Talk:Incel/Archive 9

Minassian issues
"Nevertheless, I am inclined to accept the assessment of all of the experts that [Minassian] did lie to the police about much of the incel motivation he talked about and that the incel movement was not in fact a primary driving force behind the attack. I note as well that [Minassian]’s father commented that when his son was talking to Det. Thomas, he was using the tone of voice and demeanour that he would use when doing a presentation, as if he was acting a part. [...] he has never expressed hatred, or even anger, towards women, not even in his initial statement to the police [...] Accordingly, I agree with the assessors that [Minassian]’s story to the police about the attack being an “incel rebellion” was a lie. [...]I am sure that resentment towards women who were never interested him was a factor in this attack, but not the driving force. Instead, as he told every assessor, he piggybacked on the incel movement to ratchet up his own notoriety." --Justice Anne Molloy, final sentencing of Minassian https://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2021ONSC1258.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:0:c2:59f3:f307:3420:f033 (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting development, but very little of this article is based on Minassian. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Entire article was changed (to how it is now) the weeks surrounding the van attack and the majority of the citations are kneejerk reactions to a lie, written in April, May 2018, and addressing incels through Minassian's event. 2600:8806:0:C2:59F3:F307:3420:F033 (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The 2018 attack prompted a lot of research and coverage of the phenomenon. That a judge has concluded that Minassian was intentionally associating the attack with incel communities for notoriety purposes does not change that.
 * I have looked at the statements in this article that mention Minassian, and we say that Minassian is a self-described incel (which is still true), that he allegedly posted on Facebook about an "incel rebellion" (also still true), that "police claimed that Minassian had been radicalized by incel communities" (also true, police did claim this), and a description of things Minassian said in videos of his interviews with police. If there are reliable secondary sources covering the judge's conclusion, I could see adding a point about it, but I'm not sure what exactly you're suggesting needs to be changed about the statements about Minassian in this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Judge said he self-described as an incel for fame and hijacked incels and was not motivated by incels. Every article assumes Minassian was motivated by incels and thus have even their first assumption wrong.

Beauchamp, Zack (April 25, 2018). "Incel, the misogynist ideology that inspired the deadly Toronto attack, explained". Vox. New York City: Vox Media. Archived from the original on May 5, 2018. Retrieved May 5, 2018. Taub, Amanda (May 9, 2018). "On Social Media's Fringes, Growing Extremism Targets Women". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on May 14, 2018. Retrieved May 14, 2018. Mezzofiore, Gianluca (April 25, 2018). "The Toronto suspect apparently posted about an 'incel rebellion.' Here's what that means". CNN. Atlanta, Georgia: Turner Broadcasting Systems. Archived from the original on April 26, 2018. Retrieved April 26, 2018. Romano, Aja (June 20, 2018). "What a woman-led incel support group can teach us about men and mental health". Vox. Archived from the original on August 12, 2018. Retrieved August 12, 2018. Ling, Justin; Mahoney, Jill; McGuire, Patrick; Freeze, Colin (April 24, 2018). "The 'incel' community and the dark side of the Internet". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on April 26, 2018. Retrieved May 4, 2018. Dastagir, Alia E. (April 26, 2018). "Incels, Alek Minassian and the dangerous idea of being owed sex". USA Today. Archived from the original on May 6, 2018. Retrieved May 8, 2018.

^^just the first six citations as an example, people using Minassian as "proof that incels inspire mass murder", when the judge explicitly said incels did not inspire him, but rather he used them as disposable personal attire 2600:8806:0:C2:59F3:F307:3420:F033 (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The 2018 attack prompted a lot of research and coverage of the phenomenon. That a judge has concluded that Minassian was intentionally associating the attack with incel communities for notoriety purposes does not change that.


 * I have looked at the statements in this article that mention Minassian, and we say that Minassian is a self-described incel (which is still true), that he allegedly posted on Facebook about an "incel rebellion" (also still true), that "police claimed that Minassian had been radicalized by incel communities" (also true, police did claim this), and a description of things Minassian said in videos of his interviews with police. If there are reliable secondary sources covering the judge's conclusion, I could see adding a point about it, but I'm not sure what exactly you're suggesting needs to be changed about the statements about Minassian in this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * She didn't just conclude that he didn't intentionally associate with them. Did you read it?  Clearly you didn't.  She stated Accordingly, I agree with the assessors that [Minassian]’s story to the police about the attack being an “incel rebellion” was a lie..  See the names of the sources in your article, and if anyone here has any sense, they'd do a complete rewrite of this trash article that only capitulates to Minassian 2600:8806:0:C2:59F3:F307:3420:F033 (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Have I read the entirety of a 70-page-long document in the 20 minutes since you posted about it? No. Have I read the points you quoted, and a handful of other pages around it? Yes. I think you maybe misread what I said, or else you made an error when you wrote "She didn't just conclude that he didn't intentionally associate with them". I wrote that he did intentionally associate the attack with the incel communities; I also read where she wrote that "I am inclined to accept the assessment of all of the experts that Mr. Doe did lie to the police about much of the incel motivation he talked about and that the incel movement was not in fact a primary driving force behind the attack." However I remain of the opinion that this judgment does not invalidate the sourcing in the ways you are suggesting, nor am I seeing any errors in the article with respect to Minassian's attack. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Accordingly, I agree with the assessors that [Minassian]’s story to the police about the attack being an “incel rebellion” was a lie."

---judge on final sentencing on Minassian.


 * First citation in this article, and most are the same: "Incel, the misogynist ideology that inspired the deadly Toronto attack, explained"


 *  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:0:C2:59F3:F307:3420:F033 (talk)
 * If you look at the sentences that that citation is supporting, they are:
 * "Incels (/ˈɪnsɛlz/ IN-selz), a portmanteau of "involuntary celibates", are members of an online subculture who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one."
 * "Discussions in incel forums are often characterized by resentment, misogyny, misanthropy"
 * "The term "involuntary celibate" (shortened to "incel") refers to self-identifying members of an online subculture based around the inability to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one, a state they describe as "inceldom" or "incelibacy"."
 * "The term "Incel Rebellion" is sometimes used interchangeably with the term "Beta Uprising", which refers to a violent response to incels' perceived sexual deprivation."
 * "Incel communities have been widely criticized in the media and by researchers as violent, misogynist, and extremist."
 * None of these statements are based on Minassian's action, and are talking more broadly about the incel subculture and its characterization in media and research. Again, if there is an error in this article, please feel free to point it out (with RS to support the correction). But your suggestion that any media or research mentioning Minassian's attack is invalid as a result of the judge's conclusion doesn't hold water.
 * You asked me if I read the article, I answered you honestly. Please don't be rude. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources are unreliable if based on a lie and fiction, ie that Minassian did his attack based on incel ideology.  All the articles taht the media used to gauge what was deemed an 'incel rebellion' were based on a false one.  There's an article with reliable sources that aren't all reactions to a news event that is apparently now mostly irrelevant, and it's drafted in Valeom's userspace, the previous incel article, before it was rewritten by you and a couple others based on the van attack, like literally that week.  It's against Wikipedia conduct policy to entirely change a broad article entirely based on kneejerk news anyway.  2600:8806:0:C2:59F3:F307:3420:F033 (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The version drafted in Valoem's userspace is not an accurate reflection of reliable sources, as has been firmly established multiple times in many discussions. At this point you are repeating yourself and I have neither the energy nor interest to repeat myself in reply, so I shall leave you to discuss this with any other interested talk page watchers should they have any additional or different opinions to mine. You know my thoughts. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This article is ALL based on news from an event almost everyone here, including the "journalists", misread. No one is going to issue a retraction on it, and so given we already have an article that does NOT use unreliable sources, we should maybe consider not sourcing an entire article based on fiction, and care just a tiny bit about truth 2600:8806:0:C2:59F3:F307:3420:F033 (talk) 03:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And that is all, I ask Acroterian or any other admin to look in their hearts for the truth on this subject and rewrite it accordingly using the actually reliable sources and accurate framing in Valoem's userspace, I'm out of this talk page 2600:8806:0:C2:59F3:F307:3420:F033 (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, one more thing. I understand apart of this article is meant to call out bad behaviour on incels, ie "x group of incels does y bad thing'.  People here will say it's not, but it clearly is.  I am all for calling out bad incels, but not based on kneejerk news articles that were based on fiction, but rather with references to specific forums, and we don't even have to name the specific forums verbatim, if people don't want to give them attention, as seems to be the current policy on the page for the most radical modern ones. 2600:8806:0:C2:59F3:F307:3420:F033 (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Much of this article is already based on research and coverage of forums. We generally don't name the forums, as you have observed, except for historical ones.
 * As an aside, I was able to find some secondary coverage of the portions of the judge's decision you pointed out, and I've added them to the graf about the Minassian attack. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Very accurate additions, very cool. Thank you for that.  I was a bit lazy in finding secondary sources.  And as far as the radical forums, I am afraid they benefit from the subculture framing, as far as recruiting.  I don't know what the solution is, but afaik there's really only two incel forums right now and this article makes one think there are more.  Eg incelswithouthate and every incel forum outside .co has recently gotten banned.  This article seems to be an ad for their forum given if I were reading this and liked the content i'd search out an incel forum that caters to the narrative, and incels dot co would be virtually the only one that meets the criteria outlined in this article 2600:8806:0:C2:59F3:F307:3420:F033 (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We are limited by what RS cover, and it seems that most research has covered historical (now inactive) forums and .co (and its various TLDs). If you've got RS describing the small number of forums that'd be useful information to add for perspective, but I haven't seen it mentioned in sourcing. We'd also have to be careful not to slant the article by implying English-language forums are the only forums; I believe there are some Italian ones and presumably ones in other languages as well.Regarding if people search out incel forums because they like what they see here, I'm not sure there's much to be done about that—we don't write articles based on what people might go looking for afterwards, and frankly even if someone goes looking for a "hate-free" incel forum they're likely to find the largest ones either way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources for other forums cover varying shades of misogyny (outside the German external forums and English Facebook ones). However they differ on gender inclusivity, politics (largest Russian one attempts to be very lefty, argues for sex education, environmentalism etc  -- https://vk.com/incel ) (.co is on the other hand an alt-right venue, argues for tradcon politics like restricting sex education and making fun of Greta Thunberg etc).   Forums differ on the allowance of violent speech (eg incels.co didn't do anything about it until Biden but others had a more hardline approach against it).   The Italian ones split based on allowance of women in the communities and may differ on much more as well. I will try to find sources, especially in the case that I am wrong 2600:8806:0:C2:59F3:F307:3420:F033 (talk) 04:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have this page on my watchlist so I'll keep an eye out for any sources you post here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Note to 2600:8806:X : This could all have been accomplished without the shrill accusatory language you started out with. To recap, we don't use primary source court documents int he way you wanted them to be used, because they're too open to interpretation. We use secondary sources, which GW did once she found appropriate citations. Things go smoother and more quickly if suggestions are made from a constructive platform, rather than as denunciations.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

"True Forced Loneliness" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect True Forced Loneliness. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 28 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Scapegoating
A link to 'scapegoating' should be placed under the 'see also' since that is all this article is, 'incel' was a term coined by leftists and the media to vilify an outcast portion of society for political reasons and nothing about this article is encyclopedic it reads more like a propaganda piece(because it is). I know wikipedia at this point is completely controlled by a cabal of leftists and corporate stooges so this post will probably fall on deaf ears, but scapegoating only leads to eventual violence against the targeted group and the people who are in charge of articles like this are probably miserable political ideologues(maybe femcels?) themselves and clearly have an agenda of hatred to blame the so-called incels for many social problems, while it is obvious that incels, which is just a term for a young man that is unable to find a sexual partner for various reasons, is an obvious byproduct of our society where social alienation has reached critical levels largely due to technology(ie the internet) and mass demographic and social changes. The fact that such a terrible politically driven article was given 'good article' status is extremely depressing and is just an example of what a disgrace wikipedia has become. Since only the wikipedia cabal is allowed to edit politically charged articles now, I felt the need to at least voice some dissent on the talk page before that too is locked. Also wanted to point out that 'Incel's are not some monolithic organization with leaders and agendas, that you can claim "incels' are a terrorist group while an actual clandestine organization like Antifa which has committed large actions of terroristic violence most notably in the 2020 riots shows the utter politically driven hypocrisy and agenda of Wikipedia at this point. Caelus81 (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The talk page is not in danger of being locked; you are far from the first person to come here to complain about the perceived "corporate leftist agenda", and if this sort of complaint was the kind of thing that would make people lock a talk page, it would've been locked a long time ago. As for the rest of your point, I imagine that you know that "leftist media" didn't coin the term incel (where do you think r/incels came from?), but I wonder if you have thought about how trying to use "femcel" as an insult toward your opponents undermines your argument that the term "incel" has no currency within the subculture and that the subculture is not largely rooted in misogyny. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Save for the boogeymen about leftist cabals and antifa, I've got to agree with Caelus81's criticism of the article. Poemisaglock (talk) 07:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. If b), can you please be specific as to which statements do not represent the sourcing? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 13:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Culture-bound syndrome?
There's been research into the mental and emotional issues self-labeled "incels" face constituting a kind of culture-bound syndrome. Is this worthy of inclusion in the article?

--67.80.169.60 (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Depends. It's hard to say without seeing the research itself. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 06:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced content
Hey, I saw you deleted the source of incel that I had. If you look in the history section there is a whole paragraph that is dedicated to it. . Also why did you delete the gaycel? There is several published articles concerning gay incels. Thank you BlackAmerican (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Jorm, but I would have removed it because it was improperly weighted in the lead, and introduced editorializing in its language.
 * Regarding "gaycels", you provided one source, an opinion article. Feel free to provide the other ones you've found here for discussion, but Jorm was right to remove it as it was. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 13:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In Google News, I see an article in Dazed and an article in Gay Star News and then some opinion pieces. I am not familiar with either source and don't yet have an opinion on their reliability. No hits in JSTOR and about 10 in Google Scholar (at least some false positives). There might be enough for at least a mention. Posting here as I won't have time to read for a while today. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, I don't think this warrants inclusion. It's essentially WP:NEOLOGISM territory at this point, with the obvious disclaimer that I'm well aware the policy primarily refers to article subjects. It's a term and phenomenon that's relatively undiscussed, lacking documentation in reliable sources, and (I'd argue) unencyclopedic at this point. While this is obviously a "real thing", based on what I've seen, I'm not sure it really even constitutes a "community" with an appreciable online presence, and thus that it's even a useful subcategorization or delineation separate from other incels. I'm not opposed if the status quo changes, but as it stands now, there's simply not enough reliable sources discussing this. Even if/when it does, I'm not sure it's due beyond something like a brief mention (probably amounting to a sentence or two). Sociologists will eventually document it if has any appreciable presence and/or is distinctly different, warranting study; if there's more than a couple scholarly sources discussing it (I haven't evaluated this, admittedly, only the sources posted here and a cursory search for journalistic sources), then it's due for a brief mention. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that we need it in the lead just somewhere in the article. I believe that we shouldn't allow a group, even if it is small to be ostracized. It seems almost anti-lgbt to not include those who suffer as a result of fear of coming out and as a result become involuntary celibates (Latent homosexuality).    BlackAmerican (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What you're saying smacks of original research. Find some reliable sources that say that; otherwise you should just stop trying to make "fetch" happen. I am honestly not sure what your goal here is. Jorm (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The term is gaycel or gay incel. , , and .  also the fear or anger of coming out  "The anger you may have felt toward the heterosexual community or the intense pride you may have felt in being homosexual decreases, and you can be your whole self with others from both groups."  or even anxiety or depression for coming out.    BlackAmerican (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Past discussions at RSN do not fill me with confidence in the use of Gay Star News as a reliable source, and one of the two articles published with them is an opinion article. I am not familiar with Dazed Digital. The sources you've provided to try to suggest that "gaycels" are incels because they fear coming out do not mention incels in any capacity; this is original research.
 * I believe that we shouldn't allow a group, even if it is small to be ostracized. Not including every subgroup of incels in this article is not "ostracization", it's appropriate. Incel communities segment themselves and each other into an absurd number of subgroups for often arbitrary reasons ("wristcels", "baldcels", "escortcels", "workcels", ...), and while we mention this fact along with a few examples that have received more significant coverage in RS ("ethnicels", for example), we don't include all of them just because they exist (WP:VNOT).
 * Your attempts to insert OR in this article and other manosphere articles (Men Going Their Own Way) is becoming disruptive. You are wasting peoples' time with your apparent inability to understand our policies, and suggesting that an editor is anti-LGBT for asking you to source your edits is ridiculous and uncivil. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest anyone is anti-lgbt. What are you talking about? I said "it seems" I didn't make any comment directed at him.  I am for inclusion!  Now, you made a comment about me earlier, saying that I am running an campaign of "feminism is bad."    That also is not assuming good faith. This is as if I am anti woman or a misogynist. I am of no such thing. That was an actual attack!  Also I am no professional on policy.  I am actually on a talk page.  If something I wrote gets reverted, I go to the talk page or ask the person who took it down.  I am done going to go into an edit war. You are far better on policy than I am.  You are an admin and have been editing on wiki for 14 years!  When I have half that much time I will surely be far better.  Definitely not as good as you on policy as you are far more experienced then me.  Sorry for not being great on policy.  BlackAmerican (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * These word games aren't interesting or clever. Saying that you didn't suggest anyone is anti-LGBT while saying that people are trying to allow a group, even if it is small to be ostracized and that it seems almost anti-lgbt is disingenuous. Yes, you technically didn't explicitly do that, but the implication is clear, and if that wasn't your intent, then you need to be way more careful about what you write. Your protestations about misogyny are similarly hollow after your posts on the MGTOW talk page, where you claim that feminism is racist without any relation to the topic of discussion. (In passing, nobody is disputing that there are racist feminists; that's obviously and trivially true. But "there are racist feminists" is very different from "feminism is racist", which is what you said.) You insist that you're just here for "balance", but you've been told repeatedly that balance on Wikipedia is determined by reliable sources and nothing else, and you continue to miss that point. Nobody is expecting you as a Wikipedia editor to sprout, as if from from Zeus's forehead, pre-loaded with an intimate knowledge of all of Wikipedia's policies, but at some point you have to stop and listen. It's a pattern, and not a good one. I believe this is not the first time you've been linked to sealioning; but it is what you're doing. I do genuinely appreciate that you're not edit-warring; your behavior is definitely not as bad as it could be. But that doesn't make it good. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I am not doing any word play. I again have no INTENT on attacking other people. The Feminism and racism is an actual problem that we have an article Black feminism. I read an article ‘I Refuse to Listen to White Women Cry’ Activist Rachel Cargle has built a brand — and a business — by calling out racial injustices within feminism - which was a feature on the Washington Post. I brought up the point to say that we should see the whole point of everything that is given. I am actually giving published articles and if they aren't strong, than just tell me. I thought that was the point of the talk page. To have a discourse. I am not edit warring and I am asking questions, I am making my points and I am listening to the points of others. There have been published articles about Feminism being White Supremacist in nature. "When Feminism Is White Supremacy in Heels". I believe that there is racism in feminism, I also believe that ideally feminism isn't supposed to be racist. That does not mean in practice that it isn't racist. There are opinion articles in the NY Times that are titled "How the Suffrage Movement Betrayed Black Women ", other articles that say "How White Feminists Oppress Black Women: When Feminism Functions as White Supremacy". So back to what you said, I should have written there are racist feminists, but feminism is racist wouldn't necessarily be me speaking outlandishly. It isn't some sort of topic that is me speaking from a soapbox and spewing hate. It is already a problem. BlackAmerican (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have several thoughts about all of your feminism stuff, but again, it is wildly off-topic, so I'm not going to engage with it further. I am actually giving published articles and if they aren't strong, than just tell me. We have been, and you keep doing it in the same ways, and every time, it is in an attempt to make these fringe manosphere groups look more reasonable. Again, making mistakes on sourcing is fine, it happens to everyone. But it doesn't look like you're trying; it looks like you're just throwing whatever you can at the wall to see if it will stick, and given the trend, it looks like you have an agenda in doing so. You're still using unreliable sources, and you're still selectively quoting from those sources you are trying to use--several of the articles you include above describe "gaycels" routinely getting harassed and run out of online incel communities, rather than being a part of them--and you're still trying to synthesize your points between sources when they're not supported in any one of them. Any one of these things could of course be an honest mistake, and that would be fine. But they keep happening in the same way to support the same goal, and that's why it's troubling. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

ok, so you feel I have a goal. I have neither an agenda nor a goal. I put in things to expand an article. If it stays, it stays, if it doesn't it doesn't. I ask on a talk page and have discourse. I am new to the mgtow and incel articles. I doubt I will stay there long. I like creating small articles and hope wiki community likes it. That is more interesting to me. I don't like the back and forth and the accusations that are being spewed by different people just because I have an opinion. With small and new articles there is less back and forth arguing and accusations of ulterior motives. BlackAmerican (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

UK incel shooting
Just happened yesterday - UK mass shooting:
 * Sky News. Plymouth shooting: Suspect liked gun videos and talked about 'incels' in weeks before attack
 * The Times. Plymouth mass shooting suspect posted ‘incel’ video before killing five — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.85.200 (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Taking a look now. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Plymouth shootings may be a sign ‘incel’ culture is spreading in the Guardian from yesterday. And this: Plymouth shooting: police urged to take misogyny more seriously as well. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting that Guardian article Sänger. An interesting part is where it says the Plymouth cell said he "wouldn't clarify [sic] myself as an incel". Which contradicts with our article's claim the plym-cell "self described" as an Incel. This reminds me of what drew me to this article in the first place. After the Tobias shootings in Feb 2020, several low quality sources falsely claimed he confessed to being an incel in his manifesto. (Tobias was in fact what the Incels would call a chad-lite in his youth; while he did become celibate later in life, that was entirely due to severe mental health issues.) An editor had added a Times source apparently supporting the false claim, which was behind a paywall. On subscribing I found it said absolutely noting about Tobias being an incel, and hence removed the OR.
 * With the plym-cell, its a less clear cut that we have an OR issue on the "self described" point. The Telegraph source used to support that claim now gives a "404" error – possibly it had directly supported said claim, which might be why the article was later deleted for inaccuracy. With the new Times source, it does indeed say he "self confessed" as an incel. But 'confessed' is not quite 'synonymous' with 'described'. It could reflect interpretation by the Times author; that really all which happened is the plym-cell confessed some incel adjacent things, like saying he can't get a gf or talking about the challenges faced by the conventionally unattractive. Given that we have a source where the subject explicitly denies he'd classify himself as an incel, I'll go ahead and remove the claim from article. Also, saying he both self described and "likened himself to" an incel is redundant and arguably slightly self contradictory.
 * Im making a bit of a meal out of what may seem at worst a minor issue, due to the fact there's a general tendency for junior journalists, academics and possibly some wikipedians to paint incels in an unduly negative light. This is regrettable as lack of sex, love and close social connection is causing suffering for hundreds of millions all around the world. Additionally, it's self defeating even if all one cares about is liberal values. Said values have been in worldwide decline this last 10 years. If one reads Chpt 13 of The Origins of Totalitarianism it's largely all about how the worst form of anti liberal values – fascism & Nazism – are driven by extreme loneliness, which can only be accelerated by demonising the incel. So theres a case here for being extra rigorous in accurately reflecting what the sources have to say. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I see someone reverted my change already. At least the possible innacuracy was corrected for about 4 mintues. :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I made the wording change to match the wording at Plymouth shooting, but I'm not strongly attached to it. I've removed the clause, leaving it to say that he likened himself to incels in his videos and posted on incel forums. I do think a strong argument could be made that he is a "self-described incel", but I'm sure more sourcing will become available in the next days and weeks to clarify that particular point more solidly. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Should we include the part where he said that he doesn't cnsider himself an incel? The clause sort of implies otherwise so it feels a bit misleading Trade (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Some sources are saying he did, some are saying he didn't. It's probably best to just leave it to what his actions were (posting the videos, participating in forums, etc.) since the self-description (or denial) is apparently disputed. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * According to WP:RGW, this isn't a website meant for spreading love, mercy, and justice; it is a website meant for spreading knowledge. We are answerable for the accuracy of the statements, not for their effects upon people. E.g. I added to QAnon the news that a man killed his two children because he thought they have serpent DNA and will grow into monsters. Normal people will be inclined to feel disgust for QAnon when reading it, while a loony man could think Wait, my children also have serpent DNA! Should I kill them? There is no way to prevent such effects. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Missing 12 years of history of self-identified incel forums. In an article that spans 23 years
But focuses on a love-shy forum instead. Incelsite.com was the only known self-identified incel forum from 2004-2006. Incel.myonlineplace.org was the only known self-identified incel forum from 2008-2013. 12 years total. Don't know if this is a media oversight or what, but it's weird for an article to omit half the history of something, or confine it to one sentence. Seems like an agenda is being pushed. 2600:8806:0:C2:1CF0:C98D:2839:F5E0 (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Any addition to the page requires coverage in independent, reliable sources. Have you got any that mention these sites? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So far it appears to be a media oversight, but will continue looking. 2600:8806:0:C2:1CF0:C98D:2839:F5E0 (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yea I'm not finding any. I don't think this should be an article when half the history isn't even in RS.  The media and thus this article seems to mostly be concerned with culture wars and crime rather than the topic of the article. 2600:8806:0:C2:1CF0:C98D:2839:F5E0 (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should see if you can get reliable sources to cover the history they're apparently missing. It is true that Wikipedia articles sometimes miss information when that information is also missing from RS; on the other hand, RS sometimes determine that some details are not noteworthy enough to mention. Regardless, even if we assume it is the former issue, surmountable problems are not good arguments for deletion. If and when RS see fit to describe the websites you mention, it can be added. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * They aren't ever going to cover them because there is no culture war motive for them to do so. In 23 years, the only forums covered in any detail have been /r/incels and an obscure one that ends in .is.  No reason to expect that to change all of a sudden within the next decade.  And until then, this is missing anything substantive about the topic between 2000-2016, while stating it started in 1997... 2600:8806:0:C2:1CF0:C98D:2839:F5E0 (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Only covering half of the duration of a topic either means one has no real interest in the topic or one has an agenda. This article has existed in many forms since at least 2010, and never before has this article catered so much to irresponsible, right-wing incels, by defining the whole thing as them. 2600:8806:0:C2:1CF0:C98D:2839:F5E0 (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have any suggestions based on reliable sources, feel free to put them here. But your general opinions about the subject are venturing into WP:NOTFORUM territory. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Incels in History? (e.g 4Fs from WW2 etc.)
Hi,

I don’t want to partake in original research, and the only thing I have found on this subject is an undergraduate thesis. However, has there been any scholarly research on “incels” historically?

Specifically, I’m thinking along the lines of US 4-F designees in World War 2. These male individuals were ostracized stateside by both women as well as World War 2 veteran men. There were instances of stolen valor and demonization of the 4F population.

It’s tough to say if these men were involuntarily sexually abstinent, but they were viewed as undesirable. ProtectYourFamily (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Texas Woman’s University Graduate Thesis ProtectYourFamily (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that incels are "member[s] of an online subculture of people..." and the Internet postdates WW2 by about twenty years, no. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You make a fair point. It’s easy to confuse the subject matter of this article - which is the voluntary online subculture of self described “incels” - with a broader topic of ostracized men in history who suffer sexual frustration or emotional intimate injuries (which is what the thesis refers to for 4F men) from rejection. ProtectYourFamily (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There have been pre-internet, historical figures which have self-identified (or identified others) as "involuntary celibate" verbatim, in print. You can petition to revive the page, "involuntary celibacy", or to redo this page if you had reliable sources about such that you felt were worthy for wikipedia 2600:8806:0:C2:ECD1:35F4:5C99:7D39 (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would recommend reviewing the substantial conversation that has already been had about this exact topic before beginning a new discussion. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not found prior discussion on this scholarly topic, nor another relevant article to this topic. ProtectYourFamily (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe this query would have best been suited for the Reference Desk, however. Cheers.  ProtectYourFamily (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am referring to the discussion suggested by the IP, of changing the scope of the page. Yes, your questions are probably more suited to the RD. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

"Many sources report that incels are predominantly white"
This is irrelevant since a majority of men in Western countries where this is a phenomenon are white. Is the prevalence higher among white men? That is relevant but not supported in any of the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.196.185.222 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You have a point in that no source says that incels are disproportionately white.
 * However, a couple of those sources associate the incel profile with the white supremacist profile, so in that sense the statement is valid. However, the article should restate the claim in that context.
 * I have removed one of the sources. I normally like the Straits Times newspaper, but as a news service controlled by an authoritarian government, it's unreliable when it comes to local politics, as well as cultural commentary about cultures outside their bubble. That article came across as an editorial full of sexist and racist assumptions without attributing them to any expert in the field. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to the article's statement's incels are more ethnically diverse than the current ethnic makeup of English-speaking countries
According to multiple sources [1], [2], [3], 4 from actual incel communities, incels in English speaking countries are more diverse than the racial demographics of the rest of society. While I would not trust incel communities for reliable information and facts, the one thing I WOULD trust them on their statements relating to their racial identity. Neither the NBC or WaPo articles give information on the racial makeup of online incels other than "some psychologist told us this so it must be true", and at best the statements regarding race in the main article are overlooked and at worst to serve an agenda. As primary sources, the sources from incel communities, as wrong as their beliefs may be, are more credible on the racial demographics of incels compared to the currently used articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.155.188 (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see our policies on primary sources and WP:ABOUTSELF. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of the term
I suggest that a section of criticism of the term incel be added to the page as there are many places that criticize the term.--Lightning in the sky (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Per WP:CSECTION, sections like that should generally be avoided when possible. If there are specific perspectives you think should be added, and those perspectives are supported by reliable sources, please propose them here for discussion. Grayfell (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair not many articles actually care about WP:CSECTION in practice. There's already a criticism section in the article. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 06:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lightning as not describing the criticism of the term could make it more likely that readers take the claim incels make through their very self-designation, at face value. 67.80.169.60 (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that we should try to balance the perspectives with a criticism section, but I can't be the only one here who is failing to understand what this means, right? WesPhil (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To repeat Grayfell: If there are specific perspectives you think should be added, and those perspectives are supported by reliable sources, please propose them here for discussion. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe there should be at least some mention of the term's pejorative use since the term is popularly used as a way to shame individuals across social media platforms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:A000:26C0:811A:2D7B:3CEF:D013 (talk • contribs)
 * Once again, if this is to be added to the article, we need reliable sources that discuss it. Feel free to provide some. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. As the saying goes, [citation needed]. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Note to self
So I don't lose it: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178921000069 GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

High level pre-FAC review
Here are my thoughts from FACing over the past year. As always, ignore what you want. -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 00:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ref 16, 49 and 102 are refs that contain refs.
 * Over citations is a problem. Statements routinely have 4+ sources when I am not sure that you really need them
 * Hoffman, Ware, and Shapiro 2020 needs page numbers
 * There will be pushback from DiBranco 2020 and Kelly 2021 as an High Quality RSes
 * The lede does not fully summarize the article. I would add another paragraph
 * LEADCITE comes to mind
 * The third paragraph of Incel probably needs more citations
 * Incel is choppy due to the short paragraphs. Is there a way to have a more summary style?
 * Incel should probably link to Hanson's post
 * Cantor's quote needs to be cited in both places
 * Incel is almost too short
 * Incel needs to be more of a summary

From me....
 * It would be good to look at all the items in the See also section and somehow incorporate into body of text or ditch Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There's gotta be some more academic stuff on psychopathology/demographics etc....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you both so much for this feedback. Guerillero, can you elaborate at all on your fourth point? Curious why those raise a flag. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd also enlarge the Mental health section to incorporate the psychopathology stuff. But busy right now (preparing to DM in D&D for first time in years!), but I think some other reorganising is needed, just not sure what...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Same thing stated twice?
I am new to Wikipedia editing so I cannot make an exact suggestion, but I did notice that under Ideology, the same thing is stated twice.

Under Ideology: Justifications for beliefs: it is stated: "Incels also regularly endorse the ideas of "female hypergamy"; genetic superiority of men over women; the "80/20 rule" (an application of the Pareto principle) which suggests that 80% of women desire the top 20% of most attractive men; and, among non-white incels, the "just be white" (JBW) theory, which suggests that Caucasians face the fewest obstacles to relationships and sex."

Under Ideology:"Red pill" and "black pill": it is stated: "It (the ADL) includes the belief that 80% of women are attracted to the top 20% of men, an application of the Pareto principle that is referred to among incels as the "80/20 rule", and the belief in "hypergamy", or that women will abandon a man if they are presented with the opportunity to have sex with or enter into a relationship with a more attractive man"

This might be a normal thing for Wikipedia articles that I just haven't noticed, but I feel as though the 80/20 rule only needs to be explained once in the article. If this is a reach let me know.

BucasBynch (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Remove blogs and news references, leave the facts
There is rather distinct phenomenon. And there are good valid sources which describe it. For example, Texas domestic terrorism threat report (27). Yet it buried under tons of news publications of dubious quality. My first impression was that it's total propaganda. Nope, there are facts. So, please, let's separate the facts from politically motivated gossip, so we can see the threat and no one is blamed unjustifiably. There are lots and lots of frustrated people, laid and not-laid, misogynistic and not. Let's not blame them all of terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.214.68.8 (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You may wish to read WP:RS to review the relevant policy on reliable sourcing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * laid and not-laid Are you trying to form a coalition with people who have been married 20+ years?  G M G  talk  21:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Derogatory article
The article is openly derogatory and political. The references provided are mostly to feminist readings or even to one-sided articles. The entire article lacks balance and it fails to meet Wikipedia criteria of fairness and objective knowledge. This cannot be a protected article as it is subject to NPOV. Please, remove the protection. --86.6.148.125 (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * All articles are subject to WP:NPOV, so that's not relevant to whether the page should be protected or not. If you have a particular edit in mind, you can still make an edit request here, but before you do, you should make sure that you have references to reliable sources comparable to what is already used in the article that actually support your proposals. Many people have come to this talk page to make similar complaints in the past, but when asked for good sources, they invariably come up empty. Wikipedia goes strictly by what's written in reliable sources, so such proposals that are unsourced will be rejected. But show us the sources, and we can talk. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 10:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Id suggest contributors sympathetic to incels should only take up Writ Keeper's invitation to a source based discussion if they willing to take a high risk that it will turn out unproductive.
 * Its good Writ Keeper wrote "invariably" rather than never. As otherwise the claim about editors coming up empty would be entirely false. Here's the thing about sourcing on incels. Its true that if one reviews the sources regardless of quality, then derogative sources outnumber sympathetic ones by about 100:1. But if one reviews the top tier sources, most are at least partly sympathetic about Incels. This is exactly what a perceptive editor should expect. Throughout history, with very rare exceptions from psycho Chads & Stacies, no socially successful & at ease person indulges in virgin shaming. Virgin shaming is entirely the domain of those who are sexually &/or socially anxious themselves. It's the human tragedy that most people feel like that for a significant part of their lives, except in rare near optimal societies. With the old elites no longer having their gatekeeper role as they did in the good old days, all sorts of 5th rate folks can crate WP:RS.
 * Still, in theory Wikipedia policy should allow a small number of high tier sources to outweigh hundreds of low tier ones. And indeed for a while it looked like that be the case even on this page. Back in Feb 2020 I arrived here and made the case that we should correct various OR errors against incels, and include some of the sympathetic coverage found in high tier sources. While there was some initial resistance, if one checks this 08 March 2020 version of the talk page, leading editors accepted much of my argument, even thanking me and saying "Great". But then a few weeks after Id left to work on other things, virtually all the sympathetic coverage I'd added had been removed. It took over 50 hours to establish the apparent concensus for our article to reflect how incels are covered in high quality sources! At least they left the parts about the pain experienced by the relatively unrecognised female incels, so I guess it wasn't a 100% waste of time.
 * Things are even more challenging here in 2021. While it's still fair to say most of the top tier sources are still at least partly sympathetic to incels, several now reflect much of the same POV as the article. Professor John Horgan & his team cant be described as 5th rate academics, they're good enough to bear comparison even with ARS editors. The good professor started looking into incels back in 2019, intially with views similar to my own. But by mid 2020 he was already banging the terrorist drum. Perhaps there's even good reason for this. Most of the 5th rate commentators on incels aren't aware there are over 100,000 cells chatting away on dark web forums or closed groups on Telegram & Gab & the like. Or even if they knew about them, they'd not have the savvy to gain access. Incel posts in such private spaces can admittedly be orders of magnitude worse than what one can view on the public forums. Still, even the Professor and his team admit that many incels are against terrorism and don't have abhorrent views, they just seek solace with fellow cells who can relate to their condition.
 * It doesn't matter what wiki lawyering excuses the established editors controlling this page come up with, the fact is the IP is correct. This article is derogatory and NPOV. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You are the one who is struggling with NPOV here—you say yourself that the majority of sources, including what you're describing as "top tier sources" describe incels in a similar vein to this article. This is very much not the place for WP:NOTFORUM rants about "psycho Chads & Stacies" and "virgin shaming". From your comment, it seems that by "established editors controlling the page", you mean enforcing our core policies like NPOV and RS. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a possible valid interpretation of my words GW, I'll give you that. You know, your presence as one of said controlling editors creates quite a dilemma for me. As you correctly observed over a year back, incels rather engage my carebear side. And yet I find it near intolerable to cause distress to folk I have a high opinion of, and overall my impression of yourself hasn't changed since I strongly supported your RfA over 10 years back. Hence I tried with all the finesse I'm capable of to come up with a collaborative solution back in early 2020. But while initially promising, that turned out to be a near total waste of time. Anyhow, I think I'll take my own advise and disengage again. But perhaps in a few years, I'll be back. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly appreciate the descriptor of "controlling editor". WP:STEWARDSHIP. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I gotta tell ya, it takes some fuckin' moxie to come in here, make some grandiose claims - backed up by exactly zero sources - call everyone else bad actors, and then claim to be withdrawing as the aggrieved party.
 * See you next year, I guess. Jorm (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare but you are the controlling editor according to the topics history log. The OKCupid data project disclosed the broken male-female dynamics which are a major driver of involuntary celibacy - but can't be referenced here as it's a primary data source. The early PUA movement (putting aside judgement of their movement) did split testing on an unprecedented scale that betters any formal study, but also can't be referenced. Incels need help, not more polarising articles and hate, so would you please stop fighting sexism with more sexism. Rcx249 (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC) rcx249
 * You acknowledge those two sources can't be used, so what is your argument here? That we ignore Wikipedia policy for this one article? Perhaps you should see if you can get reliable secondary sources to report on the research. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2021
In the demographics section about female incels, after the sentence "There are present day women-specific incel forums, such as /r/Femcels, /r/TruFemcels, and /r/ForeverAloneWomen.", insert:

Of these three subreddits, only /r/ForeverAloneWomen still remains to date.

Forgonemirage (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC) Forgonemirage (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The Reddit pages for these subreddits, "https://www.reddit.com/r/trufemcels" and "https://www.reddit.com/r/Femcels" say these subreddits have been banned, whereas "https://www.reddit.com/r/ForeverAloneWomen/" is still accessible and has not been banned. This website is also another potentially helpful source if my first three sources are not reliable enough, "https://www.huckmag.com/art-and-culture/tech/inside-the-online-safe-space-for-femcels/". Forgonemirage (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've made this change. It's a bit different from what you suggested, but I reviewed the existing sources, and the Elle source mentioning r/ForeverAloneWomen didn't specifically describe it as an incel community, so I figured it would be best to omit it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

PRA citation
When looking at the PRA citations currently in the Wikipedia article here, the author is anonymous, and is PRA even a reliable source? Does Wikipedia normally cite anonymous article authors? There's no bio, or contact info for that journalist, and yet such things are basically required by Google News and other places to be considered even remotely reputable, as it seems there's no way to tell if that's a real name under that PRA article. There's not even a first, name, is just says "m. kelly".2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ok so keep anon PRA article in main, lock Twohey article discussion, makes sense. In line with how this talk page has been going.  Gorilla said the ref dump was valuable though 2600:8806:0:C2:913:B1D8:3F87:F9AD (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"incels are predominately white"
This seems like someone with a bigoted opinion sought to put something racist in the article. The sources are a Washington post and NBC opinion article. The published paper is locked behind a paywall.

Furthermore, the phenomenon of involuntary celibacy occurs across the world but the term incel is western. So, if news sources are going to label white supremacist trolls as incels, then yes it's going to seem like all incels are white. If we looked for incels in China we would conclude most are Chinese. A prior commenter noted this.

Again, this is a pretty clear case of racial hatred being injected into an article. I really think it should be removed because it's irrelevant. 107.127.39.46 (talk) 05:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We reflect reliable sources, not our personal views. If you know of reliable sources that contradict this point, please provide them.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's clearly more than "news sources" labeling people as incels. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Moreover, not to have to hit this point yet again, but the subject of this article is not "the phenomenon of 'involuntary celibacy'"--it is the misogynist subculture that calls itself "incel". Your comparison to "incels in China" is not good because that's not what the article is about. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that other articles contradicts the claim that most people in the online subculture are white. There have been some controversy about the claim in some CVE (counter violent extremism) circles --Trade (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is already discussed in this article in quite a lot of detail (Incel), though if you know of sources that ought to be added, feel free to provide them. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Something unrelated, i think the quotes from Political Research Associates are somewhat excessively long when compared to the rest of the article. Do you think there's a way to summarize it without hurting the article. --Trade (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't share your concerns about the quote length, though if you think the same information can be conveyed in fewer words I'd certainly be interested in seeing your suggested wording. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

In demographics separate antisocial beliefs from psychological profile
Quick googling shows that many well-known people were either celibate, or introverted with few friends and never married. For example, Isaac Newton, Nicola Tesla, Immanuel Kant, Ludwig Van Beethoven, Vincent Van Gogh. I suggest to insert a sentence in the description of demographics to prevent extrapolation of the term on the people who are not incels. "People in the target demographics, i.e. shy, introverted, celibate, with few friends are also historically known for high creativity and scientific or cultural achievement. Therefore a caution should be used while attributing antisocial behavior to particular individuals. Antisocial ideas and beliefs is the main characteristic of incel ideology and not psychological profile or lifestyle." https://www.elitedaily.com/life/famous-successful-virgins/1347908 https://www.readersdigest.co.nz/culture/entertainment/13-famous-people-who-chose-to-stay-single/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.214.59.33 (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about people who are celebate, or who remain virgins; as the first sentence makes clear, it's about an online subculture. I'm pretty confident that none of the people you list were noted for their online activities, so there's very little danger of people thinking that they were members of this subculture. Furthermore, we don't write like that - we don't tell the reader that 'caution should be used'. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Please include references and data from publication by Stefan Stijelja
The majority of references and data from publication “The Psychosocial Profile of Involuntary Celibates (Incels)” by Stefan Stijelja are not included in this article. The conclusions of the author a debatable as it’s a preprint. Yet all the references are valid scientific papers. I see no reason why they are not included in this article, while substantial number of news articles are included. This may represent editorial bias. https://psyarxiv.com/9mutg/download — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.214.59.33 (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * You are at liberty to suggest changes to this article based on reliable sources. Please do not accuse other editors of bias on an article talk page, it is not appropriate. Girth Summit  (blether)  18:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If there's a bias it's toward high-profile, recent events that receive lots of free media coverage. The scholarly analyses take longer and are often paywalled. This is a problem across all of Wikipedia, not just with this article. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Stefan, the, "Involuntary Celibacy" article is deleted on Wikipedia FYI. Your paper uses the definition "incels are involuntary celibates who identify as...".  WP instead takes the stance of "incels are members of a subculture who identify as involuntary celibates".  In that the latter reflects a decision at WP to downplay, disregard, or deny any possible reality of involuntary celibacy as a standalone condition or circumstance. Not that your article won't be used by Wikipedia for that reason (probably), but it's worth noting the differences in definition.2600:8806:0:C2:B04A:DEB8:7635:9CE0 (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting there is a slow trickle of academia coming in like Stefans, wherein the old WP definition is being sort of awkwardly mixed in with the new one. But with an emphasis on the former. Might be worth collecting those sources for any future article splits or whatnot 2600:8806:0:C2:B04A:DEB8:7635:9CE0 (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarification. If these comments are to remain in the discussion it's good enough for me. I admit I don't have enough time or expertise for proper research. Yet if there is a civilized discussion and arguments I see now further reason to push these changes. Sorry for any uninformed claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.214.59.33 (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Add more pills?
To say mainstream manosphere groups are largely blackpill or redpill is untrue. As someone who unfortunately have been around these types and read the stuff incels say. Many tend to be EXTREMELY politically diverse and their pill jargon tends to reflect that. For example, this wikipedia article tends to put emphesis on the red-pill, despite it largely only being very influential in certain incel spaces, while completely leaving out other greatly influencial "pills" such as the the purple-pill. Which interprets incel ideology through a leftist perspective. Some of the most popular incel communities still alive such as braincels are overtly far-left. With one of their main founders, AnathematicAnarchist being an outspoken anarcho-communist, this isn't cherry-picking either, the more you actually hear about what incels say about how to "cure" inceldom, many advocate for things such as "sexual-marxism" or attack what they call "vagino-capitalism" or venerate other left-wing figures as apparently pro-incel. I have also heard many talk about the "whitepill" which promotes stoicism, and not caring about ones potential attraction in the dating pool. This is not to say incelism is not a toxic ideology. But this article seems to remove all the grey and generalize all incels as to be far-right/alt-right radicals and racists (which would be a great mistake) and is absolutely wrong if you actually know these types of people. If you actually know these guys, they are more radically populist in numerous different political directions rather than following one specific ideology, exclusive to the radical right-wing. In the very least I suggest we add documentation of these new "pills" as they are still fairly influential in incel communities and not documenting them would be leaving out much of the history of incels. --AverageWikiEditingEnjoyer (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2022 (EST)
 * Wikipedia articles represent what is already published in reputable sources. If there are published sources that document any of the above themes, feel free to present them. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

"The incel ideology" + new sources are available related to NYTimes front-page article and evolving international news story
The lede of this article says incels have an overriding single philosophy. "The incel ideology", and yet a front page article from the New York Times written by Megan Twohey of MeToo reporting fame and Gabriel Dance of Edward Snowden reporting fame, republished by many other places, says only "many" incels share the blackpill philosophy and not "all". It also distinguishes between online and offine incels, yet the article here never makes such a distinction :/ This Wikipedia article just keeps falsely saying it's all an online phenomena that occasionally has real world events associated.

In general the NYT article doesn't frame incels as a subculture, but rather a fairly simple subculture-less identity, specifically by specifying "online incels", as opposed to "offline incels", never referencing any subculture, talking about different "groups of incels", rather than a single group etc Although it does mention incels as becoming more extreme about their complaints over time.

The NYT article also mentions that some incels are prone to misogyny, suicide and violence, not "all", and yet this article falsely tries to give off an "all" impression

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/09/us/where-the-despairing-log-on.html The article is worth reading in full and adds new information if this article considers 'incel' to partly be a collection of forums. Maybe worth incorporating something from the article, given it's 33 pages and from an actually reputable outlet.

There's also been follow-up reporting on the NYT article almost bi-weekly. And international news related to it. Multiple national television news on it etc (although mainly in South America, but a few in the US).

On the other hand the NYT articles are gonna be available for people to see for thousands of years and wikis in general don't necessarily demand the rigour the authors of that article seemed to put in, nor do wikis have the permanence of an NYT article, so it might not matter if the article isn't included, but I hope that story makes it's way into this article as it's so topical and relevant to this article. (specifically the portions about the currently most-publicized self-identified incel forum on the web as of early 2022, it has new info about it)

The PRA article seems to add value to this Wikipedia article, but not sure how that merits adding but not NYT. Previous commentors about this article avoiding actually reputable sources I fear may be correct, but hopeful that I'm not. Thanks! :) 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * We distinguish between being literally involuntary celibate and self-identifying as pertaining to the incel group. Of course, there are many people who wished they had a partner, but they aren't incels in the meaning of this article. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Who is "we"? The NYTimes articles use the shortened word 'incel'. Wikipedia doesn't normally seem to act as a group that has predetermined opinions before fulling considering the largest news article on the most publicized incel forum, which it hasn't publically considered yet. Saying "we" as consensus before acknowledging the new sources means you don't care about the new sources.  This section is about how a 33-page front-page NYTimes article from about month ago on incels.is and sanctionedsuicide frames 'incel' as a whole, and also is anticipating that people will actually read and comment on it here, given it's the most reputable and largest news article so far that goes in depth about the topic.  Not to mention the follow-up stories, TV broadcasts, international related stories from this month etc.  At the end of the day it won't make much of a difference to the world at large if Wikipedia ignores the story for unstated, possibly strange, reasons, (including in other articles) but it would certainly be mildly noteworthy if it does.  Like how it also ignored the BBC documentary on incels.  NYTimes, BBC, not sure why these are considered not interesting to Wikipedia when they are the most reputable sources. 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This article has many footnotes to peer-reviewed studies. One article in the NYT does not change the whole narrative. If peer-reviewed studies will admit the narrative has changed, Wikipedia will follow suit. See WP:RECENTISM. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't negate other articles, nor did I say that. You're putting words in my mouth.  Wikipedia lists differences in coverage normally and as of 01/01/22, it is ignoring the largest and most comprehensive sources on the topic, which was that article and the BBC doc, the Vox one, among maybe 1-2 others. 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, pal: I am celibate (whether voluntary or involuntary is a complicated issue). But I do not identify as incel. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:TMI, WP:NOTAFORUM 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 07:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What I am trying to say: incels are people who whine all day long about being celibate. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you want to discuss sources or not? If not, there isn't much more to say to you. 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A couple journalistic sources do not change the definition of the problem. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I'm not the first person to say people here are ignoring reputable places known for fact checking in favor of Wikipedia-feedback-loop academia and digital rags.  Additionally this article, looking at the history, was crammed primarily with Minassian sources while that story was evolving in the news.  The 33-page NYTimes article is a month old.  The 2-hour BBC doc is 3 years old. 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You can find peer-reviewed sources on Google Scholar discussing the "incel subculture". This isn't a question of the NYT vs. some random clickbait sites. And the article by Twohey and Dance isn't primarily about incels. It's about a suicide-promotion site whose operators happen to also operate incel forums. Nor was it a front-page article since it was published online. Unclear which BBC documentary you mean. Could you provide a link? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is listed at the top of the talk page here as the top potential source for this article, it's peer reviewed; "Speckhard, Anne; Ellenberg, Molly; Morton, Jesse; Ash, Alexander (2021). "Involuntary Celibates' Experiences of and Grievance over Sexual Exclusion and the Potential Threat of Violence Among Those Active in an Online Incel Forum". Journal of Strategic Security. University of South Florida Board of Trustees. 14 (2): 89–121. doi:10.5038/1944-0472.14.2.1910. JSTOR 27026635."
 * See two authors are Jesse Morton and Alexander Ash. Jesse died the day of the follow-up NYT report, unexpectedly, at a young age of 43, and had come out with an article with Ash a week prior to his death, and was tweeting normally prior to his death.  Ash is reported in that NYT follow-up as being under both Montevideo police and Congressional inquiry.  When the "peer-reviewed" author (Ash) of the top article here is a third of the story WP is  ignoring, something smells real fishy.  2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is the doc which aired on BBC1 and BBC3 many times, thx for asking https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07fvhmw 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with : the NYT article isn't about incels, it is about the webmasters of a pro-suicide website, who also happen to run incel websites. And of course, it is about people committing suicide because of that website. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is about the founders of the largest incel forum, the founders of the most publicized forum, their trajectory from /r/incels to incels.me, and about those who died on their other suicide promotion site, that was not explicitly incel oriented. I don't see any reason to deny this source. Although, I'm sure people here wouldn't even create an article to accomodate this if it became a 5 year long evolving story either.  Pity.  Question is why. 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't deny that's true, but it is still not a source about incels. It's like saying that Ted Bundy was also a good poker player and link the game of poker to his murders. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't deny that's true, but it is still not a source about incels. It's like saying that Ted Bundy was also a good poker player and link the game of poker to his murders. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The NYT doesn't say they founded the largest incel forum or name /r/incels or incels.me specifically. It seems correct to say it focuses on those who died on their other suicide promotion site, that was not explicitly incel oriented. Unclear why we would completely overhaul the Incel article on the basis of this story that isn't mainly about the incel subculture/identity/community. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup, at best the IP can draw the conclusion that those who run main incel websites are heartless people who rejoice when others take their own life. But no more than that, e.g. it says nothing about the incel community. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * When you are making up things about the articles, I gotta quote it.
 * When you are making up things about the articles, I gotta quote it.

"Marquis and Serge have vowed to fight any efforts to take down the site. They have experience running websites with dark content: They operate several online forums for “incels,” or involuntary celibates, men who believe that women will never have sex with them because of their looks or social status. Many on those sites openly discuss a fatalistic outlook, including thoughts of self-harm.

But in June 2019, BuzzFeed News reported that in addition to the suicide site, the two men were running the incel websites.

Money didn’t appear to be the motivation. Both men seemed to have found their identity and sense of purpose in the online world of incels, many of whom share a dark outlook known as “black pill.” In 2017, when Reddit had banned an online group of incels for encouraging violence, Serge started an independent site for them, soon joined by Marquis, who had written to him about his interest and skills as a system administrator.

By then, several deadly attacks had been carried out by men expressing grievances common among incels. American authorities would later flag incels as an emerging extremist threat. Radicalization experts warned that some were prone to misogyny, suicide and violence.

On the incel sites that Serge and Marquis run, many members have expressed anger at society; some commend those who commit violence, and fantasize about doing the same. An Ohio man who was a frequent poster on one site was indicted this past July for allegedly plotting to slaughter women. In a podcast interview about incels, Serge said that much of the discussion was “suicide fuel.”

But he and Marquis claimed they were helping those on the sites by allowing them to freely express themselves and face hard truths, a rationale similar to one they have offered about their suicide site.

The Times investigation led to an elegant three-story apartment building in Montevideo, Uruguay, and a modest two-bedroom townhouse in Huntsville, Ala.

The man calling himself Serge is Diego Joaquín Galante; Marquis is Lamarcus Small.

Reporters pieced together their identities and roles with the site from domain registration and financial documents, their online activity, public documents including court records, and interviews with seven people who had interacted with either of them.

The domain and financial records were never intended to become public. They came to light after a domain seller the site operators had used was hacked this fall, resulting in the release of millions of records. In addition, The Times obtained photographs of Mr. Small and Mr. Galante that were a match with Marquis and Serge.

Records show that Mr. Galante, 29, resides in the Montevideo apartment with his family — several siblings, his mother and his father, who is a lawyer. Mr. Small, 28, lives with his mother and brother in the townhouse.

Mr. Small’s family life has been tumultuous. His father, who has served as an Army officer, and his mother divorced. She was accused of attacking her husband in 2010, and then her adult daughter four years later, according to police complaints.

Mr. Small had his own troubles. In 2017, a bank sued him for $6,578, and wages from his remote work for a Colorado tech company were garnished until that job ended in 2019.

“If people want to change, if they want self-improvement, basically the whole web is out there to go for that — Reddit, Facebook, Twitter, all the big ones,” Serge said during a virtual panel discussion about incels in January. “But if we are being honest, not everyone has a way out.” --nytimes"

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/21/technology/suicide-website-google.html "Mr. Small and Mr. Galante also resigned as administrators of several websites they operated for involuntary celibates, or incels, men who believe women will never have sex with them because of their looks and social status.

In Uruguay, where assisting suicide is a crime, the Montevideo police have begun an inquiry in collaboration with a local prosecutor’s office in response to The Times’s investigation, said Javier Benech, a communications director for the office.

On Tuesday, Representative Lori Trahan, Democrat of Massachusetts, along with six other House members, wrote to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland asking what options the Justice Department had for investigating the site and its founders and what steps lawmakers could take to allow for a prosecution --nytimes"

2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This Wiki article is almost entirely about their forum ecosystem, and to say otherwise is an insulting lie and an insult to everyones intelligence here2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "In 2017, when Reddit had banned an online group of incels for encouraging violence, Serge started an independent site for them, soon joined by Marquis, who had written to him about his interest and skills as a system administrator. --nytimes"
 * Thanks for the quote. If you have a source saying that either Galante or Small are founders of the largest incel forum, feel free to present it. Still doesn't affect this article beyond that one bit of trivia though. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, insulting everyones intelligence, but here is a source saying that https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/09/podcasts/the-daily/suicide-investigation.html 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk)
 * Friend, I have read the article, and it is not an article about incels (though incels do get mentioned). tgeorgescu (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Friend, that's not the article, it's a source which mentions them as running the largest incel forum. There it is, there's a source.  2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It'd be cool if people at least clicked links of sources, they don't have viruses.2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Marquis and Serge are sick puppies. That's all you get from me. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyway, still waiting on why this isn't considered notable, beyond extreme evidence that people simply to not want to read or engage with material which would warrant a heavy rewrite or addition. I assume it will be added later.  If not I anticipate others will ask why on their own.
 * Or simply gather their info from reputable sources like NYT, multiple criminal justice outlets, Congressional publishings, BBC, Vox, among others of which Wikipedia is not. And of which Wikipedia gets far less views than those combined, at least on the incel topic.2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That podcast transcript quotes "Serge" saying, "I manage the largest incel forum on the web",$[21:00 in the audio track]$ which is apparently incels.co based on the very next audio clip (not r/incels or incels.me). The article's authors don't say that themselves, so neither can we. Again, unclear what changes are being proposed based on this bit of trivia. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, so incels.co then, we're getting into water is wet territory, but if we go by sources, which WP does, then it's incels.co which is the largest forum and of which there are... hmm... hundreds of articles and repulishings bout now. It's not promoting them to mention them at this point, trust me, I'm not as far from your side as you think. 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If naming them is still the primary concern, there's all sorts of ways to phrase it, "largest incel forum", "forum born from /r/incels", "/r/incels successor forum" 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You have produced much ado about rewriting the whole article, but you don't have any clue about verifiable edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again, those are soundbites from the subject of the article/podcast. Citing them would be like citing a tweet by Donald Trump on the size of his inauguration crowd that happened to be mentioned in a news story about something else entirely. Not reliable. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Megan Twohey: 33 page article, half of which exposes the largest incel forum founders, that forum being incels.co
 * Wikipedia: "Denied! Soundbites! Too toxic! I didn't click!" 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sayonara, good luck with whatever it is you're trying to achieve through ignoring Megan's reporting on incels 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I already granted they are sick puppies. What else do you wish? tgeorgescu (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Amount I care about your personal opinions: 0. For anyone reading this, you can read the quoted sections of the article and the Daily above, to know the many paragraphs that could be added once that is added, when later factoring in the international and other follow up reporting. I advise an article split to incels.co Sanctioned Suicide and/or Incel Movement to incorporate new and old sources ignored.2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Then suggest verifiable edits instead of boasting how much you despise Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not my job, I gave ppl the new sources. The old sources, both in article form and ref dumps ignored are also still floating around other places for any article splits. 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Once again, the sources don't say what you think they do. You'd need much more than a single news article to justify separate encyclopedia entries for any of those things. Nor is it clear what exactly you want split off. Not our job to read your mind. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "I manage the largest incel forum on the web",$[21:00 in the audio track]$
 * "In 2017, when Reddit had banned an online group of incels for encouraging violence, Serge started an independent site for them, soon joined by Marquis, who had written to him about his interest and skills as a system administrator. --nytimes"
 * "In 2017, when Reddit had banned an online group of incels for encouraging violence, Serge started an independent site for them, soon joined by Marquis, who had written to him about his interest and skills as a system administrator. --nytimes"
 * Three sources are the direct subject of this subsection. If it's too much for this already too long article, this article could be split into a much delayed incels.co article, or a Sanctioned Suicide and Incel Movement article. This is a talk page, I'm not demanding anyone do anything, just pointing out it's notable and propositioning ways it can be added if this article is too long. After that, the new international and related reporting not exlusive to incels could be introduced, as well as old ref dumps.2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Google news lists 30 articles for "incels.co", I can list them2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * An audio clip of a person claiming to be the founder or manager of something is not an independent, reliable source. Moreover it would be improper synthesis to connect incels.co to the "independent site" started by Galante. WP:GHITS alone do not an encyclopedia entry make. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You realize your digging out rule cards to try to deny an entry of a new york times front page article with television brodcasts and international followups, this doesn't seem good faith. The Daily mentioned the URL and they didn't mention the full URL of the suicide site.   If ppl want to avoid naming the site, which Wikipedia has done purposefully done for 5 years, no one appears to be pushing for that. And I'm not the first person to say here that there is a concerted effort here to deny top-tier news sources that fact check2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It explicitly mentions him as the founder of it, and in the many paragraphs about him and the incel topic, the article says serge is Diego
 * "In 2017, when Reddit had banned an online group of incels for encouraging violence, Serge started an independent site for them, soon joined by Marquis, who had written to him about his interest and skills as a system administrator. --nytimes"
 * It explicitly mentions him as the founder of it, and in the many paragraphs about him and the incel topic, the article says serge is Diego
 * "In 2017, when Reddit had banned an online group of incels for encouraging violence, Serge started an independent site for them, soon joined by Marquis, who had written to him about his interest and skills as a system administrator. --nytimes"


 * "The man calling himself Serge is Diego Joaquín Galante; Marquis is Lamarcus Small. --nytimes"

68.100.233.100
 * A follow up story says he subsequently resigned from it, so when it gets added to Wikipedia it'd make sense to say "co-founder of a group of violence-promoting incels" or "co-founder of incels.co", rather than "admin". With Lamarcus as the other and final founder, along with the context of the article, cuz this news cycle appears to be partially about crucial developments in the incel space, not just about news worthy public figures and their exposure that made them public figures, through now hundreds of republishings and multiple followups mentioning the names and the incel stuff in print, podcast, television etc form. 68.100.233.100 (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also from the Daily, you all didn't quote the full quote where he mentions the url:
 * "Serge: Again, thank you for the introduction. I manage the largest incel forum on the web. If people come to the forum, incels.co, it is mainly because they want to be somewhere where they won’t be told, hey, hey, there is a way out."
 * (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Not gonna pretend like the NYT isn't a quality source. But the original post here makes it seem like there is a detailed discussion about people who are involuntary celebrate as an offline phenomenon. But the bits from the NYT that focus specifically on incels, rather than the suicide site (all of about six paragraphs) is explicitly discussing the topic in the context of the online communities. The OP content on offline incels seems to mostly be that because the article discusses online incels (a term which it never seems to actually use verbatim), it must necessarily be implying that there is a community of offline incels (also a term it doesn't seem to use verbatim).
 * If we wanna have a discussion about offline incels, I'm all for it. But we've repeatedly found in discussions here that in-depth treatment of offline incels...the sources just don't seem to be there. There doesn't seem to be like any deep examination where like...Jake is a therapist and he started a support group at the local YMCA, where this is a bona fide and independent social phenomenon discussed outside the overarching context of the online subculture. Maybe there's some psychologist or sex therapists busy typing away on their authoritative book on the subject. But it doesn't seem to have seen the light of day quite yet.  G M G  talk  13:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi GMG, thanks for your input. If WP decides to ignore the framing on incels in a front page NYTimes source + subsequent news cycle, (which is not new on this WP article according to multiple registered users in the talk history of this page re: top-tier sources)
 * ...what do you think about mentioning any part of the news cycle on the community most of this WP article is based off, at all? I can link all the URLs of the December-beginning incel-substory news cycle I found if you want. (but it's in the hundreds at this point so it'd take up quite a few lines ;) )  People weren't waiting even days for previous cycles to be over before adding in stuff the entire duration of this article, and this cycle began a month ago. 68.100.233.100 (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The first story uses the word 'incel' verbatim 9 times, and the article follow up uses the word verbatim as well. Contrary to what you said, it uses the phrase "online incels" at least twice. The word incel verbatim and the incel topic is also mentioned in the followup, the Daily and the PBS Television broadcast among many others. It mentions the reddit trajectory of incels.co, (of which most of this WP article is based on but purposefully doesn't name) the incels.co founders names and backgrounds, and the connection incels.co has with sanctionedsuicide, etc. Please, please people read the news articles before commenting on the news articles.  Not demanding it, it just makes it easier to have a convo68.100.233.100 (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Month? Shoot. I've been around this article for like the last four years. We've put in a good faith effort to search high and low for sources. I get that lots of people don't think it's fair to associate incels generally with the high profile toxicity that brought the online culture into public view. And yeah, WP:NOTNEWS is a longstanding persistent problem. But as far as we've been able to parse out, this characterization isn't just part of the news cycle; it's the preponderance of coverage in all sources considered. In a God's-eye-view, that probably has a lot to do with what's flashy and exciting. Cover the plane crash, and not the 1,000 flights that landed safely.
 * But we gotta work with what we got. WP is supposed to be the dispassionate average of all sources. Again, I been around the block. I can Wikipedia with the best of them. But when you're trying to advocate a substantial change to a controversial article with a couple hundred sources, you're in an up-hill battle. Research more; argue less. Personal advice, try to do it in a format like this that suggests specific changes based on specific sources, rather than arguing broad concepts. It tends to be more effective in reaching a compromise if a compromise is to be had.  G M G  talk  14:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This article was *created* violating WP:NOTNews if you check the history. It's fine if people wait.  I'd suggest splitting the article, and will ref dump so people can use it here or in a split. 68.100.233.100 (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You'd do yourself a favor if you suggested specific changes rather than dumping sources, especially if they're being pulled from twitter. And things like "this article is biased" doesn't really count. Looking more for "this sentence should be changed thusly based on that source which says this." And for better or worse, reality intervenes, and I don't know how many if any folks involved in this article are fluent in Spanish.  G M G  talk  14:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 3 NYtimes, 1 PBS, 3 Uruguay news, New Statesman, Toronto Sun, House.gov, Foreign Policy, (edit 1 Telemundo), plus more, I'm at a loss at what more would be needed. None of those are Twitter. 2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If that's not enough people here have an agenda and that'd be clear to anyone neutral reading this. 2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, but you still need to put on your big kid pants and suggest specific changes based on specific sources if you actually hope to get anything done.  G M G  talk  12:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Dec incels.co/SS founder (Lamarcus/Diego) news cycle ref dump

 * 12/9/21 NYTimes front-page first story (33 pages) https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/09/us/where-the-despairing-log-on.html
 * 12/9/21 NYTimes Daily https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/09/podcasts/the-daily/suicide-investigation.html
 * 12/12/21 Interpol "studies link" that creator of incels.co/SS aka Diego has to SS story, the link established by nytimes https://www.elobservador.com.uy/nota/interpol-estudia-caso-de-uruguayo-presuntamente-vinculado-a-un-sitio-que-promueve-el-suicidio-2021121121320  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:0:C2:2490:6CD9:B4C7:8273 (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 12/14/21 Interpol investigating creator of incels.co/SS aka Diego story 1 https://ladiaria.com.uy/justicia/articulo/2021/12/interpol-investiga-organizacion-acusada-de-promover-el-suicidio/
 * 12/15/21 Interpol investigating creator of incels.co/SS aka Diego story 2 https://www.subrayado.com.uy/interpol-investiga-un-uruguayo-promover-el-suicidio-traves-internet-n823204
 * 12/16/21 PBS national television: https://www.pbs.org/video/the-darkest-web-1639694820/
 * Meta-story https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2021/how-the-new-york-times-handled-life-or-death-ethical-issues-while-reporting-on-a-popular-suicide-website/
 * 12/16/21 Interpol investigating creator of incels.co/SS aka Diego story 3 https://www.infobae.com/america/america-latina/2021/12/16/interpol-investiga-a-un-uruguayo-que-creo-una-web-que-promociona-el-suicidio-al-menos-45-personas-ya-se-quitaron-la-vida/
 * 12/16/21 Interpol "studies page" Mentions Diego and Lamarcus, but the latter not connected to interpol thing in it.  https://noticias.canal1.com.co/internacional/interpol-uruguayo-web-promotora-suicidio-45-victimas/ 2600:8806:0:C2:2490:6CD9:B4C7:8273 (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 12/21/21 NYTimes followup https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/21/technology/suicide-website-google.html
 * 12/21/21 U.S. Congress letter to DOJ: https://trahan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/doj_sanctioned_suicide_letter_final_dec21.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 12/21/21 "The Prosecutor's Office opened an investigation by the 11th prosecutor for the case reported by the New York Times newspaper that links a young Uruguayan to a website that talks about different ways of taking his own life. [...] The young Uruguayan leads the organization from Montevideo. The young man is 29 years old and lives in the capital with his brothers and their parents. [...] His partner was found in Huntsville, in Alabama, United States." https://www.montevideo.com.uy/Noticias/Fiscalia-investigara-a-uruguayo-presuntamente-vinculado-a-web-que-promociona-el-suicidio-uc807881 2600:8806:0:C2:2490:6CD9:B4C7:8273 (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 12/22/21 French story, lists full names https://www.courrierinternational.com/article/mal-etre-linquietant-succes-dun-site-qui-promeut-le-suicide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:0:C2:2490:6CD9:B4C7:8273 (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 01/04/22 New Zealand piece on Trahan letter to DOJ, lists full names https://foreignaffairs.co.nz/2022/01/04/mil-osi-usa-trahan-leads-bipartisan-call-for-action-to-stop-sanctioned-suicide-website/

Plus hundreds of republishings Will add more later 2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Non-Dec general incels.co refs

 * https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/2020/03/incels-celebrating-lockdown-casual-sex-chad-stacy-4chan-reddit
 * https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/inside-the-terrifying-violent-world-of-incel-subculture
 * https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/02/incels-toronto-attack-terrorism-ideological-violence/
 * https://www.thecut.com/2019/05/incel-plastic-surgery.html
 * https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/it-s-time-to-take-britain-s-incel-terror-threat-seriously
 * https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/incels-suicide-forum-woman-killed-herself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.inputmag.com/features/chatbots-and-the-loneliness-epidemic-when-ai-harmony-realdoll-replika-is-more-than-just-a-friend
 * https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/men-are-being-radicalised-by-the-incel-movement
 * https://www.oxygen.com/crime-time/what-bianca-devins-murder-tells-us-about-incels-male-entitlement-misogyny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Lavin, T. (2020). Culture Warlords: My Journey Into the Dark Web of White Supremacy. United States: Hachette Books. (long portion on forum, also speaks of "serge")
 * Whitney, B. (2020). The "Supreme Gentleman" Killer: The True Story of an Incel Mass Murderer. United States: WildBlue Press. (speaks of "serge")
 * incels.co in academic papers

Cousineau, L. S. (2020). 4 Sex, power, and controlling bodies.
 * Ribeiro, M. H., Jhaver, S., Zannettou, S., Blackburn, J., De Cristofaro, E., Stringhini, G., & West, R. (2020). Does Platform Migration Compromise Content Moderation? Evidence from r/The_Donald and r/Incels. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.10397.
 * Cousineau, L. S. (2020). Sex, power, and controlling bodies: Incels and pickup artists. In Sex and Leisure (pp. 73-90). Routledge.
 * Horta Ribeiro, M., Jhaver, S., Zannettou, S., Blackburn, J., Stringhini, G., De Cristofaro, E., & West, R. (2021). Do platform migrations compromise content moderation? evidence from r/the_donald and r/incels. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2), 1-24.
 * Bjarnadóttir, H., & Hanson, S. (2020). “We are denied to be human because society sees us as trash”: Den kollektiva identiteten på Incels. co.
 * Johansson, J. (2020). " Other areas of life mean nothing… Sex is everything": En kvalitativ studie om män i ofrivilligt celibat på internetforumet incels. co.
 * Eriksson, G. (2020). Incels-kvinnohat i den digitala åldern: En tematisk analys av åsikterna om jämställdhet, maskulinitet, och sexuella relationer på incels. co.
 * Stijelja, S. (2021). The Psychological Profile of Involuntary Celibates (Incels): A Literature Review.
 * Marveggio, M. (2020). The Affective Practices of Incels: A Social Identity Approach to the Construction of Incel Identities (Doctoral dissertation). ("prominent incel forum")
 * Kelly, C. R., & Aunspach, C. (2020). Incels, Compulsory Sexuality, and Fascist Masculinity. Feminist Formations, 32(3), 145-172.
 * Skalna, A. (2019). A linguistic image of selves and other men in the incel jargon.
 * Zdjelar, V. (2020). Alone together: Exploring community on an incel forum (Doctoral dissertation, Arts & Social Sciences: School of Criminology).
 * Voroshilova, A. I., & Pesterev, D. O. (2021, April). Russian Incels Web Community: Thematic and Semantic Analysis. In 2021 Communication Strategies in Digital Society Seminar (ComSDS) (pp. 185-190). IEEE.
 * Kelly, M., DiBranco, A., & DeCook, J. R. Misogynist Incels and Male Supremacism: Overview and Recommendations for Addressing the Threat of Male Supremacist Violence.
 * Svenning, A., & Åkne, M. (2020). " Normies don't know hardship": Incels och kvinnoförakt på digitala forum.
 * Hajarian, M., & Khanbabaloo, Z. (2021, May). Toward Stopping Incel Rebellion: Detecting Incels in Social Media Using Sentiment Analysis. In 2021 7th International Conference on Web Research (ICWR) (pp. 169-174). IEEE.
 * Hajarian, M., & Khanbabaloo, Z. (2021, May). Toward Stopping Incel Rebellion: Detecting Incels in Social Media Using Sentiment Analysis. In 2021 7th International Conference on Web Research (ICWR) (pp. 169-174). IEEE.
 * Ware, J. (2021). Beta Uprising. Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses, 13(2), 10-15.
 * Reichert, C. Involuntary Celibates: An Exploratory Research of Incels.
 * Conley, J. (2020). Efficacy, Nihilism, and Toxic Masculinity Online: Digital Misogyny in the Incel Subculture (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University).
 * Lopes, F. M. (2021). What do incels want? Explaining incel violence using Beauvoirian Otherness. Hypatia.
 * Preston, K., Halpin, M., & Maguire, F. (2021). The Black Pill: New Technology and the Male Supremacy of Involuntarily Celibate Men. Men and Masculinities, 1097184X211017954.
 * Davies, G. (2021). Radicalization and Violent Extremism in the Era of COVID-19. The Journal of Intelligence, Conflict, and Warfare, 4(1), 149-152.
 * Young, O. (2019). What Role has Social Media Played in Violence Perpetrated by Incels?.
 * Sande, E. (2021). Verdiløse menn-en kvalitativ studie av kjønn, erotisk kapital og fellesskap blant incels på internett (Master's thesis, NTNU).
 * Binning, C. The Un-Dateables.
 * Junni, A. (2021). Incel-yhteisön kriminologiset narratiivit verkossa: mikrotason oppimisteoreettinen analyysi rikosmyönteisistä asenteista.
 * Krüger, S. (2021). Anal sexuality and male subcultures online: The politics of self-deprecation in the deep vernacular web. Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society, 26(2), 244-258.
 * Nyström, E. (2020). ” What becomes of the broken-hearted?”-En socialantropologisk studie om männen som kallar sig incels.
 * Rubertsson, C. (2019). ” The majority of females are selfish and don’t want to help us lonely men out”: En netnografisk studie om män som är incels.
 * Jansson, F. (2019). Att inte få ligga: En uppsats om diskurser kring sex, makt och utseende på det mansseparatistiska forumet incels. co.
 * Binning, C. (2021). The undateables: inceldom, entitlement and the state-mandated girlfriend. Gendering 2020 (+ 1).
 * Cottee, S. (2020). Incel (e) motives: Resentment, shame and revenge. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 44(2), 93-114.
 * Speckhard, A., Ellenberg, M., Morton, J., & Ash, A. (2021). Involuntary Celibates’ Experiences of and Grievance over Sexual Exclusion and the Potential Threat of Violence Among Those Active in an Online Incel Forum. Journal of Strategic Security, 14(2), 5.
 * Engholm, H. (2021). The lack of looks: A study on the Incel ideology of Incelism during the 2010s–2020s and its relation to historical and contemporary ideologies particularly within far-right milieus.
 * Ünes, A. (2020). Mating preferences of women as perceived by incels (Bachelor's thesis, University of Twente).
 * Daly, S. E., & Laskovtsov, A. (2021). " Goodbye, My Friendcels": An Analysis of Incel Suicide Posts. CrimRxiv.
 * Ribeiro, M. H., Blackburn, J., Bradlyn, B., De Cristofaro, E., Stringhini, G., Long, S., ... & Zannettou, S. (2020). The evolution of the manosphere across the Web. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.07600.
 * Ostermann, L. M. (2020). Involuntary celibates (Incels) in the public eye: the effect of portrayal, political affiliations, and self-perceived mating success on the perception of a fringe online-community (Master's thesis, University of Twente).
 * Davies, G., Wu, E., & Frank, R. (2021). A Witch’s Brew of Grievances: The Potential Effects of COVID-19 on Radicalization to Violent Extremism. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 1-24.
 * Vårhall, L., & Öst, H. (2021). ” Gratis sex skulle också vara ganska coolt’TBH’men kärlek är bättre antar jag”. En netnografisk studie om incels syn på sin livssituation och gemenskapen på incel-forum.
 * Ribeiro, M. H., Blackburn, J., Bradlyn, B., De Cristofaro, E., Stringhini, G., Long, S., ... & Zannettou, S. (2021). The Evolution of the Manosphere *Across the Web. In CoRR. ICWSM.
 * Ong, K. (2020). Ideological Convergence in the Extreme Right. Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses, 12(5), 1-7.

(There's too many of these too list all here)

"currently most popular incel-forum in the world, incels.co. --Forsbacka, J. 2020"
 * Forsbacka, J. (2020). Så mycket hat från hjärtat som brister: en kritisk och feministisk online etnografisk undersökning av ett incel-forum.

"incels.co is the largest active digital environment for incels with around 11,000 registered members and 3.3 million posts. -Pelzer, B., Kaati, L., Cohen, K., & Fernquist, J. 2021" "incels.co, which has since migrated to incels.is -Halpin, M., & Richard, N. 2021"
 * Pelzer, B., Kaati, L., Cohen, K., & Fernquist, J. (2021). Toxic language in online incel communities. SN Social Sciences, 1(8), 1-22.
 * Halpin, M., & Richard, N. (2021). An invitation to analytic abduction. Methods in Psychology, 5, 100052.

2600:8806:0:C2:2490:6CD9:B4C7:8273 (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC) updated ref dump 01/04/22
 * If you are hoping to see content added to this page, or a new page created about incels.co, I would strongly recommend drafting the changes/page yourself (with references) rather than dumping a long list of sources. The sources list is certainly appreciated, but depends on another editor finding the time to sift through them all and create new content from it; you're certainly welcome to wait and hope that someone does that, but doing it yourself and suggesting it here for discussion (or creating a new draft article, if you are hoping for a standalone article) is more likely to achieve change. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the last Telemundo link appears to be wrong story so I deleted it. Still trying to find where those snippets of what appears to be a TV Telemundo broadcast floating around on Twitter on Facebook regarding SS/Diego could be properly attributed if at all. 2600:8806:0:C2:913:B1D8:3F87:F9AD (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed dates and order of December-January incels.co founder news cycle. Added more incels.co refs, and separated some which list it as the most popular/largest (in 2020 and 2021) and moving to incels.is (2021/2022).  I'm almost 100% sure people can find refs detailing move from /r/incels --> incels.me --> incels.co for complete chain, maybe even in a single source, if people want to try to make the full connection.  There are more refs for incels.co and the NYTimes Daily chose to quote the incels.co URL, and not quote the sanctionedsuicided URL.  Filing this under the "for future editor" option you mentioned for this page, or if anyone decides to do a split anytime in the future.  With all the eyes on them and the founders exposed by epik leak and media who chose to use that, I doubt mentioning them is promoting them anymore, as brought up earlier.  Thanks, hope this Dec news cycle ref dump and associated incels.co ref dump helps anyone add to this encyclopedia with anything that makes sense to how it's run. 2600:8806:0:C2:2490:6CD9:B4C7:8273 (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to see you're so enthusiastic in digging up sources. I'm still waiting for the part where we put on the big kid pants and say "This specific change is warranted based on these specific sources because they say this specific thing." This is the standard.  G M G  talk  13:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand your comment and I apologize for not being the one brave enough to do that here. The parts that make the most sense to me, with the refs available, to add here or to new/another article, though is:
 * the /r/incels -> incels.co -> incels.is connection chain logic and timeline (depending on if people even want to name incels.is)
 * the comment that incels.co was the largest the last two years
 * the commment that the exposure of "a collection of incel forums moved from violence promoting incels on reddit" or "incels.co" reported founders (diego/lamarcus) were exposed by Megan Twohey and Gabriel dance in a 33 page front page NYTimes expose on sanctioned suicide and subsequently reported on internationally, with subsequent congressional scrutiny on Lamarcus and congressional and law enforcement scrutiny on Diego. (Whether or not Wikipedia actually names or otherwise republishes personal info of the founders/operators "Diego & Lamarcus" is unimportant to me, but plenty of articles from reputable news outlets listed their full names, city location, and background).
 * The comment that Sanctionedsuicide and "a collection of incel forums moved from violence promoting incels on reddit" reportedly shared the same founders ie diego and lamarcus. And just a side note of WP:OR I'll do only once, the front page of the public incels.is forum right now shows users are mailing the US Attourney General and Congress mentioning in a (public) letter pinned to the top of their forum that they are "familiar with many members" of the sanctionedsuicide site, and entitled it, "Re: sanctionedsuicide"
 * More info on incels.co in general given it's significance both in it's popularity in recent years and because it reportedly shared the same founders/operators (Diego & Lamarcus) of :the /r/incels --> incels.me --> incels.co --> incels.is chain. Talia Lavins book eg gives an actually surprisingly detailed take on it as far as culture, if that's what people prefer to go for. But given it might be too wp:notthnews to add it all now, this is why I'm just leaving sources here for future for seasoned veterans to decide2600:8806:0:C2:2490:6CD9:B4C7:8273 (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Friend, I've got three jobs, two dogs, a cat, a wife, and a little five year old thing that likes to draw on the walls. I ain't gonna do it for you. You're the lawyer for the plaintiff here. Pick one. Make your case. Assume I'm an idiot. These words right here need to be changed to those words right there because of that source that says this.
 * I can't give a better master class on how to edit Wikipedia. Be specific. If an idiot might wonder whether you're being specific enough, then be more specific.  G M G  talk  13:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure he wants an Incels.is article. Can't say i oppose it.  --Trade (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to any suggestion at all on purely principle. Obviously there are plenty of independently notable websites. Depends on whether there's enough sources available to write a bona fide article, which is really what WP:GNG boils down to in practice.  G M G  talk  12:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I see I'm a bit late to the party. I'm pretty sure that IP user has heavy ties to the incel world and has an agenda to push, 'blackpill incel bad' 'purplepill incel good' 'visit my purplepill website'. I recognize his writing style from RationalWiki.
 * Now, on the NYT article topic - incels.is (ran by Lamarcus Small and Diego Joaquín Galante) is a major player in the incel-sphere. Following release of the article, members of incels.is wrote a letter to the DOJ regarding the Sanctioned Suicide website, in which they state they were "familiar with many of the members" of the site, and that "Pro-suicide viewpoints are protected by the First Amendment". Ties between sanctioned suicide and incels.is are pretty clear. However, this basically boils down to WP:OR and there are no reliable sources discussing this. https://archive.is/GCKOx https://archive.is/29REU
 * If reliable sources come out about this in the future, I think it would be worthy of discussion here. Kauri0.o (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Not everything in the manosphere is misogynist
Ideology - In concext of related communities []

"Incel communities are a part of the broader manosphere, a loose collection of misogynist movements that also includes men's rights activists (MRAs), Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), pickup artists (PUAs), and fathers' rights groups."

Manosphere article []

"The manosphere is a collection of websites, blogs, and online forums promoting masculinity, strong opposition to feminism, and misogyny."

I take issue with fathers' rights groups being in a list of terms classified as "a loose collection of misogynist movements".

In fact, the article on Fathers' rights movement[] does not define it as misogynist, which is true.

2003:F9:BF04:3700:D19D:92B6:7BC3:8EAE (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC) Heather
 * We can't use Wikipedia articles as a self-referential source. Obviously we'd prefer to be consistent, but the sources are the ones who determine how we are to be consistent.  G M G  talk  12:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually it is consistent. Fathers'_rights_movement states "The fathers' rights movement is considered to be a part of the broader manosphere." Unfortunately the movement and any legitimate arguments around fathers' rights have been corrupted by the manosphere.Kauri0.o (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Media definitions are unintelligible to read as they beg questions
"part of a movement which complains about sexual rejection", ok that's not unique, how is it unique? If they utter common internet lingo?

"member of a loose subculture which who define themselves as sexually frustrated", every member of every subculture? only one subculture, ok then what is the subculture and how is it unique from PUAhate / early Lookism.net culture? And how could such subculture possibly be applied retroactively to almost two decades of self-identifieds before PUAhate?

"an ideology characterized by sexual entitlement", ok but who makes the ideology and where is it's tenants? What separates it from other ideologies?

Obviously some of these questions can be answered (and are explained to some extent in the article), mostly tying "begging question definitions" to specific communities. But, without reworking the entire article to specific communities, most of these definitions is assuming the presence of something which is not explained in the definition itself, making it circular reasoning as well Bashfan34 (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

You tend to get unintelligibility with appropriated definitions, as every definition Wikipedia has used since 2018 has been appropriated ie not used by the relevant online communities Bashfan34 (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

All that aside, incel (ideology/subculture/movement/etc) vs incel/s (member of aformentioned) should be stated, even though it doesn't read well. It's the sources and english languages fault, not our fault. Sources use both terminology so it needs to be distinguished for intelligibility. Bashfan34 (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The article that's been in lede for years saying incel is a subculture says, "incels is", as do other sources and also in reference to other incel labeled things, so including "incels" as referring to list of singular grammar definitions. Bashfan34 (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Anyway the new lede at least somewhat clears up the circular logic of 'incel is a member of an incel x" Bashfan34 (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Terrorism category tag
Someone put the entire article under the top terrorism category, placing this article along a special few of around 30 Wikipedia articles among millions, and on par with 'illegal activities of North Korea'. Comparing incel to illegal activities of North Korea seems a bit much. People in media call all sorts of things terrorism all the time, but ideas cannot be terrorism (as an entire section here claims) and Wikipedia should have stronger rules against blanket calling things terrorism if it does not meet mere definitional standards of terrorism, ie 'violence with attempt to influence politics and/or the state', which incel clearly is not. And even if it was, I can't see the argument for it being even a minor player. Bashfan34 (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the tag. Bashfan34 (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

If the idea is to rail against current forums, there's enough sources now to make 10 articles about the modern forums alone. And call them this and that bad thing, but I know for certain people in Alana or Cernan's or Bella's pre-2013 forums who still publicly self-identify would not take kindly to being called terrorists or far-right-wingers. At all, and they are not hard to reach out to Bashfan34 (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Specifying "mainstream news articles" in first sentence
I did that as the claims in the original citations (which are all still used) are severe and all mainstream news articles. If you include stuff beyond mainstream news articles, like definitions in Google Scholar or elsewhere, that definition list gets much longer including definitions related to life circumstance and even one calling it a sexual strategy. Hence specifying news articles over the more interesting set of defintions, as I thought that's what Wikipedia wanted. Bashfan34 (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Someone said I broke WP:NPOV by saying incels were terrorists in first sentence. I didn't say that, I said mainstream media articles said that. But removing the qualifier does make it non-NPOV. And I do not agree with that, but won't edit war over it, as don't have energy to. Bashfan34 (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The more I try to tweeze out a coherent definition from all the citations that were in the lede, that is also consistent across all citations
The more obvious it is 'incel' is a hateful, immature, sociopathic media pejorative for sexual inactivity, using equally sociopathic and misbehaved incel forums as cannon fodder. Not sure how to rework the article to reflect that, so won't. But there's a few sources on incel-as-constructed-by-the-insulter, such as those articles relating to Twitch CEO banning 'incel' word as a pejorative by users. Bashfan34 (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

eg
 * https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/16/22179256/twitch-bans-simp-virgin-incel-new-sexual-harassment-policy
 * https://www.newsweek.com/twitch-simp-incel-ban-1555622
 * https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/12/twitch-will-ban-incel-and-virgin-as-sexual-insults/

"As part of a crackdown on "sexually focused terms" on its platform, Twitch says terms like "simp," "incel," and "virgin" will soon be banned when used as insults by streamers or chatters on the popular game-streaming service.

In a livestreamed town-hall presentation yesterday, Twitch COO Sara Clemens said that the terms would be barred specifically when used in a context that "negatively refer[s] to another person's sexual activity." Twitch later clarified in a statement that "using these terms on their own wouldn't lead to an enforcement [action], but we would take action if they were used repeatedly in a harassing manner."

That largely mirrors Twitch's existing policy against hateful slurs, which are generally barred but can be used "in an empowering way or as terms of endearment when such intent is clear.""

- ArsTechnica

Those articles get at the incel definition, as an appropriated construction, better than any Bashfan34 (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The only way I could see this article working great in it's current form, ie using r/incels related sources, and the extreme focus on misbehaviour, is to rework the entire article about PUAhate r/incels and successor forums, and perhaps rename page to r/incels or incels.me Bashfan34 (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:OR/WP:SYNTH in previous body count claim in lede
Replaced with latest single source I could find, where the journalist themselves attempted a count. A lot of issues arise trying to add up counts as editors. For example, who decides how 'tangential' a single person's actions are to 'incel'? Not us by wikipedia standards, especially when an individual killers' 'incel' status (ie Jake Davison) is disputed or not in consensus by all media sources. Bashfan34 (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Not sure even the Guardian's claim should be in lede, given it's saying "linked", and not "is, was, are". Bashfan34 (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm taking out the Guardian claim I put in as a substitute. "Linked to incel" in lede is too conspiratorial, it'd be like putting SanctionedSuicide in lede because Twohey linked it to incel. Bashfan34 (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

"Multiple mass killings have been caused by self-identified incels, as well as other instances of violence or attempted violence." is not debated by any sources, sourced in the rest of the article, and retains the meaning of the previous sentences, so used that. Bashfan34 (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

SPLC sentence in lede
Refers to incel as 'community', not 'subculture'. Not that those two words are mutually exclusive, but want to reflect the sources provided. Edited that sentence to reflect that. Bashfan34 (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Size of communities
There's two sentences in the main article on community size "Estimates of the overall size of the subculture vary greatly, ranging from thousands to hundreds of thousands of individuals.[25][26]"

and "Estimates of the size of incel communities vary,[41][105][115] and range from the thousands, to tens of thousands, to hundreds of thousands.[25][38][99][26][23]"

The sources in the first sentence claiming tens/hundreds of thousands are all from 2018, with the second adding some sources for 2019. This may have been true for those years. However, the CCDH report released in September analyzed every single post from the largest forum during all of 2021 and most of 2022. Over 19 months, it said the "largest forum" (they meant incels.is) had only 4,057 active users. They also say only 400 users account for 3/4s of the total forum posts.

Thus, according to the CCDH, the largest community seems to essentially be only 400 people doing most of the posting, with 3,657 users chiming in.

All mentions of the CCDH currently in enwiki are Taylor Lorenz referencing the report. I will probably directly reference the report to adjust or add to those sentences, to give a clearer picture. Unless people claim the CCDH on its own is not reliable, in which case I won't, or you can just revert adjustments/additions to those sentences Bashfan34 (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)