Talk:Incel/Archive 4

The demographics of Incels
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)


 * Thank you for the advice. Here's the first link I can offer from a closed Facebook group that I am a member of:

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)


 * 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)


 * At the time I had a paywall blocking the WaPo article cited here, 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" and

(2) a link to a 2001 Georgia Southern study 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, 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 nor 4chan 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 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) , and  doesn't necessarily mean. 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. G M G talk  17:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * but,, and therefore    "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 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. w umbolo   ^^^  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.  G M G  talk  15:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Androcentrism? w umbolo   ^^^  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.  G M G  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? w umbolo   ^^^  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).  G M G  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)


 * 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)

/* Mass murders and violence */ Section Unreliable Sources
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)
 * 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 Article
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)

Removed unsourced statement
"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)
 * 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)

HuffPost articles
A HuffPost reporter did 4 articles on incels Thebetoof (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 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


 * 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)

Suggested factual improvements
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. 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.”  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". 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)


 * 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, . 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)


 * 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. ? 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)

Part II
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/online-extremism-radical-misogyny_us_5b491358e4b0bc69a787458f what sentence in this article implies twitter and facebook are currently hosting 'incel content' in any meaningful amount? The kekistan (not an incel forum) sentence, or the hate speech sentence, or the friendzone group that got shut down in April sentence? More importantly, where are active groups criticized? Also, from the screenshot of the friendzone group,it shows only 21 members including women, is (what looks like a) shitposting group that got banned in April evidence of Facebook being a hotbed of controversy for 'hosting incel content'? If theoretically the users had anything to do with the title and were raping women, they wouldn't be involuntarily celibate or even celibate by definition, and the page article never mentions the page used the word 'incel' Willwill0415 (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind me splitting this into a subsection—this was getting a little long to scroll through and it seems like a logical break. Feel free to undo if you'd rather it not be.


 * The whole article is about incel-related and anti-woman content. Twitter and Facebook are mentioned repeatedly. Examples are Such sentiments are not exclusive to fringe incel networks. Twitter, which has frequently been criticized for not doing enough to combat hate speech on its platform, has seemingly done little to curb brazen discussions about violence against women. and The question of what companies such as Reddit, Facebook and Twitter allow on their platforms was reignited this year when a man drove a van into a crowd of pedestrians in Toronto, killing eight women and two men. It’s the latest massacre by a man seemingly radicalized in one of the many online communities where violence against women is routinely celebrated. Extremist experts say it won’t be the last. The whole article is also critical of these platform companies for hosting their content; I've made a small tweak in the wording of this article to make it clear that some of these criticisms were directed against groups that were eventually removed.


 * Regarding the "friendzone" group, it's not for us to do the analysis of the group itself—that's "original research". As for your argument that it can't be an incel group because if the members were raping women they wouldn't be incels; a) rape is hardly a foreign topic to incel groups (as is mentioned and extremely well-cited in this article), and b) (caveat, this is original research, but then again so is your point on rapists not being able to be incels) given the fairly large number of people on incel forums who talk about how sex with escorts or with women hypothetically mandated by the state to have sex with them still doesn't "count", I'm not sure why rape would be either. If every person who posted about raping women on incel sites was considered not an incel, I think their numbers would be a good deal lower. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The last two points I think you made were good and thanks for the edit, but I still don't see how that Facebook group was an incel group. If something is misogynist and/or rape advocating it isn't automatically incel and therefore incel content imo.  The standard for inclusion as 'incel' you and most others are using here is self-identified incel it seems (or reference to Elliot Rodger), otherwise this page would cover more stuff like putting Sodini in the mass murder section then, as he was technically an incel but didn't self-identfy. but I'm going to stop posting on this talk page for a bit, as we've been going back and forth a lot lately. Willwill0415 (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hm, that's a fair point, you're right that it could be more generally discussing the Facebook group as anti-woman but not necessarily incel. That's not how I interpreted it, but you are correct that the article isn't explicitly clear. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Non Neutral Source
"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)

fake? radicalization
"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)
 * 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)
 * 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. w umbolo   ^^^  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)


 * . 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)

Editorializing Rather Than Informing
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)

Mostly male
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. w umbolo  ^^^  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 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)

Lede
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)

Alana didn't leave the board because of 'realizing' any LGBTQ identity, she objectively started it as a self-identified lesbian
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.) CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(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)

Date of Alana's community
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)

Telegraph
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)

. 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 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)
 * 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 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)


 * 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)


 * 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 Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Pinging 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)