable sources discussing incels, whereas Sodini appears much less often. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

that's the only spot in hundreds of blog posts that I know of that he even uses the word 'incel', nowhere does he label himself an incel in any explicit way. Same with Sodini. My point isn't that Rodger wasn't an incel, of course he was. My point is that there is undue weight on Rodger over Sodini with this article being made almost entirely from Minassian attack inspired pieces. Also, PUAhate.com was an anti-pickup artist board, sluthate.com was an anti-feminist board, lookism.net is a looks theory board. They are referred to in the manosphere as abbreviated: 'PSL'. None of them were or are specifically geared towards incels. That's another thing those Minassian freak-out 'news pieces' got wrong. Willwill0415 (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, this article needs to reflect what the reliable sources say. You're free to do your own analysis of Rodger's blog posts, but unless you publish it somewhere where it will be considered a reliable source (or find an existing reliable source that says what you're saying), it's not going to change the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

So the article says they (incels)　are pissed because　they　cannot　produce　children，　or are frustrated with the opposite sex because of prevalence of superficial pleasures of the flesh as opposed to productive love-making. So, this should be noted in the header.\ skindeep scratch meaow58.158.57.146 (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

This article doesn't say either of those things. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The Journal of Sexology / Georgia State U. research is a reputable source, adding it back in for a second time today, don't like being bullied about it not being a reputable source Willwill0415 (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Even if it's reputable, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I see little value here for this 2001 WP:PRIMARY source about a small-scale study with a non-random sample population. The study is about involuntary celibacy as a broad, simple concept. This article is not about that, it is about the "online subculture" of incels. The source touches on online activity, but only barely. Using this obscure 2001 work to make generalizations about all incels in 2018 is a misrepresentation of this source, and is sloppy scholarship, also. There are plenty more problems with this content, as well. Grayfell (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

This wiki article covers historical matters and forums, that this research references an old forum isn't a bad unless you think the nature of involuntary adult virginity/celibacy has changed since 2001 and we should just remove all mentions of old forums and historical matters. It's the only professional study I know of the online subculture of involuntary celibates, nearly every other source in the Wiki piece as of July 10th is opinion pieces after the Minassian attack. Involuntary celibacy isn't a widely studied phenomena or subculture and there is almost no way for those write-an-opinion-piece-in-24-hours authors to form unbiased opinions of a subculture, they often just head to this wiki page. Willwill0415 (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Willwill0415: To be quite clear, being asked to take your suggested changes to the talk page after they were reverted is not bullying; it is a fundamental way that Wikipedia is developed. Continuing to re-add the changes without achieving consensus is edit warring. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It's been taken to the talk page by me and other people millions of time, when people revert our additions, no one goes to the talk page, you and 2-3 other people have a monopoly even on additions without subtractions, and have an obviously biased way of editing that is obsessed with the Minassian inspired opinion pieces Willwill0415 (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not a vote. It's not "okay, I talked about it, time to put it in." If your source is bad, your source is bad, and it won't get in no matter how many times you bring it up here.--Jorm (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Every time I bring up the source here the response is that Gilmartin (fringe) referenced in a Washington Post opinion piece is a better source. And I don't even care if that is still being used or not, I'm just trying to add something informative and relevant that others agree is informative and relevant. I'd say the same to you, no matter how many times you bring it up here, that doesn't make this study a bad source, especially relative to the stuff already in here. Jorm, you edit based on not liking something in this article, not whether or not it's a valid source or informative or whatever. When someone brought that up to you on your talk page, you said you have a clear pro-PUA-'game', anti-incel-as-a-valid-term, and even anti-adult-virgin bias, as you stated in your talk page, "As to my opinions about "incels": I don't think that anyone is "involuntarily celibate". It's a stupid term made up to allow dudes who have no interest in developing any game to foist the blame for their failures onto other people. I normally wouldn't give a shit, but it so happens that the echo chamber they created allows for the worst parts of our world to fester so what would normally be considered a bunch of whiny misogynists have become murderous misogynists. And I won't let them whitewash that away." I'm not here to argue about that quote on your talk page, but just using it to point out where you are coming from. And it has nothing to do with 'valid sources' or whatever. Willwill0415 (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

If every time you bring it up here it's being dismissed as a poor source or you're getting responses like Grayfell's (quite valid) concern above, why do you keep re-adding it? Also, you keep claiming that some of the sources in this page are unreliable, can you be more specific so it can be addressed? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I never said there aren't other people that don't like the source, I wasn't anywhere near the first person to add it or talk about it positively. Yea, I already did on the old article, and you were always the one who responded. And actually the source IS in the article (not sure is Jorm knows this), but through Dewey-Rainwater, a former food blogger for the Wa. Post who wildly misread the study. Someone added better sourced stuff above the problem sentence in the last couple month, so the mental health section is mostly properly sourced now. This sentence, "These researchers found that involuntary celibacy was often correlated with depression, neuroticism, anxiety, and autism" isn't in the Georgia U. Study. Dewey-Rainwater's article is pretty unbiased relative to the other sources, but that sentence contains stuff that wasn't in the Georgia U. study.Willwill0415 (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Right, but the source's use has been challenged and you're continuing to add it instead of discussing.

What do you mean by "the old article"?

Why do you keep referring to Dewey as a "former food blogger"? I waited tables eight years ago, but when I'm doing my work people don't tend to go "welcome to our set of talks on JavaScript and web programming, our first speaker will be Molly White, a former waitress." It seems like you're trying to discredit her because she writes about food policy, but from what I can tell she's an extremely accomplished journalist.

As for your point on the sentence about correlation with mental and developmental disorders, I'm not sure I'm following—can you explain what you mean? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Caitlin Dewey-Rainwater is currently a food reporter, not a blogger. She used to be an Internet reporter (when she wrote the article). Her current area of expertise has no impact on the reliability of her previous works. The line about correlation is sourced to one of these articles. The relevant paragraph cites two sources as support, one of which is the GSU one. This conclusion is also supported and contextualized by the rest of the article, and nothing so far has demonstrated that she "wildly misread" anything. It is, perhaps, an imperfect summary of a complex issue, but this is typical of science journalism. Grayfell (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Nothing in the George U. Study that Rainwater writes about mentions autism. Forget about what I said about Rainwater, that was out of line for me. Would rather focus on the Georgia U. Study, which is the same as the sexology journal study. We are dismissing the Georgia U. Study on the grounds of it being from 2001 and a poor sample size, but we also including it through Dewey's citation of it in her remarks about autism etc (autism isn't even mentioned in the study). We should either get rid of that sentence or stop using claims about the study being bad whenever me or someone else cites it Willwill0415 (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Managed to get a copy of the full Donnelly article. You're right that it doesn't mention autism; it's weird that Dewey does. I think you're right that it makes sense to remove claims it sourced to it (or in other sources but attributed to the study); it's 17 years old and the sample size is poor, so we should probably avoid using it to describe incels on the whole. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

What happened to the old "love-shy" article? It was a lot more informative than this one. It seems bizarre that that term redirects here, seeing as "Incels" are a newly-coined, if not newly-emerging, fad. 2001:8003:184F:6800:355A:CAD9:BB21:9AF9 (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love-shyness (2nd nomination) GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

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

The statement that incels are mostly white is not supported by any sources listed. Polls on incel communities such as from incels.me and reddit.com/r/braincels show that incels are vary diverse with whites representing 30-50% of the incel community, which is under represented by the demographics of the site the communities are based in. 198.103.221.51 (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. wumbolo ^^^ 20:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Please also check out the multiple conversations about this in the archives of this talk page. If you are not clear on why incels.me and /r/braincels aren't usable as sources, see the policy on reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I've had an additional thought on the incels.me poll that is often mentioned here by folks who want to use it as a source to support a different characterization of racial demographics among incel communities. As myself and others have pointed out repeatedly on this talk page, it is not a reliable source and won't be used in the article, but I know some folks here are unhappy with that and, despite the reliable sourcing policy, feel it is more reliable than some of the media articles being cited. I wonder if this argument might resonate a little more with those of you who feel that the RS policy is deeply flawed and are trying to get the poll included despite it:

I've noticed that there is currently a pinned thread by an admin on the incels.me forum titled "No more Ratings Megathread.", which says (in part) Regarding the megathread: * Many people register here only to get rated and attention-whore. These people rarely look 'bad'. * Gives the impression that "most incels are good-looking". There are also recurring mentions of "(May|June|July)cels"—people who joined the forum after the Toronto attack, many of whom are suspected of being "infiltrators" and not "real" incels. I've also seen a fair number of posts there expressing concern that women have registered accounts under false pretenses (women are expressly forbidden from having accounts on the website, and are "Banned on sight, no exceptions." according to the site rules), or that people from the /r/IncelTears subreddit are opening threads in an attempt to bait incels into saying something they can then post on their subreddit (which is a subreddit in which incel content is reposted and ridiculed, and which describes itself as "part-mocking, part-watchdog").

Given that it appears that the incels.me community feels that there is a non-incel portion of its userbase that is sufficiently large enough to cause concern, why should the demographics poll be assumed to be accurate? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I understood you and thanked your new edit, but your adding the word non-incel (in case somebody else did not understand) was a good move on your part. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I made an edit to the lexicon section of this page about the man the incel community refers to as 'St. BlackOps2Cel', who appears to be viewed and adopted within that community as a sort of mascot, and a very big part of the 'culture' of the community (hence his inclusion in the banner of the /r/Braincels forum). I cited a news article specifically discussing 'St. Blackops2Cel', the origin of the image and how he is venerated in the incel community as a mascot, as the 'pinnacle' of incel traits, and a pseudo-religious figure. Whilst 'St. Blackops2Cel' isn't worthy of an article on its own, I think there is definitely a place for it within the Incel article given how strongly the image has influenced incel culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snorets (talk • contribs) 04:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any more reliable sources about him? Your edit summary when you added that paragraph was St. BlackOps2Cel seems to be a major part of the incel 'culture' and seems to be their unofficial mascot, he appears in the banner of the /r/braincels reddit forum, the main forum for incels., but without some more reliable sources that appears to be your opinion of his prominence in incel subcultures, not those of reliable sources. I'm not sure how reliable Mel Magazine is (never heard of it before) so I'd rather there be more sources before this person is given that kind of prominence in this article. Especially given that this person seems to be a living person who may or may not identify as an incel and may or may not have consented to his image being used as the "face of inceldom" or whatever. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

"St. BlackOps2Cel" was also mentioned on a Vice article (which contains a link to the Mel Magazine article for further information on him) about various terms used in the incel community, referring to the man in the image having been "adopted as the "patron saint" of inceldom" ^[1]. His face also appears in what appears to be pseudo-religious iconography on the banner of the most popular incel forum, /r/Braincels ^[2]. In addition, whilst this is probably not the most reliable source (however I have seen it cited on other articles about Internet culture), "St. BlackOps2Cel" has an entry on the Know Your Meme database. ^[3]. I'm aware that this man may not identify with the incel community (or be aware of his 'fame'), however that particular image of him is strongly associated with the incel community and forums like /r/Braincels, hence why I believe it is relevant for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snorets (talk • contribs) 10:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The Vice article is a two-sentence mention, your observations that his photo has been included in the /r/braincels banner are not sufficient to argue for his inclusion in this page, and you're correct that Know Your Meme is not a reliable source (WP:User-generated content). Given the potential for BLP issues here, you're going to need better sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Although at least one source calls him an incel, I'm not sure whether he was part of the online subculture. Thylacoop5 (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Never heard of him before. They don't talk about him, but yea he was an incel as far as I can tell https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/teenager-ben-moynihan-sentenced-to-21-years-for-attempted-murder-of-three-women-because-he-could-not-10091277.html 2600:8806:0:EA:80B4:B814:7F97:17B7 (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Eh. Just because Category A = violent losers, and Person X = violent loser doesn't necessarily mean Person X = Category A. Most of the sources I see explicitly labeling him a member of the incels appear to be exceptionally low quality, almost entirely forums and blogs. GMG^talk 17:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

"violent loser" does not necessarily = incel but, <not losing virginity despite wanting to == incel, and therefore killing people because of your own words cited by major media you couldn't have sex but wanted to definitely == incel "Teenager Ben Moynihan sentenced to 21 years for attempted murder of three women because he could not lose his virginity" "I am still a virgin, everyone is losing it before me, that's why you are my chosen target. I just can't live in this flat, I have no future here. So women, tell me how we should do this." If you think that including everyone who has been in the news for killing people for not being able to have sex with anyone would include too many people, you overestimate how often that has been in the news, and have an agenda that shapes who should be included. Willwill0415 (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the online subculture; do we have any evidence he was involved in that? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like he shares many beliefs with incels, but unless reliable sources say he's self-identified as an incel or discuss him at length in the context of the incel subculture, it's probably best not to include him. I'm starting to wonder if there needs to be another article about mass murders motivated by misogyny/anti-feminism, since there are a fair number of them that have gotten significant coverage but aren't appropriate to mention in this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Something like Gendercide? We have Androcide (Category:Massacres of men) and Femicide (Category:Massacres of women; this one including sexual terrorism, both intentional killings widely around the globe and deaths as a result of FGM for example, and many policy proposals like es:Ciudad Mujer). A lot of violence against women is specifically against lesbian women, e.g. Corrective rape; I'm surprised there's none of that here at incels. wumbolo ^^^ 14:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps Male supremacism could be written rather than redirected to Patriarchy. One is clearly a much broader term than the other. GMG^talk 15:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Androcentrism? wumbolo ^^^ 16:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Umm...not really. No more than white supremacy is synonymous with ethnocentrism. Androcentrism is the broader term, but would presumably normally include things like archaic or passive discrimination (compare "the male" as the ubiquitous pronoun in many legal documents, or a broad preference for male lead characters in works of fiction, etc.), institutional discrimination broadly, and also things like benevolent sexism. Whereas male supremacy would be a particularly virulent form of androcentrism, where the category tree would most likely go androcentrism -> male supremacy -> incel. Similar to ethnocentrism, white supremacy -> Ku Klux Klan. GMG^talk 16:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'm thinking more of a topic about killings that are motivated by hatred of women and/or feminism, rather than specifically killings targeting women. This was the motive in the Isla Vista killings and the suspected motive in the Toronto attack, but the victims of the attacks were not exclusively women. Anyway, this is veering a bit off-topic for this page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

How is "the intentional killing of females (women or girls) because they are females" not motivated by hatred of women? wumbolo ^^^ 08:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, someone like Gary Ridgway targeted women mostly because they were vulnerable (runaways and sex workers). GMG^talk 10:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Ben Moyihan targeted women because he couldn't lose his virginity per trusted sources, nothing to do necessarily with anti-feminism or male supremacy etc, that'd be an editorial decision on the part of editors here to decide that 2600:8806:0:EA:3835:1203:CD7C:158B (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, "this is veering a bit off-topic for this page". It seems like everyone here is in agreement that Moyihan shouldn't be included in the incel article. My comment about creating another page was more of an offhand one than an attempt to start discussion here about a potential new article, and I haven't done much research on who or what that hypothetical page would even cover yet. Happy to talk more about that hypothetical page in a more appropriate venue (such as my talk page) but I don't want to distract from discussion about this article on this talk page by going into it more here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: Oh, that's not what I was trying to say. I'm saying that there are two distinct topics: mass killings of women, and mass killings motivated by the hatred of women and/or antifeminism. There is considerable overlap between the two, but my point was more that there are also mass killings of women not motivated by hatred of women, and there are also mass killings motivated by the hatred of women/antifeminism with victims that were not exclusively women. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Beast? I think the Nikolas Cruz connection is exaggerated and relies on unreliable sources such as the Daily Beast and Babe.net to justify its inclusion.

Also, in reference to "Several hours before the shooting, someone suspected to be Harper-Mercer posted a threat to a Pacific Northwest college to a 4chan board, /r9k/, with many involuntarily celibate posters.[27][88][89]" Is that really factual enough for inclusion on the page? 4chan is an anonymous imageboard.

I know this is a sensitive subject, but it deserves to be given the factual rigor afforded to the rest of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noto-Ichinose (talk • contribs) 19:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Noto-Ichinose: That's a good point on The Daily Beast—I searched through the reliable sources noticeboard and there seems to be a general consensus that while it can be used in some cases, it should not be used for statements involving BLPs. I'll either replace it with a more solid source or remove the claim if I can't find one. I'm not seeing Babe.net anywhere on this page, though, am I missing it?

As for Harper-Mercer's alleged post, that statement is well-cited to sources from The Washington Post, International Business Times, and CBC. If the only source supporting the claim was from 4chan, I would absolutely agree it shouldn't be included. But these are quality sources discussing the 4chan post. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Vice News published a fairly in-depth look at incel culture today. Here it is. I suspect someone will be able to use it it as a citation machine.--Jorm (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

"People who have either self-identified as incels or who had mentioned incel-related names and literature in their private writings or Internet postings have committed at least four mass murders in North America, resulting in forty-five deaths." --Anthony Ivanoff (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Anthony Ivanoff: This has come up before, and I'm somewhat on your side, though I think consensus may have ruled against me. I'm fine with reopening the discussion but wanted to point you to this, this, and this for threads in this talk page archive discussing the same. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

A HuffPost reporter did 4 articles on incels

• Internet Giants Are Banning Extremists (Just Not The Ones Targeting Women)
• A Toxic ‘Brotherhood’: Inside Incels’ Dark Online World
• From Nazis To Incels: How One Tech Company Helps Hate Groups Thrive
• Inside Incels’ Looksmaxing Obsession: Penis Stretching, Skull Implants And Rage

Thebetoof (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

These are interesting, seemingly well-researched journal articles. I'm not generally a big fan of HuffPost as a an RS, but there appears to be something useful in these. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. BusterD (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Thebetoof! I've worked parts into the article—I agree that these seem to be quite well-researched. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is lovenotanger in the history and not love-shy.com? Lovenotanger is a few month old google group mailinglist with like 4 active members. Love-shy.com is referenced in a bunch of reputable trusted sources and the forum founded in 2003 has half a million posts and thousands of members. It's FAQ page contained the only definition of 'incel' for years. And the only known documentary (also referenced in trusted sources) details forum users of love-shy.com, including self-identifying incels. Myself and others have put love-shy.com in this article and the previous 'involuntary celibacy' one and it keeps getting taken out after a rampage. I can give you trusted major sources for love-shy.com inclusion if you want, because whatever I add will be rejected.

/r/braincels is not a "successor" to /r/incels, it existed before /r/incels, which is why it wasn't banned. The wiki sort of makes it sound like it was created as a way to ban evade, which it wasn't. The "successors" were all banned because they were successors and ban evading isn't allowed on Reddit, necessitating automatic deletion. Referencing sentence, "who banned the /r/incels community in 2017 but has not banned its successor, /r/braincels"

Also, with regards to this sentence: "Criticism has also been directed against platforms that host incel content, including Reddit (who banned the /r/incels community in 2017 but has not banned its successor, /r/braincels), Twitter, and Facebook." No citation near that sentence mentions Twitter or Facebook. What article mentions Twitter, and especially Facebook as a meaningful 'host of incel content'? And where is it criticized? Willwill0415 (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Help us out- which sources discuss love-shy.com?

Love not Anger is included because it is mentioned by a reliable source as background on the person credited with coining the term "incel". Original research on the size of Love not Anger project is not useful.

Info on the history of /r/braincels is interesting and could be briefly explained in the article, but there are two problems I see. First is that it's also WP:OR unless it can be supported by sources. Second, it seems like a technicality, since when the subreddit was started is not necessarily the most significant thing about it. It's possible, and extremely likely, that it serves as the de facto successor to /r/incels, regardless of what it was before things got shuffled around. Again, the way to resolve this would be through reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Loveshy.com was founded in 2003, an, "old-timer", board, as a place for men and women perpetually rejected or extremely shy of potential partners to swap stories and causes of their situation.^[1] A passage of the site's FAQ read, "It is possible for a person to be both incel and love-shy, and most are both, and most are both to some degree or another. For instance, a person could originally be incel, then suffer large numbers of turn downs, and eventually become love-shy and unable to approach.”^[2] In 2011, an up-close documentary of the personal lives and opinions of multiple members from the love-shy.com forum was made called, "Shy Boys IRL". This documentary and it's director, Sara Gardephe, was later used by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to help explain the sexual frustration in certain incel communities in it's reporting of the April 2018 Toronto van attack. In a report to the CBC's The National, Sara Gardephe described the various incel community attitudes toward society as, "I think they just want to see the world burn a little bit [...] punishing us for not seeing their pain".^[3] Willwill0415 (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'm skeptical that Heavy.com meets reliable source guidelines, and generally speaking, forums are also unreliable, per WP:UGC, so I don't think citing love-shy's definition would be appropriate. The CBC source is certainly reliable but it doesn't mention love-shy.com, so it's not usable for this specific point. The Shy Boys: IRL doc may be reliable in context, but I haven't seen it, and would need something more specific to work with, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

So that leaves the Washington Post article, which is already cited many times in this article. What, exactly, should be added from that source about love-shy.com? Grayfell (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Willwill0415: Sorry about that, the second and third issues you mention are on me. Somehow I missed adding the ref after that sentence; I also misread the source to imply /r/braincels came after /r/incels. I've fixed both issues; thanks for pointing them out. Regarding love-shy.com, I think it was in the article at one point and I've seen it crop up in various sources. I'm not really sure what it is you want mentioned about the site, though. Just its existence? I've been trying to not turn this article into just a giant list of different incel forums, but if there's historical significance to love-shy.com documented in one of the reliable sources that you think should be added, let's discuss it. I will point out that the term "love-shy" is mentioned in the terminology section, if that's what you're looking to be added? I'll take a look at the Shy Boys: IRL documentary you mentioned, since it seems to be available on Vimeo and it's only 30ish minutes long, but do you know if it meets the reliable source policy? The Vimeo description is pretty short and doesn't mention any other people besides the one filmmaker. Offhand, do you know if she ha some expertise in the subject, and was the video edited/reviewed by others? I'll take a gander at the credits when I have a minute to watch it, but figured you might know since you seem familiar with it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding one other source to your list, @Grayfell:. love-shy.com features fairly prominently in the Elle article "What Happens to Men Who Can't Have Sex" that's cited a handful of times, because it's largely based around an interview with the owner of the site. Again, though, I'm not sure there's a ton there that actually shows that love-shy.com is particularly relevant in the history of the incel subculture rather than just another example of an incel forum. In all fairness, I'm not sure the "Love Not Anger" project is either. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

caamib aka marjan siklic and fschmidt and advanced are members from love-shy.com which shaped the modern toxic boards (and btw love-shy.com is a modern board too, just has less traffic than it used to), marjan became a sort-of-original mod of /r/truecels which predated /r/incels, then Marjan became a mod of /r/incels, he documents it all on his blog, and it's confirmed on the forums and youtube histories of this stuff etc. Stuff from the last two sentences probably don't have enough citations to put into the wiki. If people wanted to fill in the gap from 2003-2015ish before the subreddits started with something other than the 4-5 citations of love-shy.com, you could maybe use this trusted source as a start which mentions marjan's site 'governmentgetsgirlfriends' https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/17/socially-anxiety-dating-government-should-pay-women-date-men_n_3293626.html His rape apology and pederasty views shaped the boards into becoming more toxic.[citation needed, but true] The love-shy.com forum was the basically the only hub of incel activities from 2003-2015 with r9k and kiwifarms referencing the forum, rather than the other way around. The doc from the forum by Sarah was included in at least 1-2 CBC pieces. 'Advanced' from that documentary (Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ8EAwRauoM) coined the 'six month' rule on the love-shy.com forum and other basic things about being incel, used to be on the love-shy FAQ and was in previous edits of this wiki article. This is rambling but tl;dr love-shy.com fills in at least a 10 year gap, is confirmed as a noteable 'old timer' board by multiple reputable sources, has had a documentary made on it shown on the CBC, and has a member that made the news before Elliot Rodger did his shooting, and he later went on to be a sort-of-original mod of /r/truecels and /r/incels. The forum also has a half a million posts, it's not 'just another forum, it's one of like 2-3 that the media this year ever mentioned. Willwill0415 (talk)

@Willwill0415: You're right, blogs and forum posts are not sufficient to use as citations. This article already mentions government-sponsored initiatives to pair up incels with women; what would you add from that HuffPo article that's not already included? You mention that the rape apology and pederasty views are uncited, so that's out.

I'm ten minutes into the documentary and it does repeat some things that already exist in this article, but I haven't seen much yet that's new material. I'll keep watching and see if something new comes up. What would you add from the documentary? And have you confirmed it meets our RS guidelines? Also, I just realized it was filmed in my city, haha.

Again, can you be more specific about what actual text you would add to the article about love-shy.com? It might help us frame the discussion a little more clearly, since I'm still not quite certain what you want the article to say about it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The only things I thought met the criteria for inclusion were verbatim the paragraph with the sources, but if the documentary were it's own source it could be included as just a historical event. I don't care either way, but the reason I brought up love-shy.com was because I thought it was infinitely more relevant to the page than Alana's new project and was just commenting on the standards of inclusion present. The reason for inclusion would be to fill a gap in the history section from 1993-2014-15ish. I think the only reason it was only cited in 4-5 articles instead of 25 was it's removal from wiki pages honestly. I think it has enough citations to be included, unless the history section is taken out. There are other hguge incel forums too like 'incelsupport' from the late 90s but I'm not drumming for it's inclusion because no one decided to include it in this wiki page back when the media was probably looking to this page for stuff to write about Willwill0415 (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I doubt its inclusion or lack of inclusion in Wikipedia has much to do with whether it's covered in reliable sources—as you mention above, it has less traffic than it used to and I imagine that is more of a factor. Other incel boards like incels.me and Incelistan are mentioned fairly often and they aren't mentioned by name in this Wikipedia article. I think journalists are just looking for higher traffic boards to write about.

What do you think about adding this to the article: The message board love-shy.com was founded in 2003 as a place for people who were perpetually rejected or extremely shy of potential partners to discuss their situations.^[4]? I've reworded it a bit because it was too close to verbatim from the WaPo source, and I removed the "old-timer" thing because, to me, it reads as if it's a board for the elderly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

That sentence is accurate and would fill a massive time gap I think yea. Also, which 'Incelistan' forum were you referring to, and where is it cited? Willwill0415 (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, got the name wrong. Meant Incelocalypse, which is mentioned in and among other sources. I'll add the love-shy sentence now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

does anyone have a reliable source showing when /r/incels was created? Might help clarify the timeline. I'm not finding much—knowyourmeme.com says 2013 but we obviously can't use that as a source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Will keep looking for a news source, but the https://web.archive.org/web/20140604141847/http://www.reddit.com:80/r/Incels shows the June 4th 2014 capture with, message saying "a community for 10 months" (means it started around May 2013, but posting might not have started until around April 2014). At the June 4th 2014 capture (after elliot rodger shooting) capture it was basically inactive, and only 3 posts total, all from love-shy.com's Marjan Siklic, the guy who this article is about: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/17/socially-anxiety-dating-government-should-pay-women-date-men_n_3293626.html, two linking to his still existing blog. https://thatincelblogger.wordpress.com/

Thanks! The archived version probably can't be used as a source, though it's good it agrees with the other (unreliable) source. I'll keep digging as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

"The Southern Poverty Law Center described the subculture as" The Southern Poverty Law Center is not a reliable or neutral source of any information as that organization has a particular agenda that prevents it from being neutral let alone objective. To cite SPLC as a source on any subject is akin to citing dogma from Westboro Baptist Church.47.135.216.71 (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to take that up with the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, not here.--Jorm (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Or not, since they realize that the SLPC is not the left-wing equivalent of Westboro. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

"Though they still enjoy preferential status in virtually every realm, from the boardroom to the courthouse" NYT how is this idiocy still considered an authoritative source is beyond me. Gendalv (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gendalv: If you want to discuss the overall reliability of The New York Times you should probably head over to WP:RSN. It's an incredibly widely-cited newspaper on Wikipedia, so it would be a huge change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gendalv: how does using one hyperbole make it non-authoritative? Isn't authority derived from the accuracy of reporting on facts? And you should not go WP:RSN because the NYT's usage on Wikipedia is very, very well established by consensus (see WP:RSP). Also see WP:NOTFORUM. wumbolo ^^^ 20:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe at some point they were, but nowadays NYT seems like other modern sites - has lots of writers, who are just pushing their own biases within their articles, which is then used to reassure other people's biases. They are able to do this due to their freedom of speech, but it's an authority of opinion problem and a self-confirmation loop for others. But I'm mostly questioning the whole idea of attaching the radical BS to the definition of the word incel, I think the only reason it's so prevalent here is something like the hate on the "invisible men" (hence the focus on males) and has nothing to do with the reality of most of these people. When imo the only thing this word means is the people who aren't the "top of the shelf" mating material in the opinion of the opposite gender, so they end up without mates, that's all.Gendalv (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, if you want to contest an incredibly heavily-cited newspaper's reliability, the talk page of one article is not the place. Wumbolo is right, though, that realistically your thoughts on the NYT are unlikely to shift the well-established consensus that NYT articles are reliable sources.

You are welcome to have your own personal opinion of what an incel is, but the reality is that reliable sources overwhelmingly discuss incels as a subculture of men with radical opinions about women and sex, and that is what this article must reflect. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The "online subculture" outlined on the page (normie, chad, stacy, etc etc) is just r9k and 4chan culture. I would say putting all this stuff into a "4chan culture" page instead of giving lazy journalists an excuse to do more adult virgin shaming articles based on getting offended about the toxicity of incels.me would make more sense. Minassian referenced 4chan because *that's* where he got his ideas probably. After he sent out the facebook message highlighting 4chan, you and a couple other people wrote a big incels.me and 4chan culture page as journalists were coming here for material.Willwill0415 (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

{{citation needed}}. This page is now up to 108 citations specifically discussing incels. Some of them do discuss incels in the context of 4chan, since there indeed are incels on 4chan, but many of them discuss a whole bunch of other sites (including love-shy.com, which you yourself requested be added to the page). Some of the terminology you mention may have come from 4chan, but certainly not all of it—the article itself mentions that "blackpill" originated on Omega Virgin Revolt, not 4chan. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

the "blackpill" aka biological determinism and essentialism applied to women's sexual choices, was cited to the blogger omega virgin revolt https://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/new-name-for-the-blog-the-black-pill/, who said he did not come up with the term, but rather a commenter named "paragon" on a random anti-feminist blog named 'dalrock' came up with it, or 'coined it' in late 2011 as well as the definition of it https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/she-felt-unloved/#comment-22914. it's possible omega's blog 'popularized' the term, but even according to him, he didn't 'coin' it or it's definition and chose to use paragon's definition. As far as how many words 4chan users created vs blogs, I'd think it's more 4chan and also just common terms in sexology and pop psychology. Even on incels.me it copies 4chan's "r9k" posting style, quoting sentences as a way of agreeing very frequently, post-ironic and non-ironic neo-nazism and majority right wing beliefs, sociopathy, misanthropy, short sentences, uncivility, use of the word 'cuck' as primary insult, etc etc and then combining all of that with adult virginity and inceldom. I do think that love-shy.com played a role in that along with 4chan's r9k it was the only place exclusive for men who take major public issue with their involuntary celibacy to congregate, but virtually everything the media is attaching to the state of being incel or involuntarily celibate is from 4chan, and that's partly because 4chan was extremely creative at that time at creating anti-feminist movements and subcultures, the forums are just other places where male involuntarily celibates congregated publically. The degree to which they used 4chan's lingo was up to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willwill0415 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Certainly an interesting analysis, but do you have sources for your interpretation? GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems that many portions of the existing article are not observing Wikipedia's standards about taking a neutral stance. There are multiple entries that treat themselves as characterizing incels in an ostensibly clinical and objective fashion, but then follow up with a long array of pejoratives. The citations for such entries are negative and frequently antagonistic editorials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.165.184 (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2018‎ (UTC)

Can you please be more specific about which portions you think don't follow NPOV? Similarly, can you identify which citations you don't think are reliable? GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree. The article does not adequately present the POV of the self-declared incels, but relies mainly on secondary sources opposing the POV that incels ostensibly hold. This article should be marked POV until both point of views are fairly presented. 83.89.195.62 (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that "present the POV of the self-declared incels"? So far the POV of self-declared incels that I have seen have been largely represented through forum posts and other unreliable sources, or discussed in critical but reliable sources that do not endorse those views. Wikipedia articles are not biased (nor should they be marked as such) simply because all possible points of view are not represented in the article; they are POV when "significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" are not represented (see WP:NPOV). GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we can use the {Unbalanced} template because the article has an overweight of references to sources that criticize incel point of views. We need sources that represent a majority point of view of incel subcultures, if such a consensus exists at all. The article must be marked as unbalanced as long as no such source has been found. If there is no reasonably homogeneous incel culture or if no common incel point of view exists then the whole article is dubious. Yodaclever (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree, however if such sources are available they should be included. The theme is notable and we don't get to decide what sources are available. The tag should be used when there is a content dispute between editors but nobody finding a source isn't that. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The "unbalanced" template does not apply here and will not be used until such time as any reliable sources are provided to support the idea that the article isn't balanced. Your opinion, regardless of how deeply it is felt, is not a reliable source.--Jorm (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

More or less echoing what others have said above: the "unbalanced" template is to be used when an article "does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources." If there is some pile of high-quality, reliable secondary sources that endorse incel points of view and aren't being used, please point them out. But the template isn't something to be added to a page while we wait for high quality sources to possibly write articles in support of incel points of view. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

This article used to be very different: https://web.archive.org/web/20111121164704/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_celibacy 85.76.72.62 (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeedy. The same could be said about many Wikipedia articles; Wikipedia is a work in progress. I imagine it'll look quite different seven years from now again. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I mentioned the old deleted article because it contains several scholarly-looking references which could be used to improve this new one and also because it manages to maintain a more neutral tone regarding involuntary celibacy. 85.76.72.62 (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

They're not. Scholarly, that is.--Jorm (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I see an article from the Journal of Sex Research titled "Involuntary celibacy: A life course analysis", 8? published books, an article from a professor of psychology, 2 university syllabuses, 2 social commentators with Wikipedia articles of their own. I can't comment on the scholarliness of these references (not as quick a reader as you) but some may be worth a look to people looking to improve this article. 85.76.72.62 (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The only article cited in that page that appears to be in any way scholarly is the first citation, "Involuntary celibacy: A life course analysis", published in the Journal of Sex in 2001. You'll be happy to know it's also cited in this article, so we're not losing that. On the other hand, if you want us to achieve a more "neutral tone" by citing such high quality sources as featured in your archived version of the article such as YouTube, a Salon blog post, heretical.com (excellent tag line by the way: "In God we trust; anyone else might be lying), islam-watch.org, pro-truth.net ("We bring the light to the abortion issue"), a review of a fiction film, TV Tropes, a couple of college syllabi, AskMen.com, a dating advice column, antimisandry.com ("Curing Feminist Indoctrination"), and hookingupsmart.com... you're going to be disappointed. There do seem to be some book sources in there, as you've pointed out, though unfortunately I don't have any of those books available to me. If you or someone else does, I'd be happy to discuss what they have to say about the subject. Given the rest of the old version of the page and the publication dates of the books (some of which predate the Internet) I worry that they discuss people who are sexually frustrated but are not members of the incel subculture, which is what this article is focused upon. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

"I worry that they discuss people who are sexually frustrated but are not members of the incel subculture, which is what this article is focused upon." Involuntary celibacy redirects here. Are involuntarily celibate people separate from members of the incel subculture, then? All involuntarily celibate people presumably don't read 4chan and shoot people? 85.76.72.62 (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Not all people who are celibate are members of the "Incel" culture. "Involuntary Celibacy" is not the actual term for people who desire sexual contact but do not get it; that is "sexual frustration". --Jorm (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

To add to what Jorm said, there is an FAQ right in the group of informational boxes at the top of the page (easily overlooked, sadly) which states: "This article is about a particular misogynistic online subculture of people who self-identify as "involuntary celibates" or "incels" based on their inability to find a romantic or sexual partner. It is not about all people who are unable to find a romantic or sexual partner or all people to whom the phrase "involuntary celibate" could be applied, but only to that subculture." There have been past attempts to create articles about "involuntarily celibate" people (i.e. all people who wish to have sex but don't have partners) and that is why the list of past deletion nominations is so full of previously-deleted pages. The fact is that the reliable sources discussing "involuntary celibacy" outside of the subculture are typically discussing topics covered in existing articles, such as virgin, sexual frustration, and sexual abstinence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The article currently seems to state that incels are mostly male, not 100% male, while the cited sources seem to say that all incels are male. wumbolo ^^^ 08:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The first two sources use "primarily" and "mostly". Thylacoop5 (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

What Thylacoop5 said, but also wanted to point out that Incel#Demographics goes into more detail about women incels. Although some maintain that women can't be incel, there are forums that accept women members. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: The first paragraph of the history section states "... that used the abbreviation INVCEL, which was later shortened to "incel"." So therefore I think we should use either "abbreviation" or "shorterning", because "portmanteau" does not appear anywhere else in the article. Thylacoop5 (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:BLUE, I think we're okay to use "portmanteau"... It is the most accurate descriptor. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

As of May 1997, before her community even started she wrote an article saying, "In the past few years, I have learned about feminism and gay rights. At age 20, I started to realize I was lesbian. Pursuing the wrong sex had certainly been part of my dating problem! So I came out of the closet, but it did not change the message that I unconsciously sent to all those around me: I was afraid of being in a relationship. Whenever I did have a romantic interest in someone, I carefully hid it from them.[...]It took a lot of work, but eventually I opened my mind to the possibility of a trusting, intimate relationship. At age 24 I had my first girlfriend. It was scary at first, but we had lots of fun together, and I learned a lot. I still haven't quite figured out the post-feminist courtship ritual, but I'm about to try it again. The friend I mentioned above is also starting to date now."

Admins on the wiki IRC are telling me webarchive is fine to use in talk pages to critique sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willwill0415 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for removing your accusation against her -- you need stronger sources than webarchive to accuse her of that per WP:BLP. Either way, the article currently says that "During her college career and after, she realized she was queer, and became more comfortable with her identity. She later gave the site to a stranger." and that she created the site during college. It is not claiming that she left because she was queer, or that she only realized she was queer after creating the site. Also, please sign your talk page posts. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

sorry for not signing, just the sentence phrasing suggests that she handed the site over because of her gender identity, when the webarchive shows she identified as lesbian and had her first dates/partner before starting the mailing list. Elle seems to implicitly suggest this too as a way to combat a foreveralone's interpretation of why she left, "I figured that sexist ugliness had driven Alana from her site. The moderator of ForeverAloneWomen (an offshoot of a Reddit forum called ForeverAlone) had told me that she spends a couple of hours a day screening out comments from men such as "You could get fucked anytime" or "You're just an attention whore." Whenever she deletes an offensive message or bans a user, she can expect a death or rape threat, she says. Alana's story is different—and a little heartbreaking." Because of the phrasing on the wiki the new talking point from readers of the wiki seems to be that she handed over the site for that reason. I don't have any personal stake in how accurate that sentence is presented, but it seems misleading. Because of how aggressive I worded it at first you may not change it but that's the way it sounds to readers and .Willwill0415 (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

How would you suggest rephrasing? I don't agree that it's confusing as worded now, but I'm open to alternative suggestions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I would like to clarify regarding the conversation on help; I was the helper and I stated that wayback is not inherently unreliable as it's a tool to archive and is entirely dependent on the source it is archiving. There was no discussion on the subject and in fact, when asked for the subject matter, there was no answer. (And no one claimed to be an admin, nor do helpers get involved with content disputes in the channel itself.) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

i meant IRC admins Willwill0415 (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

There's no such thing as an "IRC admin", unless you mean IRC operator (which is not relevant to whether someone is qualified to help people in the #wikipedia-en-help channel, it's merely a distinction showing who's allowed to remove people who are disruptive). I stay persistently connected to IRC and am joined to that channel, so I see the conversation the two of you had. (I'll note the plural "admins" seems to be incorrect as well—Chrissymad was the only person who helped you.) Regardless, I think if you'd asked if you could use an archived version of an essay to make negative accusations against a living person, I imagine you'd have gotten a clearer answer than you did to your vague question. There's nothing wrong with using an archived reliable source—they're used all over the place on Wikipedia when the original has gone offline for whatever reason. But the mere existence of a page on an archive website does not make it reliable (or unreliable) and it doesn't change our WP:BLP policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

well I just want to let Jorm and others patrolling my edits know that "wayback is not inherently unreliable" (referencing "The wayback machine is NOT a reliable source") and can be used to critique sources in talk pages as long as I don't say someone mentioned in the article or some other living person might have lied to the press or other potential WP:BLP violations, instead of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Crying_%22BLP!%22 to revert an edit I did that had lost any potential BLP violation. Willwill0415 (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing what Jorm (courtesy ping... it's polite to ping people if you're discussing them) meant was that that Wayback link you posted was not reliable, not that all articles mirrored by the Wayback Machine are unreliable. He wasn't "crying BLP", he was bringing up a very valid BLP concern which I have echoed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Some say it's 1997 Some say it's 1993

It seems she started the site as a college student as a reserach project possibly around 1993, started the community aka mailing list sometime after mid-1997. That part of the history sentence in the wiki article currently doesnt make sense regardless, it implies the word 'incel' was used in 1993 *and* a community was started in 1993. But then INVCEL was *actually* coined *before* 'incel' in 1997 and the community started as a mailing list in 1997.

First screenshot of Alana's site is in May 1997 (although I don't know if webarchive archives before 1997), but regardless the archive shows there was probably no community active as of May 1997:

At one point the article text said the website was created in 1993 or 1997 because of the conflicting information in sources—I'm not sure when or why that was changed but you could probably find it in the history. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if the website was started in 1993, but the mailing list definitely did not exist before mid-1997. I think the conflict is btw site history vs mailing-list/forum history Willwill0415 (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Could be, but without reliable independent sourcing confirming the reason for the discrepancy, we can't update the page. Dating things based on archived copies of the website is original research. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

ok just found this, it's independent in the sense that it's not coming from an editor, but no one talking to the press except Alana would know anyway. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6yi8P03igQ (at 0:49), "there's various different reports of the date but it was 1997 when I started a website called Involuntary Celibacy" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willwill0415 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding : When you make an edit, you have to actually cite your sources in that edit... But per my edit summary in the revert, "Non-Compete" does not seem to be a reliable source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

oh you're right wp:conflicting_sources and wp:interviews etc, ugh Willwill0415 (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

So does the Telegraph source affect consensus? Thylacoop5 (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Not in my view.--Jorm (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Why not? Thylacoop5 (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

yes Willwill0415 (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:. I think the Telegraph goes into deeper depth regarding demographics than previous sources. What do you think? Thylacoop5 (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, somehow I must have accidentally clicked something because this article fell off my watchlist. Also FYI @Thylacoop5: if you misspell a username/etc. and then edit the ping template, you need to re-sign the comment or the user you're trying to ping won't be notified. Back to the task at hand, which Telegraph source are you referring to? GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The edit where the re-signing is taking place must also not be a minor edit ;-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Huh, I actually didn't know that! Thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Yup, the edit must (obviously) contain the addition of a link to the user's user page or use a ping template, the addition of your signature (~~~~), and the edit must not be minor - else the user won't receive a notification. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I was two for three! GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Always good to look at the glass 2/3 or 66.6666666666% full ;-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you've lost your vinculum! (Had to look that up, so at least one of us has learned something today...) GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

You might as well disregard my above post. This is because in the intermediary, content in the section has changed, I also took into consideration previous sources, and created this example diff as an intended edit. What do you think? Thylacoop5 (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm opposed to including this for three reasons: 1) the article (understandably) makes no claims that incels.me is a representative sample of all incel communities, 2) this article itself says that there are thousands to hundreds of thousands of incels. Looking at the top range (and ignoring that it probably means more than 100,000), 300 people is 0.3% of the overall incel population, and 3) this seems to be directly quoting a survey within an incel forum of their membership, not a scientific demographics study. The article itself does seem potentially useful as a source, though, I'll see if there's anything that can be added from it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

300 people is AFAIK the largest sample on incel demographics that exists online. If looking at the bottom range on the article, 300 people is 30% of the overall incel population. Anyway, I have incorporated some of the concerns in this new diff by clarifying the standing of the website, the sample size and the nature of the survey. So, is it better? Thylacoop5 (talk) 10:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I still don't love using an incel forum poll as a source, but the newer edit is better. If you do make it, I would perhaps reword it to say "according to an internal survey of 300" or similar and avoid using "sample"—it might be read to imply it's a representative sampling. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the previous version was sloppy. Does anyone oppose this version of the article? Thylacoop5 (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Pinging @Jorm: since he reverted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I can't imagine a universe in which I - or anyone else - would think that language like 'According to an internal survey of 300 on the "currently dominant incel website"' is remotely encyclopedic or worth saying in Wikipedia's voice. A) It's language that self-dates. B) It's language that's imprecise. C) It's kind of a shitty sample and not remotely scientific or useful as anything except as a misleading statistic.--Jorm (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I think I have addressed the issues with the previous versions in this new diff; let me know if there are still problems. Thylacoop5 (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

As it's the only statistic available it's only slightly better than simple assertions used in other articles RE:race and think it's informative enough to be in the article, and fine with me. But yea I it's important for it to say it's an internal survey so readers can make up their own minds about the validity of an internal forum survey from a biased source (the forum). Have yet to see a modern version of serious research on incel online forums like Donnolly's research on Alana's mailing list.Willwill0415 (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe that this "statistic" holds any meaning. Do not use any words like "leading website". If this has to be included, it must be called what it is and given the appropriate weight and scientific context, which is "this is meaningless because it's from a self-selected, self-identified, anonymous internet poll that was not run with any scientific rigor and has a sample size that is too small from which to draw any conclusions, meaningful or not. It was run on a web forum that is popular with incels."--Jorm (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC) And stop just making the edit. Discuss it here before trying to insert it into the article's history. That's dirty pool.--Jorm (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

This is the latest diff. It pretty much appears like a shuffled paraphrase so I think its okay. Let me know if there's any issues with it. Thylacoop5 (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

What would be the self-interest for incels (defined by self described involuntary celibacy) to identify as or not-as any skin color? I bring this up as you are saying a reliable source was putting something meaningless in their article when it was more meaningful then simple assertions elsewhere, and I'm trying to understand that more. How does it being an incel forum matter so much as to not include it even with the disclaimer that it came from an incel forum? As far as we know Judith Taylor referenced in this citation about incels being mostly white didn't do any scientifically rigorous effort in her assertion that makes her assertion any better than the Telegraph's decision of the incels.me internal study to be not meaningless. Immediately after Judith Taylor makes the claim on CBC News about inceldom being a *white* male phenomenon (among other things), Jamil Jivani a notable youth advocate and well respected author on youth problems as it intersects with race immediately dismisses Judith Tailor's claim about the incel phenomena being a *white* male phenomena. Saying "I don't agree [...] I don't think it's racially specific". (source CBC news 4:20) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lUluux3f3o Therefore, together with the Telegraph article, the race of incels is not any kind of expert consensus. Willwill0415 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Thylacoop5: Instead of making your edit to the article and then self-reverting to create the diff, can you either just post your suggested changes to this talk page or to a sandbox page? That way you can avoid cluttering the article history and peoples' watchlists. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I waited 48 hours. I went ahead and made the change along with another addition. Thylacoop5 (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jorm: Is there anything specific about the latest version of the edit that you oppose? Thylacoop5 (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure my comments about it being garbage science that you are trying to force insert? --Jorm (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I have started a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Incels' race. Pinging @Thylacoop5, Jorm, and Willwill0415: since you've participated in this discussion here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Separately, I do not support mentioning incels.me in this article—it's not necessary and serves no encyclopedic purpose other than to drive traffic to that site. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)