Talk:Incel/Archive 5

Loads of fours, quite a few fives and a nine.

Might be time to bundle some of these up^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]} if its not too much trouble. Cheers Edaham (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the lead section's citations have gotten a little out of hand since it's been widely challenged by folks on this talk page. Citation #4 is actually a bundle of sources, but most of the others are separate. It's a bit tricky because many of them are reused throughout the page, which means we'd be duplicating the refs if we bundle them. I'm not sure what the best protocol is for that kind of situation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Usually its the case in controversial articles that the cites which need bundling are reinforcing some possibly contentious word in a sentence like, "X is described as", where it takes many sources to verify unanimous....ness (losing my English).

• In this case I usually just:
  • copy the associated citations to a note pad file first
  • bundle them (thus stripping them of their independent names
  • Add duplicates of the cites, which are defined elsewhere so each of them is a full citation.
  • Publish
  • then three or four refs in the body will start complaining that they can't find their named ref, and thus haven't been defined.
  • Then I re-cite where necessary using a duplicate of the original named citation.

I keep a copy of the original page source open while I do it - or a copy of the full source in note pad to make it easy to get the info back if need be. It's not ideal, but a reader first approach to article maintenance prevents me from not coming over to point and complain. Edaham (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hm, okay. No complaints from me if you want to try to do it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I should add that when ever I suggest doing it like this people often complain about it :)) Nobody has actually reverted me once its done though so I'm guessing that I'm doing a half reasonable job. Edaham (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

We can leave this discussion for a bit longer in case anyone does object, but I'd rather increase readability even if it means adding length to the references section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Concur with GW; I'd prefer readability.--Jorm (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Nobody's complained after a relatively long time (I've been on holiday in Japan). I'll get around to it now I'm back. Cheers. Edaham (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I came across this article, and I think it is good, however I dont see any incel forums on the SPLCs list of hate groups, something this article currently states and links to a Wikipedia list which also doesnt track it. The SPLC currently tracks 953 groups, no incel communities or groups of communities are on them. The source in this article says incels are part of male supremacy which is a category for hate groups on its hate list. Here is its hate group list: https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map, no incels are on it. It reminds me of when a single author from the SPLC came out with a similar article about MRAs, but never included MRAs in its hate group list, only eventually A Voice for Men, which is a single MRA organization. Similarly I expect the SPLC to include certain incel forums in its official list. To declare that all incel communities on the internet are on that list goes against the Wikipedia policy on sourcing as the SPLCs own hate list is a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:140E:83C3:ECEC:FE20:D478:4B39 (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

You aren't looking at the map hard enough - there are two entries: "Return of Kings" and "Voice for Men", which the map key identifies as male supremacist using an upward pointing arrow. The source, which you've obviously read says that male supremacist groups are part of its hate watch campaign. “Incels,” or “involuntary celibates,” are part of the online male supremacist ecosystem. The Southern Poverty Law Center added male supremacy to the ideologies tracked on the hate map this year, because of the way these groups consistently denigrate and dehumanize women, often including advocating physical and sexual violence against them. On the internet, the male supremacist ideology takes a few different forms. One of the newest forms is “incel.” - hope that clears that up. Edaham (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Since we have actual academic sources linking incels to male supremacy, I agree with citing the SPLC in the lead. wumbolo ^^^ 13:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Currently the second paragraph of the "Ideology" section opens with the following sentence:

Many incels firmly defend concepts such as biological determinism and evolutionary psychology.^[1]

This is deeply problematic with regard to framing one of those topics (evolutionary psychology) for a number of reasons. First off, the general thrust of the sentence suggests that both fields are disreputable frameworks whose credibility is under assault--but which certain fringe communities (such as incels) defend because they happen to align with their privileged views. Now, that description probably works with regard to biological determinism (as that term is used in shorthand today), but it absolutely and without question is an inappropriate implication of the status of evolutionary psychology as a field. Indeed, quite the contrary, evolutionary psychology is a deeply influential subfield of mainstream psychological researc--and a major cornerstone of modern cognitive science and research into the physiological structure of the brain, the processes that result from it, and how each developed through evolutionary processes. It has many tens of thousands of well-respected researchers and scholars working within its purview around the world, and is a significant body of theory and modelling for the nature of cognitive processes and human behaviour. Placing it side-by-side in this context with biological determinism (whose main recognizable features are an association with eugenics and other incredibly flawed and chauvinistic models of intelligence that have been discredited in the scientific community for the better part of a century) creates a deeply misleading implication of similarity between these fields and the level of support that they have in modern consensus science. This is all the more concerning as a matter of weight and neutrality when you consider that this reference comes from one (non-WP:MEDRS) source which mentions the term exactly once in an incidental fashion and then never engages with it in a substantive fashion.

Just to be clear, this is not about what incels do or do not believe about evolutionary psychology; they may very well embrace it--I certainly don't have any reason (aside from general concern about the misogyny and violence against women that emanate from those communities) to particularly care what they think about it. I presume (based upon what I do know about the ideology associated with them, their privileged and chauvinistic perspectives, and I presume a healthy dose of confirmation bias) that they get the science more or less completely wrong. But that doesn't somehow transform the entire scientific field (massive in scope and influence) into junk science itself, any more than geometry becomes a joke field just because flat earth proponents ham-fistedly attempt to use it to support their discredited and nonsensical beliefs. EP has many different researchers advancing many different (and sometimes conflicting) models on a variety of topics (just as with any other modern empirical field), including a wide array of hotly debated perspectives among its researchers on issues of gender, sexuality, and other topics which incels may be deeply obsessed with (and yet have a poor understanding of, in terms of research into psychology and biology). But it is all conducted within mainstream scientific institutions and methodologies for research, publication, and theory. To frame the entire field in the way it is presented here (as merely a darling of an extremist ideology and a bedfellow of discredited pseudoscience) is inaccurate bordering on offensive--and in any event, a major disservice to our readers!

I therefor propose two possible alternative wordings for this sentence: "Many incels firmly defend concepts such as biological determinism." (simply omit evolutionary psychology and side-step the issue entirely), or "Many incels firmly embrace extremist positions predicated on biological determinism and evolutionary psychology." (giving at least some indication that the field is not per se aligned with incel nonsense). I prefer the former over the latter, but could accept either or any re-wording of the statement that makes it clear that EP does not align with the majority of beliefs of incels--which beliefs I think I can say would by met with some combination of bemusement and abhorrence by most scientists working in this field. I very nearly went WP:BOLD on this and changed it myself, but I'm guessing that this article has been the site of a lot of contentious editing, so I decided presenting my concerns in some detail to the editors here would be the most appropriate way forward. I know from spending a fair deal of time working on women's rights articles generally that I can expect that this talk page benefits from the attention of veteran editors who have aggregated here to form a bulwark against vandalism, for which I am grateful: I expect I will be seeing familiar faces who will be able to see the difference between incel support for a scientific field and its (lack of) support for them. So hopefully there won't be much need for fierce debate, despite my long-winded and cautious approach here. However, if anyone feels the issue requires deeper debate, I'm happy to RfC the matter. Thanks for your attention to this lengthy post--I know it's just one sentence at the end of the day, but I just couldn't fathom leaving it saying what it does right now. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

This sounds like a great edit to me and I endorse it heartily. I believe you should feel free to make this change. If you don't, I will, later.--Jorm (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I second what Jorm said! :) Iamextremelygayokay (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion I have changed it to Many incels justify their prejudices using interpretations taken from concepts such as biological determinism and evolutionary psychology. This is a very close rewording of what it says in the Spanish source. Regarding the proposed suggestions:

• Suggestion 1. There's no point omitting what was written in the source, and the removal of the word will probably be reverted based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT
• Suggestion 2. This is the suggestion I used, but with slightly different (simplified wording) I took out extremist as I think they are "morons", not "extremists" (although the two often overlap), however both of those words are a bit POV. My wording also emphasizes the cherry picking idea by simply saying that their delusions are "taken from" rather than "based on", or "predicated from". The source also says that their concepts are "superficially" based on X. This is a word we could use. Edaham (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• I think this makes sense - the issue, as best I understand it, isn't biological determinism or evolutionary psych on its own, it's a combination of biological determinism informed by (bad) evolutionary psych. Guettarda (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• I can get behind something in that vein as well. Honestly, I wouldn't mind omitting the reference altogether--it's all of a single throw-away sentence in that source, an observation of one reporter, not a heavily researched or discussed premise of any sort. But there are are other options to keep the source in, make a meaningful comment about how incels frame their beliefs in this fashion but not do it in such a way that suggests that their application is consistent with the consensus science of the field. The trick in doing this is not allow the interpretation become predicated on original research. I wonder what you all think of something along the lines of: "Many incels root their beliefs in terms of biological determinism and attempt to defend them using interpretations of evolutionary psychology." What the source literally says is that incels are "firm defenders of evolutionary psychology". But the scientific community doesn't need their defense--or particularly wants it, for that matter. And to adopt that errant wording by that one author, unattributed, into the prose in Wikipedia's voice would be entirely WP:UNDUE and misleading, suggesting that what incels are defending actually is legitimate science arising out of evolutionary psychology. I think what we can all agree that what incels defend is their fringe notions about the science of human nature, loosely held together by a misinformed framework of half-understood EP concepts. But that is not how the source frames the issue.

So you see the conundrum: we can't use exactly what the source says, because it misstates the situation in such a way that to introduce that into the prose as empirical fact, based on that one offhand reference in that one mediocre source, would be WP:UNDUE and inaccurate. But correcting the language to get at what we think is what the source was aiming to say is no more permissible. Hence my inclination towards omission of at least the reference to EP. But since there seems to be some support for keeping that mention in, the proposed sentence above is my attempt to balance the original wording in the source against the actual relationship these beliefs have to consensus science. If only we had a better source for this, we could perhaps use stronger language in distancing incel beliefs from legitimate science in this field, but alas--I think that if there is support for leaving the preserving the reference, this is as explicit as we can be about the fact that what incels regard as sound application of evolutionary psychology would mostly get them laughed at by any serious researcher in that field. It's a far cry from putting the matter as directly as we might want, but it's the best balance I've been able to generate while contemplating the constraints of policy here--and I did trial about fifteen variations before settling on this one. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you know what Edaham, my eyes completely glossed over the part where you noted that you had already changed the wording--I shouldn't respond to comments when my eyes are this blurry, but it's the only occasion i ever find the time of late! I can definitely support your variation instead of mine. I think it has the same general thrust, if being more bold in calling the spade for the spade. I support your wording, and we can keep mine in reserve as a possible alternative should there ever be a dispute over the matter. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - yes I saw a relatively unanimous agreement for some type of change. It didn't look like a difficult or controversial piece of information to edit on the whole, so I went ahead and made a change. I would question the idea that the field is muddied by its association with the incel movement, as these kinds of hate groups typically limpet onto pieces of actual fields of study, what needed to be made clearer though is that they do it selectively to support their crack-pot delusions. Something which is referred to in the source. Edaham (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• I firmly oppose any edits. The source clearly says that they support evolutionary psychology, and you shouldn't be engaging in original research, especially in a medicine-related topic. Furthermore, we mention already in the article that incels support the work of clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson, whose work is obviously largely evolutionary psychology.

wumbolo ^^^ 11:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The source doesn't say they "support it" in terms of furthering the field or promoting it. To say they simply support it without adding context would be misleading by omission. The full quote from the source reads: Additionally, many of them are firm defenders of evolutionary psychology, which they use to justify their prejudices - Then a bunch of stuff about "chads" then at the end Their genetic determinism is reduced to superficial interpretations that support their affirmations.

Where precisely is the original research in my rewording of: Many incels justify their prejudices using interpretations taken from concepts such as biological determinism and evolutionary psychology? Edaham (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

With regards to biological determinism, perhaps, your wording better adheres to the source; however, the source says that they defend evolutionary psychology, period. Making the article say that incels have an "interpretation of the concept" of evolutionary psychology amounts to whitewashing – try doing this at Sociobiology or Social Darwinism. The words defend and support mean the same thing, and we want to avoid close paraphrasing. wumbolo ^^^ 12:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not whitewashing by any measure of the word. The quoted article begins with the word "additionally" so already the statement contained therein is additional to the main point of the preceding paragraph. I don't have any familiarity with the subjects of sociobiology or social Darwinism. I addressed an issue raised above, read the source and wrote it as I read it. I'm not even sure what you think is being whitewashed; the Incels or the evolutionary psychology. In any case we are still the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", last time I checked and I will not be at all offended if you revert or edit what I wrote. I'd prefer the latter as I think the source isn't quite so cut and dry as you are stating. Edaham (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Whatever. I've found another source, which supports the new wording. wumbolo ^^^ 13:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Whatever indeed! Well in spite of your grumbling, thanks for doing the digging. Your barnstar's in the post. I'll add the source although getting it to load from behind the great firewall is proving tedious Edaham (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to piggyback on that note of appreciation; reading through the discussion since my last post, I was preparing to write Wumbolo a response saying that I totally understood his concerns but was convinced this was the best of a set of bad options. Little did I know he had already done the work to find us a new one, by undertaking the research that arguably I should have undertaken with my original post. Quality work and devotion to sound editorial principles--well done! :) Snow ^{let's rap} 20:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I've been away from the wiki of late, but just wanted to pile on late here that this looks like a good change to me. Thanks for all your work establishing a new phrasing, especially yours, Snow Rise. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, GW--that's very kind of you to say. :) I'm just glad that we're all more or less on the same page, as I expected and hoped would be the case. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Given the recent spike in violence among incels, it should be categorized as a type of terrorism. A quick search on Google reveals a lot of articles, news and otherwise, have started to use the term "Incel Terrorism" in regards to these attacks against women, given most attacks are motivated by hatred and male supremacy. 2001:8003:AC57:FB00:E1D9:3C85:423A:CF77 (talk) 11:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No, that's original research which we explicitly don't do here. It's also a fairly silly suggestion, akin to classifying Islam or Irish people as terrorism. Just because some notable terrorists were incels does not make the incel community a terrorist organization. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely. Adding one or more categories about terrorism would not imply that all incels are terrorists but would be an accurate assessment of this topic, considering that 1/2 of the lead is about terrorism perpetrated by incel-motivated people. There is definitely not a lack of sources. However, I can only find op-eds suggesting that all incels are embracing terrorism, but I wouldn't be surprised if the mainstream would make this conclusion about the "incel rebellion". Since we are cautious when discussing rebels in international conflicts, we should not call incels terorrists in wiki voice as per WP:LABEL. wumbolo ^^^ 17:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

What sourcing were you thinking of using? Most mentions of incels and terrorism I've seen have been of the sort of op-ed headline variety, meant to draw clicks more than to seriously categorize the group among terrorists. But perhaps there is other sourcing you were thinking of? GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2019 demographics survey inside incels community hinted that 55% of incels are white, 17% are asian, and 28% are from other ethnicities, while 52% of them are from North America, 32% of them are from Europe, and 16% of them are from other continents. Besides, 68% of them have between 17 and 24 years old, with 10% younger, and 22% older.^[1]

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

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

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

Jorm If primary sources are never acceptable, why are all links currently saying incels are "white heterosexual males" all primary sources to newspapers, in which most do not ever state "white heterosexual males" What the hell? Some say they're heterosexual males(way to be obvious), but none even use the word "white". Certain groups think incels are mostly white heterosexual males, but is that really true? WP:Advocacy The whole fu**ing article are mostly links to New York times, Huffington Post, Vox and The Guardian and other, politically loaded newspapers. What is the point of wikipedia? Again WP:Advocacy. Also See: WP:CHALLENGED WP:Reliable sources WP:SCHOLARSHIP, this article does not satisfy ANY of those. - Konecat (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, a few things here.

1. I am honestly of the opinion that Wikipedia should be less dependent on newsmedia in general, so I won't argue with you about sourcing to the NYT, Huffington Post, etc. However this has nothing to do with WP:PRIMARY. Newsmedia reports are secondary sources. They are not primary sources. And use of primary sources (ex: testimonials, blogs, youtube, social media) would be even more egregiously unencyclopedic than relying on newsmedia sources.
2. I don't think WP:ADVOCACY is at play here. Perhaps thee is some bias; but I don't shed too many tears for oppressed cishet boys who are upset that the world won't hand them a fantasy girlfriend without them even having to do the bare minimum, so I'm not concerned that Wikipedia reflects a point of view that is critical of this misogynistic social movement.
3. Were we to restrict this article to academic work on the incel movement, the articles tone would likely be far more critical; as the main academic disciplines that are interested in gender-specific movements are the same ones where feminism and queer theory have the strongest impact.
4. I fully expect you'll read my derisive tone toward incels and ignore the meat of my argument. But I don't care. Simonm223 (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Konecat: Agreed with Simonm223 that you're misunderstanding what a primary source is; please read WP:PRIMARY for more information. As for none of the sources supporting the statement that incels are largely white, you're wrong there as well. Please just look at the provided sources (source 4: "these are primarily heterosexual white men", source 6: "mostly white, straight and cis men", and source 7: "young white males") and the extensive discussion of the statement in the history of this talk page. You will actually see in those discussions where we have repeatedly had to remind people, as you are here, that primary sources are unacceptable; those are largely what have been provided by folks who are disputing that incels are largely white, male, and heterosexual.

I would love for this article to be based primarily on academic research of incels, but the problem is that fairly little of that has been published up until this point. If you know of more that hasn't been included in this article, I certainly would encourage you to provide links to it so that it can be added. I suspect as time goes by more research will be published, since discussion of incels as a phenomenon has spiked in the recent years.

As for your list of policies you think aren't being followed, can you go into more detail? I believe I've addressed your points about WP:CHALLENGED, but I'm not sure what specifically you're worried about as far as WP:RS—is it that you feel the NYT, Vox, etc. aren't reliable? If that's the case, feel free to peruse WP:RSN (where it's largely been agreed that they are, with some exceptions such as the opinion sections) or start new discussions there to re-evaluate them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

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

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/4/16/18287446/incel-definition-reddit

Here's an (kinda long) article on incels

Thebetoof (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for the link! GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I will admit to knowing nothing about incels until I read this wiki page. I ended up here when I read someone described as an incel in another text. I am fascinated amd repelled by this phenomenon but my comment is as to a statement in “Ideology”:

Some incels justify their beliefs based on the works of fringe[27] social psychologist Brian Gilmartin,[51] author of the book Shyness and Love, and clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson.[59][60]

I found it a bit odd to list what “some” people in the group believed. It almost comes accross as if the group is trying to be painted based on the belief of a few members. Simmilar to saying, some incels are pentacostals or some other descriptor. If it does not apply to the majority of the group then why is it there? Most of my wiki imvolvement is in areas much less emotionally charged than this one so I don’t know if this is the norm but I just wanted to contribute the fact that this stuck out to me. Also, I have very little experience with discussion syntax and formatting so please pardon any faux pas. Surgicus (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Surgicus: No worries, you formatted this fine. As long as there are reliable sources to support statements about "some incels", it's okay to make them (and there are, here). I think people are particularly careful to make broad generalizations about incels just because there are many incel subcommunities, so it's safer to say "some" than "most". In this case it might also be accurate to say "many"—it's not just one or two incels who like these folks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/emmanuel-aranda-man-accused-throwing-boy-off-balcony-looking-someone-kill-091741517.html

"The man charged with throwing a five-year-old boy off a third-floor mall balcony told police he was “looking for someone to kill”, according to prosecutors."

"He told police he was angry at being rejected by women."

I think there is a clear motive here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.100.58 (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there any sourcing that directly calls him an incel, or says that he self-identified as one? This article is about the online subculture, so unless he was a member of it we should not be labeling him as incel. There are some folks that the media has described as incels who did not necessarily self-identify as such, and if that's the case here we can say as much, but if the media doesn't label him as such then neither should we. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/lgbti-incels-what-its-like-to-be-queer-when-no-one-will-sleep-with-you/#gs.c7t5xk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.198.205 (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Moved this to a section instead of where it was just dropped at the top of the talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm making some changes to this article based on the Vox article that Thebetoof kindly linked: https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/4/16/18287446/incel-definition-reddit. Based on it I would like to propose rewriting the first paragraph of the Demographics section to read:

No scientific studies or formal censuses of contemporary incel communities have been performed, which has been attributed to the communities' hostility towards outsiders.^[1] However, self-identified incels are believed to be mostly male and heterosexual,^[2][3][4] and are often described as young and friendless introverts.^[5][6][7][8] Some media outlets depict them as unemployed and living with parents.^[9] Incels have been said to be mostly white,^[2] though informal polls of two large incel communities have suggested that white people make up just over half of the communities.^[1] Although members of incel communities mainly reside in the United States,^[10] there are also incel communities for people outside the Anglosphere, such as the Italian website Il Forum dei Brutti.^[11]

Since this has been controversial in the past, I figured I'd bring it up here before going ahead and making the change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Support. The reworded section is more precise and appears to accurately reflect the sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Broadly support, although I'm not sure about using Toby Young's article to say in Wikipedia's voice that they are mostly in the US - I don't know whether he has any particular expertise in the area that would make his statement authoritative (and he's a somewhat controversial figure himself in the gender subject area). Could this assertion and source be merged with the previous sentence, so that we say 'Some media outlets describe them as unemployed and living with parents, mainly in the United States, although there are also incel communities...'? GirthSummit _(blether) 11:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

That would make sense to me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the change, though I left a note inviting anyone who disagrees to revert and discuss more here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't the line at the top now be changed too now to match? "Self-identified incels are largely white" is now inconsistent with your edit.

I don't think it needs to be. I think the full explanation would be too lengthy for the lead, and there's nothing inaccurate about saying that "self-identified incels are mostly white"—the informal polls support that, as do other sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The top line uses "mostly" while the poll results are "55%". I'd say "mostly" is probably not really accurate, especially when used in the lead paragraph. Galestar (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not understand the usage of though when informal polls of two large incel communities have suggested that white people make up just over half of the communities confirms Incels have been said to be mostly white. No need to adhere to Vox's pseudostatistics. Also, the Vox polls support the fact that incels are mainly in the U.S. and Europe, contrary to the "also outside the Anglosphere" narrative currently in the article. I don't know why the racial composition is the only thing specifically taken from the polls, and it is not taken in whole. And is this 2001 GMU poll not considered contemporary enough? I'm broadly fine with the current section and I think the sources are reliable, but the section is not NPOV. wumbolo ^^^ 10:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Hm, yeah, perhaps the phrasing should be revisited. I think what I was trying to express is that the polls suggest it is not the vast majority of incels who are white, but I agree that it's a bit unclear. As for the Anglosphere thing, I'm not sure I follow—the article does say that incels are mostly in the US (perhaps Europe ought to be mentioned as well). The GSU poll is a bit old, but my concern is more that it only has a sample size of 82 people. That doesn't make it useless—it's one of the few available formal studies—but it does mean it should be used carefully. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Incel is simply exactly what the portmanteau (involuntary celibate) implies, a person or any kind of entity of any sex/gender who is unable to have sex for an extended period of time against its will, the required period of abstinence may vary but that's it, so much so that the term actually predates the existence of any kind of culture based around it, just because the mainstream culture around the concept has been mainly white, male, aggresive and ETC it doesn't forbid the existence of different sub-cultures about it like it did formed in the beggining, so it's the duty the wikipedia and its users to rectify that fact, my suggestion is to rename this particular page as "mainstream incel culture" and create another one less partial about the incels itself. And yes, if you are wondering what's the reason why i would care about this particular distinction besides intelectual rectitude then i'll inform right away that i am volcel, sometimes in my weak moments i become briefly incel but most of the time i don't want nothing with relationships with any type of entity not out of misogyny but simply because relationships of any kind with anyone are source of problems and i want to strings attached, therefore i hope this appeal won't be dismissed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transhumaximus (talk • contribs) 14:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey Transhumaximus. An article on the so called "state of being" was repeatedly created and deleted because of a lack of in-depth coverage in reliable published sources, and substantial topical overlap with other related topics, such as celibacy. Moreover, Wikipedia does not allow the addition of original research, and all content should be based on information published in reliable sources. So if you would like to suggest changes to the current article, you would need to provide such sources in order to support the content you would like changed. GMG^talk 17:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You might be interested in the celibacy article as well, which unlike "inceldom" is hardly a new concept. As for your personal identification and experience, that's not super relevant to the article at hand, as much as I'd like to respond to your comment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

sorry i know it is not relevant to the topic itself but i identified myself since speculations about why i'd care could be used to dismiss the suggestions, i'll collect some sources aswell. 18:54, 5 june 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transhumaximus (talk • contribs)

Mainly about general misogyny, but it touches on the subject . Acroterion (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I see it's listed above too. Acroterion (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Aren't wikipedia articles supposed to be balanced and neutral? This one doesn't seems to be covering the subject in that regard.95.31.13.204 (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you be specific about a section/sentence/reference you find unfairly negative? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Or unfairly positive. wumbolo ^^^ 18:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

They cited Q3 from the FAQ in the Talk Page tags which refers to overly negative. Britishfinance (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Just a reminder that what we present is a balanced and neutral view of the reliable sources; if there is a general agreement among them, then that is how the article goes. We do not try to maintain a platonic balance upon which we decide. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

This is tangentially related, but the incels seem to have a suicide forum which is associated to someone committing suicide.

• https://www.dailydot.com/irl/incel-suicide-forum/
• https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/incels-suicide-forum-woman-killed-herself

Maybe references could be under mental health since that section references suicide the most? Thebetoof (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

There are some more articles

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/local/yoga-shooting-incel-attack-fueled-by-male-supremacy/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2e41a91bd02e
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/men-are-in-trouble-incels-are-proof/2019/06/07/8d6ad596-8936-11e9-a870-b9c411dc4312_story.html?utm_term=.1d30c7d78ee7

Thebetoof (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that that last WaPo article is filed under "opinion", so shouldn't be used as a source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ForeverAlone. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Lmbro (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Result was speedy redirect to Controversial Reddit communities#ForeverAlone. Britishfinance (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Here is a Task and Purpose article about how the military considers incels to be potential threats.--Jorm (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

This article was covered widely, even by Business Insider , and others ; I also wonder if the becky/stacy graphic could be uploaded onto wikicommons as not being a work that would come under copyright – would be a great graphic for the article? Britishfinance (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

No. It looks like Andrews themselves took the graphic from online. Compare here. So we really don't know at all who the originator is, but it's likely not the USAF. GMG^talk 19:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh dear, that is a pity. Could we even justify as a low res/single use requirement? thanks Britishfinance (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably not. Nothing uniquely essential about this image in particular. What we could do is recreate the image using free images available online. Compare the image I made for One weird trick advertisements, copying the style of similar ads found online, but using free media. GMG^talk 19:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Sounds fair - nice job on the One weird trick advertisements graphic; I'm guessing given the more controversial nature of this article that any such graphic would be attacked as OR? thanks for your help. Britishfinance (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean, the images of the people seem to just be archetypal, and there looks like there are many versions of this using similar but not exact such images online. You could use the two versions Vox uses as sources for the text, and just attribute where you got the text from in the file description. GMG^talk 19:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

In fact, they visualize how a "attractive sexually active woman" and a "less attractive sexually active woman" look like. Unless there is a WP:RS-supported and verified picture of a "stacy"/"becky" woman and not something random from the Internet, there should be no more visualization of a passing mention than there is at most pictureless articles in Category:Slang terms for women. wumbolo ^^^ 21:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

No, my desire was to use the Airforce graphic and attribute it to them (that is what makes it notable); it is notable that the Airforce is producing graphics like this (and they have RS attached), but it is a pity that we cannot replicate them in this article. Britishfinance (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I find this part rather unsupported. Noone doubts that incels are mostly male and heterosexual, but the sources claiming that incels are largely white are pretty dubious.

Additionally, this claim (which is repeated in the demographics section of the article) is contradicted by the examples of incel mass murderers provided on the page. For example, Elliot Roger was half Malaysian, Chris Harper-Mercer was half African-American, Nikolas Cruz was Hispanic, and Alek Minassian was Armenian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonitrus1992 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Please read through the archives of this talk page, where this has been discussed at length. As for the "contradiction", four individuals do not make much of a difference in the overall racial makeup of a community made up of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people—furthermore, that observation would be considered original research. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Completely agree that this has been discussed and is, indeed, original research. I just have to chime in to say that I find the proposition that incel-associated mass murderers are directly representative of wider demographics within "inceldom" is dubious, at best. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I still disagree, for example, a controversial topic of Incels is the Just Be White (JBW) Theorywhich perpetuates the narrative that "any White man can get a girlfriend in Asia or Latin America." Now, while this is definitely exaggerated, it is an important topic of discussion with many Asian incels (Asiancels) and Black incels (Blackcels) arguing that "White men can't really be incel." (On a somewhat unrelated note, the fact that the Incel Wiki is not once referenced in an article about incels reflects to me how little the curators of this page actually care about creating a page which reflects the views of the people it describes. Perhaps it might be worth taking the "Franz Boas-pill" and describing the community in fairer terms. You might even find that the group is more diverse than you previously thought). --Tonitrus1992 (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

We don't reference wikis in any article - WP:UGC, WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR, take your pick. If you can find a reliably published secondary source that supports making some change along these lines we could discuss this further; without that, there's nothing to discuss, other than to direct you to this talk page's archive. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 00:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's One. The full text of this article may be found publically on one of the researcher's, Tom De Smedt's, academic page which I will link to here. The text is a linguistic analysis of over 3,000 threads posted on Incels.me (currently Incels.co) over a 6-month period using automatic detection of certain words. Although it is impossible for the authors to determine the exact racial demographics of the users of the site, they state that "it is impossible to say whether the majority of Incels.me users are white men, but our data implies that this may be less true than expected. . . race is an extensively treated topic on the forum, but primarily in relation to which race has more incels and which race has more (dis)loyal women. There is a general consent that unattractive non-whie men have a harder time than unattractive white men which is referred to as the 'just be white theory'" (Jaki, S., De Smedt, T., Gwozdz, M., Panchal, R., Rossa, A., & De Pauw, G., 2019, pp. 19-20). The authors continue, "There is also consent that 'race is a big part of looks' and that Indian incels (currycels) are most badly off. Other ethnic groups mentioned in this context are Asians, and less often African Americans and Arabs. This may reflect, to some extent the ethnic variety of the forum" (Jaki, S., De Smedt, T., Gwozdz, M., Panchal, R., Rossa, A., & De Pauw, G., 2019, pp. 19-20).

In fact, the authors note that some users of Incels.me have expressed disatisfaction with the way they are characterized in the media. "Incels.me discussion threads related to the Toronto attack show that incels feel misrepresented in the media, being framed as white conservatives: 'I'm sick of these Ameritards trying to label us all as white right-wingers. They don't want to learn about inceldom all they want to do is push their narrative and political agenda." According to another user, the forum is a "community made up of disparate groups ranging from edgy shitposting teens to Salafi Jihadist apologists and Christian Identity white supremacists" (Jaki, s., De Smedt, T., Gwozdz, M., Panchal, R., Rossa, A., & De Pauw, G., 2019, p. 11).

Funny enough, this very same study even mentions this Wikipedia page, "Wikipedia states that incels are mostly heterosexual and white. The former is true for the users of the Incels.me forum (the latter is not) (Jaki, S., De Smedt, T., Gwozdz, M., Panchal, R., Rossa, A., & De Pauw, G., 2019, p. 19).

Another source from 2018 notes that "by visually inspecting such [k-means] clusters, we observed that right-wing extremism mainly focuses on immigration, crime and politics, and that the incel community is highly ethnically heterogeneous, contrary to the popular belief that male supremacy primarily involves white men. Such insights can usually be verified by qualitative analysis, which is more reliable but also more time-consuming" (De Smedt, T., Jaki, S., Kotze, E., Saoud, L., Gwozdz, M., De Pauw, G., & Daelmans, W., 2018, p. 16).

A third source from 2019 which analyzed hate speech on Reddit by doing a critical discourse analysis of 10 incel-related subreddits did not attempt to measure the demographics of the users of these subreddits, but it did note the resentment many of the users of the subreddits felt for white men. For example, the authors note that the architypical nemesis of the beta male, the alpha male Chad, is usually depected as white, attractive, and successful (Farrell, T., Fernandez, M., Novotny, J., & Alani, H., 2019, p. 94). The authors also note that "for incels misogyny appeared to be coupled with racism as well, in particular for women of coulour who are perceived as racially betraying darker skinned men in favor of white men" (Farrell, T., Fernandez, M., Novotny, J., & Alani, H., 2019, p. 91).

All three of these studies were conducted within the last 2 years using linguistic analysis of online incel-related communities. The studies are also available, for free, online and I have included a link to each in the references below. I think that this is the most accurate data we have regarding who incels are, the disparate groups which form the community, and what incels actually talk about (A certainly think these sources are more reliable than some articles by Vox, Huffington Post, and the CBC). I know that a lot has been written about "nerdy white men" or the supposed relationship between incels and white supremacy, but rather than blindly accept the conclusions of mainstream media journos, it is probably best that we base our conclusions on what the best data we have tells us. No one denies that there is a lot of racialized language used in incel communities, however the data we have implies that incels may be more divorce than previously thought and it certainly reveals that within incel communities race is a very complex matter. Lastly, I think it's worth mentioning that this data reflects informal polls of online incel communities. For example, in a survey of the reddit incel community /r/braincels only 28% of respondents self-identified as white and in a poll at Incels.co only 50% of respondents self-identified as white (source). Obviously, the users of these communities may self identify however they wish, but I still feel like it's worth mentioning. I look forward to more empirical research being done on this topic in the future but for right now this looks like the best that we have.

References:

De Smedt, T., Jaki, S., Kotze, E., Saoud, L., Gwozdz, M., De Pauw, G., & Daelmans, W. (2018). Multilingual cross-domain perspectives on online hate speech. Computational Linguistics & Psycholinguistics Technical Report Series (CLiPS). Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1809/1809.03944.pdf

Farrell, T., Fernandez, M., Novotny, J., & Alani, H. (2019). Exploring misogyny across the manosphere in Reddit. WebSci '19 Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science. Retreived from http://oro.open.ac.uk/61128/1/WebScience139.pdf

Jaki., S., De Smedt, T., Gwozdz, M., Panchal, R., Rossa, A., & De Pauw, G. (2019). Online hatred of women in the Incels.me forum., Journal of Language Agreession and Conflict. Retrieved from http://www.organisms.be/downloads/incels.pdf

--Tonitrus1992 (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

This may reflect, to some extent, the ethnic variety of the forum. (emphasis mine) But since the article doesn't state any demographics or polling numbers (except citing a member's recollection of a poll), we can't use it to state as fact that the forum is minority white. wumbolo ^^^ 12:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

And yet the only supposed evidence to support the claim that incels are "largely white" are pieces from the Washington Post, CityNews, Houston Press, The Guardian, and the Atlantic. No one is saying that the article has to say "minority white." That's shifting the goal posts. I just want to see that particular piece of language either is removed or, better yet, I think it would be worth it to mention that the demographics of incels, apart from their maleness and heterosexuality, is complex and hard to pin down. I know this might be hard to believe, but before you make the claim that a group is "largely white" or "largely whatever" you actually have to prove it and, if you can't, you shouldn't include it.

Moreover, I dismiss your claim that the articles' only evidence is from "a member's recollection of a poll." The linguistic analysis of these site is what the researchers base their conclusions on, not on any poll. Please read the research before you dismiss it. Tonitrus1992 (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Fuller Lengthier quote: This may reflect, to some extent, the ethnic variety of the forum. One user believes that only half of the people on Incels.me are white. Other users claim that most incels are not white, and one user substantiates this by referring to a poll in the forum. wumbolo ^^^ 20:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

You are talking about Fuller. Tonitrus1992 is talking about Jaki. GMG^talk 20:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Having said that, Jaki is probably the best source anyone has brought forth in any of these discussions. Fuller is mostly not useful as you point out. LengthierDe Smedt, and the source that he uses both seem to trace back to this book, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with incels at all. GMG^talk 20:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. Plenty of arguments here against it. wumbolo ^^^ 21:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

That seems to mostly focus on the De Smedt article, which I agree isn't super useful, and half the problem seems to be that it wasn't yet published (Jaki was published about two weeks ago). I'm gonna be honest, I'll take a peer reviewed study over any of the best the news sources you can offer me, and even they disagree. What peer reviewed research disagrees with Jaki? GMG^talk 21:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It's telling that the one I put first (because it was the strongest) is the one they chose not to quote.Tonitrus1992 (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it? I'm curious why you seem to think De Smedt is the strongest. The Jaki article seems to have systematically evaluated the text of 100 some odd threads. GMG^talk 00:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I mean that the Jaki article was the one I put in the first paragraph (the References are in alphabetical order by last name). The Jaki article is definitely the strongest.Tonitrus1992 (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry. I would probably add that I find it exceptionally puzzling that Farrell would choose to examine two subreddits explicitly dedicated to mocking incels (r/IncelsInAction and r/Inceltears) as well as r/badwomensanatomy, which... is kindof just dedicated to making fun of people who are wantonly ignorant. GMG^talk 19:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm missing something. The Vox piece does directly address ethnic demography. (...ethnically diverse set of contributors; 55 percent of the site’s user base is white...). What exactly is the content in the Guardian, Fortune, or Vice articles are we using to make a statement about demographics? The only one that seems to address demographics directly is Vice, and they're talking about mass shooters, and not incels (mass shooters tend to be young white men who have a track record of sexual violence and entitlement. GMG^talk 16:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Well. I forget this is one of those articles where people feel the need to cram 60 citations into the lead, even if they're not used in the body to support the same information. It looks like the actual source being used for this is a quote by Ross Haenfler in The Washington Post and a quote by Heidi Beirich from NBC, and an unattributed claim in City News. The source from The Houston Press is also unnattributed in an opinion piece (above the fold from best best for the upcoming dog show), so I'm not really sure I consider that a reliable source for unattributed claims of fact. This is contradicted seemingly by the report from Vox (above), and from NPR, which was pointed out elsewhere in the archives.

So long story short, the source seem fairly split on the issue. GMG^talk 17:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: about the WaPo article, click wumbolo ^^^ 20:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)