"The term black pill was first popularized on the blog Omega Virgin Revolt, where the term commended despondency in order to distinguish incels from the pickup artist communities." This is just completely wrong, look at the blog for yourself, and it will tell you what the black pill label is, the usage of the black pill on the site is completely different to the current usage of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.166.58 (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

That sentence is supported by a reliable source: [1]. Do you have a different reliable source saying otherwise? "Looking at the blog for myself" would be original research; we need to base the article on what is represented in reliable, independent sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Would this one count in the Mass Murders and Violence? According to the current note 26, "The FBI investigation is ongoing, but an official has said that the shooter was associated with incel groups of misogynists deeply suspicious and disparaging of women." [2]

However, the actual article's paragraph suggests it's not necessarily incel.

"Earlier, a federal law enforcement official said that the F.B.I. was looking at whether the Dayton gunman was associated with so-called incel groups. Incels, short for involuntary celibates, are misogynists who are deeply suspicious and disparaging of women, whom they blame for denying them what they see as their right to sexual intercourse. The F.B.I. views incels as a growing threat. But the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, stressed that the motive for the Dayton shooting remains unknown." 

Maybe just a note that the F.B.I. views incels as a growing threat Thebetoof (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely WP:TOOSOON to tie this mass murder to incel terrorism. Give it a few weeks and that might change. Simonm223 (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. If it is determined that the perpetrator was involved with incel groups, then it make sense to add it, but I imagine the FBI is looking into a lot of possible connections that will later turn out to not exist. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

A picture would go really well at the top. No clue how to do so inoffensively. Red Slash 16:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• It's difficult to imagine what picture would 1) add encyclopedic value, 2) be published under a free license, and 3) not run afoul of personality rights protections. GMG^talk 16:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Well, there's File:Incel flag.svg, but it doesn't currently seem to be "at thing". Just something someone came up with online one day. If it ever gets picked up in RS as "a thing", then we can use it. Otherwise we fail criteria #1. GMG^talk 17:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure what picture could be used here. I remember in the past someone tried to add a photo of Elliot Rodger, but as a non-free image it was deleted. I also think just selecting a photo of one of the incel murderers is a bit of an arbitrary choice, even if licensing is compatible. As for the "incel flag", it seems to be something someone just made up, so agreed with GMG that it should not be used unless sourcing supports it as legitimate. Not all articles need images, and I don't think we should go reaching for a minimally illustrative image. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe a photo of Joseph Merrick would be a good and license-compatible example of someone suffering from involuntary celibacy? 2A02:8108:7C0:66F8:F56A:1376:B718:9363 (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I feel like that would be pretty demonizing to the topic, so no. Merrick was atypical and is not the type of person this article describes.--Jorm (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

To add to Jorm's point, he also predated the Internet by about 100 years, so he probably was not a member of this particular online group. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

"[Incels] commonly believe that the only thing more important than looks in improving a man's eligibility as a prospective partner is wealth.[55] Some incels justify their beliefs based on the works of fringe[23] social psychologist"
This is not notable as this is a generally held belief. The Guardian, The NYPost and the Journal of Family and Marriage quote wealth as the major factor in marriageability.
Guardian after NYP “Most American women hope to marry, but current shortages of marriageable men — men with a stable job and a good income — make this increasingly difficult" https://nypost.com/2019/09/06/broke-men-are-hurting-american-womens-marriage-prospects/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/13/you-dont-have-to-settle-the-joy-of-living-and-dying-alone 194.207.86.26 (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

That these are uncontroversial aspects of a desirable mate doesn't really have any bearing. The desirability of these traits is not absurd on its face (no one is really out there writing pop songs about how "da club" goes wild for a guy who is poor, maladjusted, and horribly disfigured from the war). The remarkable thing is the extent to which incels turn these otherwise normal things into grotesque caricatures of themselves. Also, spoiler alert, men (by which I differentiate myself from boys) also tend to prefer mates who are attractive, well adjusted, and educated, with reasonable prospects in the work force. There is no family therapist or marriage counselor in the world who would be the least bit surprised by this. GMG^talk 12:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with GreenMeansGo; these refs seem written in an informal/entairment manner, than a meaningful enclyopedic development of the term. Britishfinance (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The site is now known as incels.co 2601:8C:4500:4680:24D0:1D34:2A04:C3E9 (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just reworded it so as to remove the name, since the TLD seems to change with some frequency. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

All the attributed negativeness to so called "incels" resembles demonizing them.

This article would need more criticism from this ideology to be balanced and not just ideological. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.219.233.156 (talk) 03:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing that needs to be added. There is no positive side to the incel philosophy--it's hate-based. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.149.12 (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Even the BBC doc presented a positive side and highlighted a particular forum as positive, cite that if you want. Thing is they are legally required to present "both sides" Wikipedia is not (usually)65.27.229.250 (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)"

Exactly, Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources have already reported. If that coverage is nearly universally negative, the article is going to reflect that. We're not here right great wrongs, if that's even arguable as what has happened here since, as noted above, this is a hate-based group. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Digital news opinion outlets are not reliable sources for different sides of a controversial topic. You can use as much beararchracy as you want to pretend you are following WP:NPOV in this article, but you are not, even the biggest podcast ever made exploring inceldom from a NPOV with hundreds of thousands of listeners recently called you guys out as ridiculous on this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.229.250 (talk • contribs)

I don't know how many different ways to say "if you have the sources that back up your position, bring them forth so the article can be edited to reflect what they say". You are the one wanting to make a change, you probably shouldn't expect others to do the work for you to back your position. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

For transparency reasons, i believe it would be necesary to establish on this page that there is no significant scientific (psychological or otherwise) source for any of the statements made on this page. The Citings are purely to media (magazines and news outlets) with should not be considered a sound psychological litterature. The introduction to the page is postulative in nature and the sources does not sufficiently back these postulates up. In other words. In the intire list of sources, on this page about an alleged psychological condition/movement, there is no refferal to any scientific psychological source. The citings that are in the list even seems to be to somewhat biased sources. (huffington post etc) Wikipedia is at the end of the day a place people trust for their information ( justifiably or otherwise) but it should be clear weather or not something as alarming as this is based on real science or zeitgeist.

in conclussion what i believe should be added is: "There is no recognized scientific theori too back up the existence or purpose of the Incel community as anything other than an online running joke. "

If i am wrong i would appreciate to have the sources cited on the page as i am honestly finding it difficult to research this seemingly hot air concept. 130.225.198.194 (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• There are some peer reviewed studies cited in the article. The article does not focus on the "state of being" of involuntarily celibate, because the article is about the online community, and not the proposed state-of-being. Peer reviewed studies are generally preferable to journalism, and as these become available, feel free to bring it to our attention so that we may add them. Having said that, journalism is regularly used as a reliable source for online social groups. But the onus is not on the community to first provide sources rebutting the changes you would like made; the onus is on you to provide sources supporting the content you would like to add. GMG^talk 16:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Loginnigol: I requested you add a source to support this statement, and I appreciate you doing so. But the only comment that the source you added has about April 2018 is that that was when the Toronto van attack happened—it does not state anywhere that that was when the term began to gain mainstream media attention. Can you find a source that specifically states that the term began to receive attention around then? It seems like you are perhaps using the glut of coverage of the Toronto van attacks to draw this conclusion, but without a reliable source making this claim itself, it's original research. For what it's worth, I suspect that the mainstream media attention for the term actually took off in 2014, with the Isla Vista killings. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

A quick Google search seems to return some articles attributing the attention to Toronto and some attributing it to Isla Vista. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why you are deliberately misrepresenting my statement. I didn't say the term was never used. I was referring to it's mainstream adoption. --Loginnigol (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not misrepresenting your statement -- I'm saying the statement you've added to the article is not supported by the source you've provided. The source you included does not say anything about the term beginning to be used in mainstream media. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I'd say this supports it: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/toronto-attack-incel-alek-minassian - also https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto-attack-minassian-facebook-incel-the-investigators-1.4639606 also https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/opinion/sex-shame-incels-jihadists-minassian.html calls it a hitherto obscure term. Guy (help!) 19:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

My concern is that there are other sources that mention the surge of mainstream media attention sooner—around the Isla Vista killings in 2014—something this article mentions later on in the "Mass murders and violence" section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Just as a point of order, a link to a google search isn't super useful in helping move the discussion forward here. GMG^talk 22:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Understood, and apologies—I'm at work and didn't have a bunch of time to go digging for sources, just noticed that this was in conflict with what is stated elsewhere in the article. I'll be home and back online in a few hours and will post in more detail then. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, Maybe "according to X...., though Y says earlier..." ? Guy (help!) 23:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, back online! So there are some sources that mention the term coming to be used publicly as a result of the Isla Vista killings: New Statesman, The Outline, Washington Post, Vice. It does seem that that was perhaps the first time it was discussed much in mainstream media, but that the 2018 attack brought the term to considerably wider mainstream usage. Maybe, The term was largely obscure until May 2014 media reporting described the perpetrator of the Isla Vista killings as an incel; the term again received widespread media attention in 2018 following the Toronto van attack.? Or similar. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Something in that ballpark seems fair. The New Statesman piece summarizes the timeline neatly in the fourth paragraph, without us needing to rely on combining disparate sources to make one overall claim. GMG^talk 11:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Even if it did say that, which it doesn't, a student newspaper is hardly credible enough for such a contentious assertion. Pendragon0 (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Despite this, the sub was banned on 30 September 2019, allegedly for "harassment and bullying",^[1][2] following a broadening of Reddit's harassment policy.^[3] Benjamin (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Which one? Do you mean the one the article mentions in Criticism has also been directed against platforms that host or have hosted incel content, including Reddit (who banned the /r/incels community in 2017 but has declined to ban another incel subreddit) and Twitter as "another incel subreddit?" That's the only place in the article that seems to refer to one other than /r/incels. Either way, we should probably wait for an actual source to update it - we can't cite a Reddit post. --Aquillion (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

r/Braincels. Why can't we cite a Reddit post? It seems reliable enough in this context. Do you seriously doubt that the sub was indeed banned? You can see for yourself. Benjamin (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Reddit posts are WP:SPS, same as any forum or blog or any other post made by a random person on the internet. "Unreliable" in this context does not mean factually incorrect or unbelievable, just that it's not a "reliable source" as defined by Wikipedia's content standards. In order to be a reputable academic project, we have standards for what an acceptable academic source is. This notion is explained in-depth at WP:V and WP:RS. A reasonable quick-fix would be to use the official message on the reddit page itself as a primary source for an uncontentious statement of fact, and expand once reliable secondary or tertiary sources become available. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the purpose of reliability and verifiability was to ensure factual accuracy, insofar as is practical for such a project, rather than to promote some vague idea of academic reputation. In the early days, other wikis that tried to be more of "a reputable academic project" failed, and Wikipedia prevailed. Teachers everywhere certainly did not consider Wikipedia to be "a reputable academic project", but did that stop us? Was that what shaped our core principles? Certainly not! Benjamin (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

No offense, but your lack of understanding would be easily fixed by simply reading the policies I linked. "Verifiability" does not mean "factual", it means "comes from a reliable source". "Reliable" means our sourcing is held to an academic standard. Content can't just be sourced to any "Randy from Boise". The threshold for inclusion is a higher standard than simply being "true". Nothing about this has anything to do with "promoting reputation". There are simply reasonable academic content standards in place because this is a serious academic project. These are our most fundamental ideals, and always have been. This has always been a serious academic project with high standards for sourcing. If you were taught the ignorant falsehood that it wasn't, I'm sorry, because that's actually a great tragedy for anyone who grew up with teachers telling them that Wikipedia is not reliable, but that unfortunate meme is long dead, and nowadays we're heavily integrated with formal higher education. All of this is unrelated, though, to the simple notion that internet posts are not sources. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that it isn't about reputation, but I disagree that only academic sources can be reliable, and internet posts necessarily can't. I was under the impression that the reason we don't listen to Randy from Boise is because we have no practical way of verifying his claims, but I don't think that's the case here. Do you? Benjamin (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, but it's literally not a matter for debate. I'm not sharing my personal opinion here, I'm objectively explaining Wikipedia policy. WP:NOR and WP:SPS are core content policies. You're required to have the competence to accept and abide by Wikipedia policies. You're free to find sources that are actually in line with WP:RS (I gave you one easy solution above), but this is not a forum for you to complain about Wikipedia policy. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I have added the info now with a source. I have not frequently edited this article, so if the info should be moved/better incorporated, go for it. The Verge article also mentions Reddit broadening its definition of "harassment," the U.S. Army warning, Joker film, etc.--MattMauler (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: I would appreciate it if you didn't imply I'm incompetent just because I disagree with you about policy. Benjamin (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't imply you're incompetent, I said you're required to have the competence to abide by policies even if you disagree with them, which is true. Also, like I said, you're not disagreeing with me personally. I'm just objectively explaining what the content policies are, because enforcing them is my job as an administrator. I'm not out to give you a hard time, I'm just trying to educate you. Nor did I say you're not allowed to disagree with a policy, only that article talk pages are not a forum for you to express that. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Should I start a discussion on the policy page, then? Benjamin (talk) 03:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Believe it or not, no. Policy talk pages are not forums either. The relevant discussion forum would be WP:VPP. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

• [4] It's not winning any pulitzers, but it's probably sufficient for this fairly uncontroversial fact. GMG^talk 23:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• The policy in question is WP:PRIMARY dudes Red Slash 04:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." That seems to be the case here, doesn't it? Benjamin (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely Red Slash 00:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. A self-published post by a random person on the internet is not a primary source, it's a secondary source (unreliable, but that's a different issue). Just because they posted it on reddit does not make them a primary source. A primary source would be a statement coming directly from reddit in some regard, for example, the ban message itself. I suggested using the primary source as an alternative in my very first post. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Umm...No. A post on social media is every bit as primary as a diary entry 100 years ago. A "letter to my dearest" from the front written by General Washington is a primary source. A "letter to my dearest" from the adjutant, written about General Washington, is also a primary source. Merely the fact that it was not written by the subject is not sufficient to render it secondary. GMG^talk 02:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The distinction between "primary" and "secondary" is nuanced, and I admittedly simplified it with a blanket statement, because I'm trying to explain baseline policies to a user who is having a difficult time understanding. But your supposed "correction" is unhelpful in the extreme. I mean, if I made an overly-simplified blanket statement, it was at least meant to be addressing the distinction between primary and secondary. You're bizarrely claiming that a social media post is a primary source the same way a diary entry is. That's a fallacious comparison. A diary entry is not an inherently primary source. Nothing is an inherently primary source. Yes, if we're discussing George Washington, then George Washington's written words are a primary source. That doesn't mean every word George Washington ever wrote is automatically a primary source, and never a secondary or tertiary source. It literally depends on what you're sourcing. Random posts on the internet are not automatically a certain kind of source. Same as any other writing. The platform they're posted to has no bearing on that. It's a bit bizarre that an editor of your experience thinks it does. And, more importantly, whether an unreliable source is primary or secondary is irrelevant, because it can't be used. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I struggle to imagine an instance where personal correspondence would be anything other than a primary source. We would rarely if ever quote the Adjutant General's letter; we would quote the history book that itself quotes him, after it's been vetted by an independent expert for accuracy, relevance, and importance. This independent vetting is the transformative process that renders the source secondary (and is the reason why, for example, much of the published writings of Winston Churchill must be treated as primary, because he writes about so many things that are themselves pieces of his own lived biography).

Personal correspondence is precisely the correct analogy, because social media is the preferred method of personal correspondence in the digital age. Yes, there is the odd outlier where Vox puts together a well researched micro-documentary on YouTube. But the vast and overwhelming majority of content on social media is primary. A post by a reddit user for the reddit community is unequivocally primary, unless you have some reason to believe that reddit user Silly_saracen is somehow an independent expert that has thoroughly vetted the content, in between their busy work commenting on memes. I am equally perplexed why you do not intuitively agree with that statement. GMG^talk 12:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, the format of the source is completely immaterial. It does not matter whether a source is spoken or written, coming from an "expert" in a formal publication or coming from a random person in their diary or on the internet, a simple statement summarizing or a full-fledged series of thoughts and opinions dissecting and analyzing something. These are all, obviously, considerations in the reliability or usefulness of a source, but have nothing whatsoever to do with whether a source is primary or secondary. No format of source is inherently primary or secondary. Primary and secondary are relative terms. If my friend is a witness to an event, they're a primary source for information about that event, whether they tell me about it, post about it on the internet, write it in their journal, whatever. If I write down whatever they said about the event in my "personal correspondence" that doesn't magically make me an original source of information about the event. It doesn't matter if I'm writing down the details, a summary of what I was told, or my expanded thoughts and in-depth analysis; I'm still a secondary party whom the information is not actually coming from, I'm merely conveying it. I'm a secondary source. That's exactly what "Silly_saracen" is in that scenario. He's not the actual evidence that the event happened. None of his knowledge is firsthand. Whether a secondary source is the greatest expert on the planet or some literal nobody, who they are, what they say, and where they say it isn't what makes them a secondary source. In fact, it has nothing to do with it. It's the simple fact that they aren't a primary source, but instead they're getting the information from the primary source. I'm not saying I can't understand the confusion, it can absolutely be confusing. But making a statement about a website, on that website, does not mean the statement is a primary source about that website, because, again, the format of the statement is simply immaterial. It might or might not be a primary source. A primary source is merely an original source of information. A source that comes along and relays or refers to information from that primary source is a secondary source. The user who posted the information is not themselves the original source of the information they posted. They are merely conveying information they received from a primary source. They literally got the information from someone else. They aren't the original source of information, in any sense. That's all the distinction between primary and secondary is. Yes, anyone can see that the sub has been banned, but it's not the same as being a witness to an event. We are not actually witnesses to the event. We only actually know what happened because of a formal written message from reddit. We didn't see it happen, and we have no firsthand knowledge to know what happened to it. The only reason we random people on the internet can objectively state that the sub has been banned is because we have a primary source to refer to, and we can convey that message elsewhere. The information is not coming from us in any way. We're simply a secondary source that is referencing a primary source. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh @Swarm:, I didn't even see this response. I was doing stuff and things because Army [5].

You are at least half right. Someone reporting first-hand knowledge is unequivocally a primary source. But that does not translate that anyone reporting second-hand knowledge is automatically a secondary source. This is a severe oversimplification. What is secondary source is heavily context dependent and there is no clear line you can draw to distinguish them in a way that takes thought and context out of the equation. To go back to the battlefield, a diary entry by a soldier in a foxhole saying "I heard that General MacArthur visited the 21st regiment today" is reporting second-hand knowledge, but is still a primary source. They are still thematically and chronologically close to the events that they are reporting, and they are not themselves compiling, disinterestedly critiquing and critically analyzing primary sources.

Even sources that do, and are normally pristine secondary sources, can still be rendered primary in certain contexts. As a grad student I spent entirely too much time on an article that never got published regarding the treatment of Positivism in undergraduate textbooks. These would have been pristine secondary sources on their respective topics, but when they themselves became the subject they were rendered primary. When the subject itself was secondary sources, the secondary sources became the base material, thematically and chronologically close to the things that were being compiled, disinterestedly critiqued, and critically analyzed. GMG^talk 17:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

You have it exactly right that it's not black and white, and minute differences in subject matter and context can determine whether a source is primary or secondary. I suppose that explains the confusion, but it's completely irrelevant to my point. I'm not oversimplifying these concepts, they're just simple concepts. Sure, they can be subjective and grey in some situations, but arguing that they can hypothetically be subjective and grey does not mean they are in the context that we're discussing. You need to take them with common sense. Let's go ahead and address your example of the soldier. I'm not going to pretend someone passing along hearsay is a legitimate source, so let's just throw that out and replace it with a soldier who somehow knows about MacArthur's visit. Honestly, the specifics are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it's a soldier, you're talking about a piece of information about an event within an organization, where the source is a person who is directly involved in both the organization and the events we're hypothetically talking about. You have successfully presented an example of a primary source. Great. What does that have to do with this? Nothing. It's a useless comparison to this scenario. If you're saying it's the same, it's not. It's a total false equivalency. A user on a website is not the equivalent of a soldier in an army, or a member of any organization (unless the organization is the community of users themselves, which is not the case here). If you want to get into legal technicalities, Reddit is nothing more than a service offered by an organization. Yes, that organization is made up of humans, but no, those humans are not the website's users. The users are the consumers of the service being rendered, the equivalent of a customer who patronizes any business. They are not inside sources because they use the service. Being a user of a website does not render one "involved" in the underlying organization or events within that organization, not by any stretch of the imagination. Reading a notification on a website does not make you a primary source, any more than reading a press release about any business makes you a primary source. Websites are not "places". The ban happened in real life. It was a real-world decision made by an organization. The public was given a notification that this event occurred. That's the long and short of it. None of the information comes from Reddit users, and if you are going to use a Reddit user talking about the event, it's no different then using any member of the public talking about the event. I don't care whether you use Reddit or not, learned about it from Reddit or not, or talk about it on Reddit or not, you are not a primary source about it, your information is not 'insider' or 'firsthand', you are not tied to, related to, or involved with the event in any way, you did not witness the event, you are not privy to any information that is not public, you are not associated with the organization or service in any notable way, you are just a member of the public who read about something. By literally any definition of what a primary source is, this situation is inapplicable. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Several of the sources make a distinction between incel (any person that is in a state of involuntary celibate, male as well as female), and the incel "movement" (an Internet sub-culture). This article confuses the two concepts. This article is based on very little science, and mostly on articles in news media. For example, the corresponding Swedish article separates the two concepts in separate sections, and presents scientific research in a separate section. Can this article be organized in a similar way? 82.196.112.105 (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware none of the sources describe "inceldom" as an actual scientific or medical phenomenon, hence why the article is structured in this way. You may wish to read through the archives of this talk page, where people have tried to get the article to treat incels as a concept divorced from the online subculture, but as you'll see in the past discussions the sourcing simply doesn't exist. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Then you guys have problem with how you cite the sources. What source define Incel as "member of the subculture"? None of the stated sources in the first sentence. 82.196.112.105 (talk) 03:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

You only have to look as far as the first source: When we talk about “incels,” we are not talking about all men who are not having sex. Instead, we are talking about a specific subculture of people in various internet forums — subreddits like r/braincels, the cruel troll chat forum 4chan, and dedicated websites like incels.me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Yup. Outside the incel subculture, it's not at all clear that "inceldom" is at all sociologically distinguishable from being single and looking for a mate. That's really just a normal part of the human mating process. It's the incel subculture that bring in all the pseud-intellectual pseudo-Darwinian spin and acts like it's something special. GMG^talk 16:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

My bad. Thank you for the helpful response. However, apparently not all sources make this delimitation of incel to only those identifying with the sub-culture/ideology/movement, and even fewer sources say that incel always is a hate ideology. Especially not the scientific ones. Is the Swedish Wikipedia article better now? I have avoided to write it in a very categorical way, and still think it is possible to distinguish science from opinions/debate.193.10.109.181 (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying there are sources that actively differentiate some incels from the subculture and that contradict inceldom being a hate ideology? Or do they just not mention those things? If it's the former, I'd be interested to read them—if it's the latter, the fact that a source does not mention something doesn't mean it's contradictory.

I have taken a read through the Swedish Wikipedia article as best I can, but unfortunately I don't speak (or read) a lick of Swedish and Google Translate doesn't do an awesome job of machine-translating. From what I can tell, the Definition and Research sections are more like the version of the Incel article that existed on enwiki a long time ago—I think someone's got a copy of it in their sandbox somewhere. However, after several discussions on this talk page, at AfD, etc. it was decided that there simply isn't the sourcing to support an article that treats inceldom as a legitimate scientific/medical/psychological phenomenon, and so the article focuses on the online subculture (as do the sources). GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Found the userfied version of the old article: User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy. It's been edited some since it was userfied; this is the article as it used to exist on the English Wikipedia in January 2016, just before it was deleted and salted after an AfD discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I remember first reading about Incel, or Loveshy people back in 2006, the early days of Wikipedia. There was a trove of links and citations dealing with the symptomology of men and women who could not find intimate partners. I remember following a link to the website of one of the few licensed sex therapists in California. There also was the first-person account of a man, evidently born with a severe physical deformity, who had lived much of his life in hospitals, but who had earned some money by writing, and who wanted to spend it by finally partaking in a nurturing sexual experience with a supportive partner by flying to California to utilize the services offered by the Californian sex therapist.

There was serious but civil debate about whether those sorts of sex therapists were just overpriced prostitutes (it was the George W. Bush administration; evangelicals were still feeling their oats back then, in a way that they haven't in years). There were even links to some proper scholarship on this topic.

Now, all of that is lost, washed away by the changing tides of internet culture. This Incel article must not be the original, because if it were, the revision history would stretch back to 2006 or beyond, and it appears to start in 2018. I think the original Wikipedia article may have been called "Loveshy", so perhaps that's why the older history is not visible on the current Incel article. The problem is that now, if you try to go to "Loveshy", you get ineluctably redirected back here, to Incel.

My wikipedia-fu is not strong enough to break the redirect and attempt to resurrect the original Loveshy page. I'm going to try to figure out how to do it, but if I can't, could someone else please do so? Seems a shame to have a once edifying article swamped by the horror that the Incel community has become, over the past 10 years. PhilHudson82 (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

PhilHudson82, that was deleted with solid consensus, so no, that's not going to happen. Guy (help!) 10:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Guess that means I'll have to create a new page, then. :P

I found a permalink to what I was looking for: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Involuntary_celibacy&oldid=842912658.

I see from the comments below that other people have clamored for the same thing as me, to differentiate between between the internet social movement known as Incel and the underlying, preexisting social phenomenon, which wikipedia articles in some other languages already have. Guess it's time to edit boldly! PhilHudson82 (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

PhilHudson82, no, it means that the new page will not survive because we already deleted that topic. Guy (help!) 11:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey Phil – good shout on the loveshy redirect. I've gone ahead and pointed it to a target without all the associations with terrorism, mass murders & extreme misogyny. Not sure if the redirect will stick, but at least we tried.

I'd agree with Guy that's its advisable to wait a while before boldly adding too much about the pre-existing social phenomenon. The past discussions did suggest the topic could be covered at sexual frustration. But the problem you have there is that the vast majority of the science on that topic is about sexual frustration in other senses (e.g. couples with miss-matched sex drives.) So if you add more than a few lines without also expanding the other senses, others might revert you as undue weight. It's a little perplexing that about half of previous editors looking at this didn't want an article on the broad topic. I guess part of the problem is that it had been an unchallenged mainstream view for so long, since even before the dawn of western society, that its been a little taken for granted.

(The view that frustration of said desire could lead to reckless and disruptive behaviour is touched on in foundational religious texts that have shaped our great civilisations: such as the Bhagavad Gita, the Quran and the Holy Bible. Other great thinkers who shaped western society, such as Aquinas & Augustine, went further than the Bible's qualified support for marriage, arguing that prostitution is essential to prevent reckless behaviour by men denied otherwise sex. Hence why Christian cities have always largely tolerated brothels .Perhaps some might dismiss all the above as conservative sources, but even progressive thinkers have argued similar things. E.g. Amia Srinivasan's article on incels and the right to sex mentions that the purported inventor of feminism, Charles Fourier proposed a guaranteed sexual minimum for both men & woman, so none would have to suffer like incels. In a work that's currently unpopular but not substantially refuted, Unwin surveyed past civilisations and cultures, finding that their fall was invariably preceded by a loosening of sexual restraint, such as the institution of monogamy. Admittedly his focus seemned to be more on the flip side of uncledom. The idea that with sex less equally distributed, elite men who might otherwise make major cultural contributions had their energy dissipated by easy access to sex with vast numbers of different woman. Turning to more current work, here's an excessively male focussed but otherwise excellent accessible overview of the problem by a data scientist Bradford Tuckfield, taking it from ancient history to modern dating apps. )

The problem is, before its feasible to change consensus sufficiently to allow a dedicated article on the topic, we probably need some serious academic scholarship bringing all these themes together, ideally with a bit more focus on women & i+, along with connecting them with the compassionate (re)-trailblazers like Alana & Dr Brian Gilmartin. I'm expecting the sources we need for this to appear in the next year or so. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I think that Loneliness#Romantic_loneliness is a quite reasonable redirect target for "loveshy"; thanks, FeydHuxtable. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Loneliness#Romantic_loneliness is spot-on for this. A very good call. -- The Anome (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable, looks good. Guy (help!) 22:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not to be tolerated! While it clearly wasn't intended, this article is contributing to the suffering of ~300 million plus near voiceless adults.

There's no good evidence that Tobias identified as an incel or was part of the sub culture. Multiple sources confirm Tobias did not use the word "incel" in his manifesto. He just said "for my whole life I haven’t had a wife or girlfriend".. blaming it mostly on the apparent delusion that he was being watched, not typical incel reasons like lack of good looks.

I reverted an incorrect claim about Tobias identifying as an incel, but only a few mins later another editor has added similar claims, this time with sourcing that while not high tier WP:RS, does apparently support the assertions.

This is just one example of how the wider media, experts, and even politicians get confused in unhelpful ways, mixing the article definition (incel = member of the online sub culture) with the plain English meaning indicating folk who want to have sex but can't.

There's over 300 million 18-40 year olds in the later category, and it's a problem that's growing rapidly. E.g., in the decade from 2008-2019, the share of 18-30 yr old American men not having any sex in the last year "nearly tripled" to 28%! (A small share of those men are voluntarily celibate, but that share is likely declining as the main driver of voluntary celibacy for young men (religiosity) is generally falling in the US.) Other countries tends to show a less dramatic rise in the problem, but that is likely due to less uptodate data; much of the acceleration of the problem seems to have happened in the last 5 years. E.g. 2016 figures show 12% of Brits remain a virgin at 26 (used to be 5%) while in Japan, 26% of 18-39 yr olds were still virgins in 2015 (it was just 20% in 1992). In Japan the proportion of female 18-39 yr old virgins is almost equally high. Granted part of the global rise in celibacy may is likely due to positive reasons (e.g. folk who don't want sex being more able to say refuse unwanted advances), but no one sensible thinks that is a major driver.

Since the article was re-focussed to be about the online subculture, rather than the wider problem of unwanted celibacy, it seems to have heavily influenced the media's coverage of the topic in unhelpful ways. The media largely adopted our definition, and their coverage become more negative. Understandably so due to the extreme misogyny that's found in the subculture. But many people do not confine their hostile response to the subculture - they carry it over to everyone who's having problems forming relationships - and very likely most of these 300 million + folk don't have any misogynistic beliefs, indeed in at least some countries nearly half of them are female. For the last 5 years I've been consulting with politicians on the optimal response to the rise of platforms, and it used to be fine until I started talking about the impact of dating apps. Since then I've been getting push back for promoting "incel ideology", even though I'm purely talking about the wider problem, not the subculture. Important efforts to address industry 4 scale loneliness are being impeded! Even regular lonely people are becoming afraid to seek help for their problems, as they fear being "lumped in" with the incel sub culture.

To be clear, none of the previous editors are to blame for this, the results were not foreseeable. And I might be exagerating the way this article influenced media coverage, it just seems to me that the media swiftly followed our change of definition.

Looking forward, unless there are objections, I plan to re-write the article to address this concern. And also to mostly upgrade the quality of sourcing, and to correct several existing WP:OR issues. It should be possible to do this while still keeping the focus mostly on the subculture, though I'll write a bit about the wider problem, using sources that make the connection. Five years back, I did a complete re-write of Technological unemployment - that's been one of the most contentious issues in economics for much of the past two centuries. Compared with incels, it has literally tens of thousands more academic sources expressing the conflicting POVs, but since my rewrite, there's been virtually zero contention on the article. Hopefully it will be possible to have a similar result here. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hiya. I don't regularly edit this page; it's a more than a bit outside my general focus. But it landed on my watchlist at some point for who knows what reason so I saw your message here. Multiple sources have claimed that TObias mentioned incel concepts and culture within his manifesto. If you've got sources that claim this is not the case and they meet WP:RS, I don't see why the recent addition about him couldn't be edited to note that sources differ. As for the rest, I won't lie; based on your phrasing in this very comment, I would be strongly concerned about WP:NPOV issues stemming from your efforts. I'm not saying this to be accusatory so much as to give you a heads up. You're obviously fairly experienced as an editor (probably more than me, I mostly just massage text because I'm a writing junky), so I'm sure you know to be careful with biases and whatnot. But "...folk who want to have sex but can't. There's over 300 million 18-40 year olds in the later category, and it's a problem that's growing rapidly." and the fact that you talk in broad terms but then consistently bring it back to men specifically raises red flags for me. Just the opening about "voiceless adults"...big red flag. I'm sure the folks who more regularly contribute to this page will have more constructive thoughts on your ideas. Like I said, outside my general purview. I just wanted to note that you shouldn't be surprised if you get push back on this based on how you worded your essay here. Cheers and happy editing. Millahnna (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the comments, and you've already been proved correct in your prediction. :-) In fairness it's not strictly accurate to say I "consistently" brought it back to men. I also specifically mentioned females: "proportion of female 18-39 yr old virgins is almost equally high." , and "in at least some countries nearly half of them are female". If I go ahead with the re-write I'll add a bit more about female incels: according to this source, there's "tens of thousands" of involuntarily celibate women in various online forums. As the Guardian noted ironically only yesterday in an article about female incels "when men suffer, it is a tragedy of murderous proportions; when women suffer, it is a farce". That said, the bulk of the article will still need to focus on men, per the balance of coverage in the sources. FeydHuxtable (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

No one is going to read that wall of text.--Jorm (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:FeydHuxtable. I have written a significant portion of this article, and I'll admit I'm a bit taken aback that you have decided you want to completely rewrite it. Since I started working on this article nearly two years ago, there has been good collaboration between many editors to discuss its tone and contents, keep it up-to-date, etc. The article is well-sourced and completely in keeping with WP:NPOV and WP:OR, so I don't see why a rewrite would be necessary. I would certainly invite you to add any academic sources you have (you are right that there are not a whole lot to be found on the subject, though that seems to be changing as time progresses), and discuss any concerns you have about OR, but I would ask you to please be collaborative rather deciding you would like to throw away our work entirely. You can certainly consider this an "objection" to your plan.

It also sounds like you are intending to shift the article back towards focusing on the "phenomenon" of involuntary celibates (that is, people who would like to be having sex but aren't/can't) rather than the online subculture. That would be contradictory to the consensus that has been established multiple times now, at this talk page and several times at AfD. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi GorillaWarfare, yes there are several academic studies of the sub culture currently underway, some of which might be published this year. As said my rewrite should keep the "focus mostly on the subculture", though yes I would like to move the article slightly towards some explicit mention of the wider phenomenon. (And also different the non misogynistic strands of the online space a bit more clearly.) The main reason I'm so concerned about this is that I'm sensing the near 100% critical tone of the article is causing some to tar the millions of "broad sense" incels with the same brush. A great many of the millions of folk wanting but not having sex are likely totally innocent of misogyny etc; as above many are female.

Rest of world just doesn't respect our narrow definition of the word "Incel" - this is likely why Insider.com said Tobias identified as an incel - they were using the broad definition of the term. So to them his statement about 'never having a girlfriend' = 'incel'. This confusion causes all kinds of problems.

I'm not so sure the article would be NPOV, even if we left aside the problem of definition. While far less numerous & admittedly mostly leaning conservative, there are several sources that take a partially sympathetic view even to "subculture" incels. While not academic, said sources seem more WP:RS than many of the website & low tier magazines used as sources for the critical remarks. E.g. New York Times , The Spectator Washington Post . I have many more like that.

This said, of course virtually all the critical coverage of the sub culture should stay, apart from the incorrect OR. The re-write will mainly be some structural changes & additions, I'd not want to throw away most of the existing work. And if you don't like the re-write, it can just be reverted. FeydHuxtable (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable: Those sources you have offered are not by any means "more WP:RS" as you claim—while the NYT and Washington Post are generally acceptable sources, we should not be using writing from their Opinion sections. Do you intend to begin the discussion to gain consensus to shift the focus of this article back towards the "phenomenon" rather than the subculture here on this page, or elsewhere? As I've mentioned, previous consensus is that the article should not treat "involuntary celibacy" as some sort of accepted psychological/medical/sociological phenomenon separately from the subculture—it appears that most people who aren't having sex but would like to be do not consider themselves "involuntarily celibate", in the same way that I do not consider myself an "involuntary non-millionaire" despite thinking it'd be quite nice to have that kind of money kicking around. Also, you keep referring to OR in this article—can you be more specific? Again, many people including myself have worked hard on this article, and so if there is uncited content here I'd like to know specifically what it is so I can fix it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, totally stealing the "involuntary non-millionaire" label. Guy (help!) 11:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable: I would like to chime in and notify you that the main hub of incels - incels.co - vehemently opposes any notion that female hominins can be considered anything close to being incel. Also, I find it unacceptable that you want to push the non-neutral PoV that misogyny should be considered a negative moniker.--Adûnâi (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Adûnâi, Seriously? You think any form of bigotry could be considered anything other than negative? Guy (help!) 11:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought that we had collectively decided to not dignify this with a response... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

vehemently opposes any notion that female hominins can be considered anything close to being incel. Also, I find it unacceptable that you want to push the non-neutral PoV that misogyny should be considered a negative moniker It's not that I don't have a witty response to this. The problem is that I have so many witty responses all at the same time, I really can't choose. GMG^talk 18:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

What part of what I said constitutes trolling? The notion that "femoids" (incel term for female hominins) can be incel is out of the question for the Incel Movement, this is a fact (they disallow females on their forum). And about my second point - you have to understand that by large, the Incel Movement rejects gynocentric egalitarian notions of morality. I believe my contribution is valuable to consider when writing this article. Sure, it's not reliable sources, but more of a meta perspective. A bit like it's useless to understand the Taliban without knowing they like cutting off femoids' noses.

"It's not that I don't have a witty response to this. The problem is that I have so many witty responses all at the same time, I really can't choose. User:GreenMeansGo" > Well, this is literally bulling now. Great job, Wikipedians.--Adûnâi (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

But what if I reject the non-neutral PoV that bullying should be considered a negative moniker? GMG^talk 19:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Adûnâi Sorry if you feel bullied. I don't think anyone intends to do that. But some of your points seem a little outlandish. E.g. "by large, the Incel Movement rejects gynocentric egalitarian notions of morality" - do you have a good source for that?

@Adûnâi: Just because incels use dehumanizing language about women does not mean it's acceptable for Wikipedia editors to do so. Please stop with "femoids" and "female hominids" and all that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The female incel thing is a pertinent point, though probably not in the way you mean. Currently, the main female incel forum (r/Trufemcels ,23.2k members) seems to have more than twice the number of members as the main male hub (incels.co ~11.k members including banned accounts).

In the broader sense of the term, in Japan, the number of female 18–39 virgins had increased to 24.6% of the population by 2015 which is almost as high a prevalence as for men. > 89% of those women want to get married. This is just Japan, there's likely close to 100 million young women in a similar situation. It's not just male incels who don't believe female incels are a thing – as per sources I already linked to above, society at large shares similar attitudes. I've encountered this first hand, I recall back around 2006 there were two good looking lasses (what incels would call high tier beckies) who complained of going more than a year without being asked out, and folk found this unbelievable. They both got married a few years later, but still.

Male incels have been getting all the attention, and there's now some big name accademics gearing up to give them even more. As per Foucault or MLK had predicted (riot is the language of the unheard) male incels were always going to rage outwards. The The Economist (non paywalled near equivalent ) details recent work suggesting a strong correlation between less developed countries with large numbers of sexless men and war, blaming it on male desperation. Just because female cels don't kick off in the same way, it seems rather uncompassionate to turn a blind eye to this huge scale female suffering. At least now we have sources starting to pick up on this. Accordingly, I'll go ahead and add a short section on femcels. Hopefully there's no objection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeydHuxtable (talk • contribs) 19:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

If the sources you intend to use are statistics from reddit and sources that don't actually mention the subject of this article at all, then no, you probably shouldn't add a section. GMG^talk 19:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It would indeed be unwise to directly add stats from reddit. For something like this it's best to rely on secondary sources, as per the edit I've just made to the main page. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @FeydHuxtable: Your comments are all about "female virgins" and speaks about MLK and Foucault, both of whom were dead before the incel subculture was a thing. As I have already said above, this article is not about the "social phenomenon" of people who would like to be having sex but aren't, it's about the online subculture. Any change to that focus will need formal consensus, because the current consensus has been established and reconfirmed more than once. So yes, I do object. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I, too, object to a change of focus in that regard.--Jorm (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand your position about the change of focus back to the broader phenomena. I'm still thinking about that. I don't like to bluntly point out that several of the assertions made above are entirely wrong, per the fact I've been an admirer of your work for more than a decade. Just trying to think of a diplomatic & collegial way to phrase things. But anyhow the female incel thing is different. In my edit to the article, I kept the focus entirely on the online subculture. So to clarify, am I correct in assuming you object to a change of focus back to the broader phenomena, but not to giving a little more due weight to female incels.? FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the point is that any "female incel" subculture would be a different subculture from the one covered in the article. This subject--the incel subculture--is notable because of the misogyny, violence, etc. of its members, not because of their sexual status. So, any subculture that doesn't share that misogyny and violence isn't part of the article's scope, because it would be a different subculture that shares some features with the ones included in the article proper. Much like how there are many independent restaurants named "McDonald's", but we wouldn't include them in the McDonald's article, even though they share a name and several other similarities; they're still different things. If the women-incel subculture is independently notable, or the "phenomenon" of involuntary celibacy itself, then that would probably warrant its own article and a corresponding hatnote on this article, maybe even a DAB. But consensus has shown that the latter is not independently notable, and I imagine the same would be for the former. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, the two sources used ([6] [7]) do relate it to the online subculture. But the question then is how muchweight to give to an opinion piece in the Guardian sourced to a magazine run by the Dollar Shave Club. GMG^talk 19:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable: I don't mind bluntness; which of my assertions are wrong? Yes, I do object to refocusing of the article. As for giving weight to female incels, I'm not sure yet where I stand on that. I need to read the sources you included, which I haven't had a chance to do yet (I am at work). However I do think Writ Keeper makes a point worth considering. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I would also point out that the Mel Magazine source states that The two are are distinct groups with their own cultures, values and norms, and the Guardian piece, which cites the Mel one, says that While male incel culture has been exhaustively analysed, femcels have largely been ignored...[the] fact that femcels have not been on violent rampages is the most obvious reason they are not discussed, and generally frames incels and femcels as separate groups (A lot of incels seem to think femcels are just ...). And yeah, it's also a very brief opinion piece, which is not the most reliable source. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a better example: the articles for Antifa (United States) and Antifa (Germany), apart from the usual hatnotes and "see also" sections, barely mention each other, even though they are movements that share a name and many of the same broad objectives; they're still two separate things, and both are still themselves separate from the actual state of being anti-fascist, in the sense of opposed to fascism (which itself has its own article at anti-fascism). I think that the situation here is pretty directly analogous, except that "femcels" have not proven to be independently notable so far, and "involuntary celibacy" as a concept has been decided by consensus to be *not* notable. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

That is a great example. Consider me convinced. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we please slow down a little? Surely there's a case for staying open minded for a while here. This isn't just about complying with policy, as important as that is. When it comes to "new" topics like this, Wikipedia can be hugely impactful due to it's influence on the media and junior academics. Huge attention is going into the problem of male incels, there's new more realistic emotion reading AI sexbots coming out each month, new types of cheap virtual girlfriend appearing that male cels are paying for in their hundreds (project melody) not to mention all the academic attention they're getting. While it's good that some are trying to take away their pain, it's surely intolerable that the female perspective is being neglected, when they arguably suffer at least equally. I'll get on to addressing more specific reasons soon... FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid you will find this discussion will be more productive if we drop the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS pretenses. We're here to build an encyclopedia, and not to influence broad political trends or corner the market on sexbots. Continued lengthy digressions on these non-encyclopedia issues are at best distracting and at worst disruptive to a collaborative discussion. GMG^talk 21:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure "pretenses" was the most collegial word there. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

pre·tense: a claim, especially a false or ambitious one I don't think it's a stretch to say that it is both false and ambitious to assert that the broad disposition of sexbots is something we should be seriously considering when writing an encyclopedia. That much is nearly indistinguishable from parody. GMG^talk 22:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I haven't closed my mind to the possibility of including more details about female incels in this page. I'm just saying that at the moment I agree with Writ Keeper's analysis. As for your comments about Wikipedia's impact and the suffering of female incels, I have to agree with GreenMeansGo that this is beginning to stray into RIGHTGREATWRONGS territory. We are here to represent the views as they appear in reliable sources; we are not here to sway media or academic opinion, assuage female incels' suffering, or.. well I'm not really sure what you're suggesting we do when you mention virtual girlfriends and sexbots. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

There's other ways of looking this. The definitions Im seeing for "pretense" seem to be overwhelming along the lines of "an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true." I.e., in the context of a non playful discussion, it can imply dishonesty. That said, GMG makes a fair point.

@GW My view is that the article has arguably been in RIGHTGreatWrongs territory ever since April 2018 – hence the need for a rewrite, or at least for a few balancing additions. The article originally embraced both the narrow & broad meaning of the term incel. So did many of the press sources – even ones that have been used in a OR way to push for the narrow definition:

And back in April 2018, 100% of the (admittedly sparse) academic sources seem to have been using incel in the broad sense of the term. Yet archived discussion show that editors chose to focus on just the narrow meaning in part as they didn't "want what research has been done on that broader subject to accidentally legitimize an extreme ideology" Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but while admirable, that seems a RGW position. Following our article's change of focus to the online sub-culture, much of the press soon followed suit. If everyone had, in some ways there would be less of a societal impact. The reality is that considerable sympathetic attention started going towards male incels. Even several of the sources in the article are largely about this, despite it barely being hinted at in our article (e.g. the FT source) This will be more clear when I get to detailing why the article lacks NPOV. But in a nutshell what's happening is that considerable attention is going towards addressing the problem of inceldom from a male perspective. If we'd avoided the arguably OR / RGW decision to ignore the academic work that looked at incledom in the broad sense, there would likely be a more female friendly perspective on this. And thus more holistic solutions, with less emphases on ones that mostly help men yet risk a mostly negative impact on women, like sexbots and virtual gfs.

Movomg on to Writ Keepers argument that "the incel subculture--is notable because of the" … "violence" … "of its members".

With all the above said, it's true that at least 3 of the killers seemed motivated by incel ideology, and the noteability of incel online subculture certainly increased in part due to perceived violence of the online community. So I guess theres a reason to still reject coverage of female incels if editors are so inclined, though for me that would be both unencyclopedic and unkind.

I guess the other big issues with the article is there's abundant reliable sources saying sympathetic things about even online male incels. Like you say, we're here "to represent the views as they appear in reliable sources" We're not here just to represent the views we agree with. Currently, the article is allmost entirely critical about incels, this is in no way a NPOV reflection of even the sources currently in the article - several of them include sympathetic points. As per my opening post here, correcting this isn't just the encyclopedic thing to do, it may also be helpful to those suffering from broad sense inceldom. I'll post in more detail on this probably tommorow. Unless you think I'm being unhelpful here GW. If you think that just say, there's lots of other things I can spend my wiki time on. FeydHuxtable (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I know you disagree with the established consensus, but this will be the third time I'm saying: the consensus has been repeatedly established that this article should focus on incels as an online subculture. Look at the deletion discussions in the (collapsed) template at the top of the page, the talk page archives, etc. If you want to rewrite, or even somewhat shift, the article towards what you're describing as a "broad meaning of the term", you will need formal consensus (ie, RfC). Frankly I doubt that will be easy to achieve; if anything the sourcing seems to have trended even more towards describing incels in the sense of the radical Internet subculture in recent years.

As for your first collapsed section, about OR connecting incels and online subcultures, I think that might just be an issue of bad inline citation placement. That citation is being used to support the fact that incels use the term inceldom. The citations for the "online subculture" thing are the ones in the lead, which are quite clear:

1. ...the so-called “incel” movement — an online community of men united by their inability to convince women to have sex with them. [8]
2. The recent mass killing in Toronto by a man who once called for an “Incel Rebellion” has drawn attention to an online community of men who lament being “involuntarily celibate” and dream of a social order granting them access to the women of their choice. [9]

I'll fix the inline citation in the article body in a moment to make the intended sourcing clearer.

Regarding your comment that And back in April 2018, 100% of the (admittedly sparse) academic sources, are you referring to the one academic source I see used in that iteration of the article? That would be the Donnelly, et al study, which has also been a major topic of past conversations about this article, because it's not a great source: see Talk:Incel/Archive_1#Donnelly for a summation. Furthermore, there are now more academic sources we can use (I count five in the current version); why would we go based on what a smaller set of available sources a year and a half said, and not what current scholarship says? And no, I don't think you've correctly interpreted my comment, which you quoted only in part. If you look at the full comment (at Talk:Incel/Archive_1#Lead_sentence for anyone else following this conversation), I am objecting to someone suggesting we use sources studying people who are not having sex (but which do not use the term "involuntary celibate", "incel", etc.) as if they are referring to incels. I think it is reasonable to object to research being used to describe something it is not describing, and certainly not a RGW comment.

Following our article's change of focus to the online sub-culture, much of the press soon followed suit. I don't think this is accurate. Most media coverage of incels emerged after the Isla Vista attacks in 2014 and intensified again following the April 2018 Toronto attack. The timing of the press coverage, and its focus on extremism and violence, is quite closely tied to those events, not to how this Wikipedia article portrays the subject.

I would like to see the sources you have regarding "considerable sympathetic attention"—I've seen some sympathetic pieces (although they tend to be sympathetic towards individual members rather than towards the subculture as a whole), but I wouldn't call it a considerable amount. It sounds like from your comment that you're planning on presenting these sources at a later time, so I will be patient.

If we'd avoided the arguably OR / RGW decision to ignore the academic work that looked at incledom in the broad sense, there would likely be a more female friendly perspective on this. Which academic work is this that's being ignored? You are correct that some academic work has not been included in the past, because it was studies about people who would like to be having sex, but aren't. Much of it never used the term "incel"/"involuntary celibate"/etc., and there was no indication that any of the subjects in the research identified as such. It's improper to take research of the phenomenon of people who aren't having sex but would like to be (who often do not self-identify as incels, and in some cases reject the label strongly) and try to use it for this article, especially since consensus has repeatedly formed against addressing the topic in such a way. Again, such research is absolutely viable for use on Wikipedia, just not at this article. Sexual frustration is the most appropriate place for it, in my opinion, and loneliness, celibacy, and some others also might be appropriate depending on the specific research.

I agree that the wording around PUAHate could be improved—it was more of a home to incels than an "incel community". I can make a tweak in a moment, when I'm finished replying to you. But your conclusion that incels are not violent because the violent people mentioned in this article did not post on incels.co goes against an enormous amount of reliable sourcing—academic and media sourcing alike. Your NYT source is not really useful as a counterpoint—as you know, an incel saying "I'm (or we're) not violent" is not the same as a third party source saying "incels are not violent". Your link regarding the Horgan grant itself suggests incels are sources of violence—as for early results of his research, I guess I'm not sure where you're seeing them, so I can't really comment in any kind of informed way.

And no, you're not being unhelpful, and I would not suggest you step away from an article that I myself am heavily involved in editing—it would certainly be concerning in an WP:OWNy way to do so. I look forward to seeing the abundant sourcing you mention that holds a sympathetic view towards incels. In the meantime, I recently was granted access to an additional Wikipedia Library database for the purposes of the articles I've edited on the manosphere, and so I will see if there is any additional scholarly work in there that could be added to this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the energy you've given this GW. I agree with much of what you say. There's been some miss-communication here, which I can see is mostly or maybe entirely my fault for the confusing way I've laid out my points . It's never been my intention to reverse the consensus to focus on the sub-culture. I only wanted what I see as a v minor change in that direction - maybe a line or two to clarify that the highly critical coverage for the male subculture doesn't apply to broad sense incels. I've abandoned much of my plan to partially rewrite the article, but there's still a few changes I believe would be beneficial. I'll get back to you on this & your questions above once I've thought of a clear & hopefully semi- concise way to address them. FeydHuxtable (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Ahhh, okay. You're right that it seems I was misunderstanding your intention. I look forward to seeing what you have in mind as far as the line or two—I definitely think we can find something everyone's happy with. It probably makes sense to say some version of what's already been said on this talk page: that the incel subculture (and associated criticism) is quite a separate thing than people who'd like to be having sex but aren't, for whatever reason. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Good to hear GW, I wont hold you to it, but it would be great if that happens. OK so before I post my final suggestions for additions, there's one last bit of OR to talk about.

I've just made the edit to address this as it's hopefully uncontroversial. The section above is more to suggest why it might create a misleading impression for our readers if we restored the suggestion that incel discussion often revolve around entitlement, even if a source could be found that supports it. (Arguably the USAtoday source near the start of the Ideology section does, but IMO that's inaccurate.)

Ive no intention to remove any other criticism. If you dont agree with the above & revert no worries. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I see my OR fix has been reverted, which for the most part I don't mind, in the grand scheme of things it's not that important. I'd suggest though that at the very least the vox source is removed. If there's one thing worse than uncited incorrect content, it's falsely cited content. The vox source is largely about outside commentators suggesting sex robots as a way to help out incels, and how it became a mainstream topic of conversation. It says absolutely nothing about "accquiring sexbots" being a commong topic for incels themselves. (They do seem to mention it occaisionally, but not commonly AFAIKT, this probably won't change until they get a bit more affordable & realistic. ) FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @FeydHuxtable: Wait, I'm confused—at the beginning of your collapsed block you say that the "entitlement to sex" thing is OR, but then at the end you say it is "of course accurate and can stay". Is it the use of the phrase "characterized as" that you're distinguishing here? As for taking a look around incel forums and looking to see if that's the case, that's WP:OR that can't be used to discount reliable sourcing. I do think you have a point about the Vox source, though—I'll poke around for a better source or remove it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clearer. All we need for "characterized as" to be true, is for some low quality sources to have made statements along those lines. They have. So the statement in the lede is accurate. And not even that misleading. Some incels - e.g. Elliot Roger - really have shown they feel entitlement to sex. But it's an entirely different thing to say discussions "often revolve around entitlement to sex". That's a much stronger claim, and it's more in the encyclopedia's voice. I think it's overstating the ammount of entitlement they feel. (Many incels being on the right, and against the very notiion of entitlement. Even some of the left leaning ones seem to agree, perhaps due to the influence of the blackpill) So I think "often revolves" is miselading to our readers. I'd prefer we don't make the statement, especially not without a source that directly supports it. But if you don't agree no worries, I could be wrong, maybe most incels do feel such an entitlement, some experts seem to think that... FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable: Sources seem to agree that "entitlement to sex" is both a defining feature of the incel ideology and a common discussion topic:

• ...incels frequently feel entitled to the sexual and romantic interest of women, and bitterly resent women who reject them... Vox
• Entitled to sex: A common theme in incel threads is that women, or "Stacys," are shallow hypocrites for having sex with men with muscles or money, called "Chads," instead of ostensibly nice guys like them who need and deserve sex.USA Today
• Incels are, in general, an online community of misogynistic men who think they are entitled to sex from women and are furious that they don’t get it because of their appearance. Buzzfeed News
• Central to the incel ideology is the idea that sex with another person — specifically, penetrative sex with women — isn’t a privilege for men, but a right. Cosmopolitan
• Incels believe women owe them sex, and in some cases people active on incel forums advocate for government-sanctioned girlfriends and sexual encounters. CBC

My quick Googling turned up these and many more media results, but since you mention "low quality sources" I'll note that more academic sources also support it:

• [the incel] is convinced he is owed sex, and is enraged by the women who deprive him of it London Review of Books
• While incels are only one iteration of people who think that they are owed sex... Desire in the Age of Robots and AI
• [incels] feel as if sex is owed to them Violence and Gender
• [Incels] They frame this shift as a profound injustice to men who cannot find a sexual partner, suggesting that society has failed to give men what they are entitled to (access to women’s bodies) and that the only recourse is violent insurrection. Women in International Security

GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes you're right GW. There was no need for you to list all those sources, but I'm grateful that you did. If even someone as perceptive as Rebecca Gibson buys the view that cells generally feel entitled to sex, perhaps I've misread that part of incel culture.

In the Desire in the Age of Robots and AI source you linked to, Dr Gibson points out that sex with robots is a driving force in the latest technological advances in cybernetic and artifical intelligence science Two things in particular have turbocharged recent efforts to improve the Emotion reading/ emotive response capability of AI bots. One is increasing recognition of the problem of loneliness, esp. after Vivek Murthy's statement that "Loneliness is a growing health epidemic.". The second is the incel problem. While our article gave no hint about this, several sources were almost entirely about discussion of robots as a potential solution. E.g. the source you just removed (which was -ve about sexbots, but accepted they've become a mainstream topic as a solution for incels) or the Toby Young source ( which is mostly focussed on advocating sexbots for incels). It's not that big an over simplification to say society so far had just two responses to the Incel problem. "TeeHee Inkwell, take a shower bro, and work on your personality". And Sexbots.

On one level, no one with a heart could read the glowing testimonies Dr Gibson has collected on the deep emotional satisfaction even some of the older sexbots give their owners, and want to deny them to suffering incels. They should be the solution to those very few incels that cant be helped in any other way. But a realistic near term threat is an onrushing wave of literally hundreds of millions of advanced and affordable sexbots flooding the market. (Folk are working on models that are self-cleaning, and with some utility functions, like also being able to help with household chores.) There's hundreds of feminist sources out there on why this would likely be bad for women, though I've not yet read one that fully grapples with what an unprecedented & risky leap in the dark it would be, given the centrality of the sex drive to society and individual human behaviour. I guess the point I'm getting to is that on this particular topic, given how Wikipedia can influence coverage of emerging subjects, it's more important than normal that we carefully comply with our content policies and encyclopaedic values. So I'm really grateful for the open minded and scholarly way you've engaged with this so far, especially as I didn't open this discussion in the most collegial way. I'm almost done with my final suggestions, so hopefully we can soon draw this to a close. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Final suggestions

My 3 proposals are 1) Add back the female incel sub section 2) Add a balancing section on the more sympathetic response , 3) Add a couple of sentences to the lede, mainly to indicate most of the critical coverage doesn't apply to broad sense incels.

This is a challenging topic to look at objectively. I'd really appreciate if anyone who takes the time to read all this doesn't rush to rejecting the suggestions, at least maybe sleeping on it first, if they don't have any questions.

To reduce the TLDR burden a little – the first & especially last of the collapsed sections below are the most optional. (The 1st being partly a rehash of less relevant earlier discussion. The last being more my own analyses rather than source or policy based reasoning.) But including for anyone up for a long read, as I think they add valuable context.)

Here's reasoning for the 3 suggestions, starting with my opinion on why it's justifiable to add back the female incel subsection on purely encyclopaedic grounds, even if we're indifferent to the IAR societal impact reasons in the last collapsed section below.

I'd be happy if other editors made their decisions on the 3 suggestions without reading the last collasped section below, as it's mostly IAR reasoning & my own analyses. But including as may be useful context for some.

FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable: To respond to your suggestions in order:

1. I don't have major objections to the proposed edit regarding incels who are women, though if you make the edit I will probably do some copyediting/etc.—for example, I think it's better we just refer to them in-article as "female incels" rather than "femcels". One thing that should be fixed before the edit is made, though is the rewording of the sentence starting with "It's been claimed that it is impossible for women to be incel...": that rewording makes it unclear that it is incels themselves who are claiming this, not the public at large. I also object to the "as of [year]" additions—it implies that we think those figures have changed in recent years, which does not appear to be a claim made in any of those sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
2. Regarding sympathetic responses: I could see potentially including the first part of paragraph one of your suggested change. I think I understand from reading the sources why you are trying to include the sex robots topic in the sympathetic responses subsection, but from the wording of your proposed change it is not really clear why this point is mentioned there. I also don't understand why you are including the paragraph about "incel" being used as an insult in there—what does that have to do with sympathetic coverage? Overall, I don't think this needs a separate heading, and I would oppose any change to the lead per WP:WEIGHT.
3. As I have said, discussion of what you term "broad sense" incels should not be introduced to this article without formal consensus. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

1) Outstanding. I agree the female incel expansion would be better with your suggested amendments. I'll make the edit probably in a couple of days, just in case anyone else wants to chime in, such as GMG who I hope very rapidly recovers from feeling indisposed.

2) I don't have any strong desire to include mention of sexbots, it's just that seems to be what most of the sympathetic coverage so far focuses on. I'll have a think on how we could make it clearer why we mention it. No problem if you don't want the sympathetic coverage mentioned in the lede. The insult thing is something that from my PoV is much more important to include than robots. It's covered in sympathetic sources - I see what you mean about it not being great fit to the "sympathetic coverage" title - that's why I titled the proposed new L3 header "Sympathetic and mixed responses". But I'd agree it would fit in the Criticism section without the need for a new header.

3) Have to admit I'm a little crestfallen by this. The desirability to reduce the tarring of non subculture romantically unsuccessful people (all ~300 million of them) with the incel brush is the whole impetus for me getting involved here. I'd perhaps wrongly understood from this edit that you suported this. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are you saying that you'd class adding just the line The term "incel" is increasingly being used as an insult, to label men who may be unsuccessful in dating, but who aren't part of the online community. as a large enough refocussing towards broad sense incels, as to need formal consensus? Per the April 2018 discussion to refocus the article's original embrace of both the narrow & broad meaning to narrow, only involving a handful of editors, I don't see why we need to go down the formal route.

That said, you know the community better than me. On the plus side, I think I could frame a suitable RfC for this with only 3-4 lines :-) Which I'll draft for your approval first, if this is what you think we should do? FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding point 3: no, I don't think just adding that one suggested line would need formal consensus. Like I said, I think it's okay for the article to clarify that incels are not the same as people who are just sexually frustrated. I think the confusion over what I was agreeing to stems from the fact that you consider people who would like to be having sex but aren't to be incels, and I do not. I don't mind discussing that group of people in this article; it is including them under the incel label that I object to, and that I think would need broader consensus. The April 2018 discussion you mention is only one of many discussions that have been held about the focus of this article; see the multiple AfDs and DRVs listed in the template at the top of the page. Those repeated discussions that have agreed that the sourcing/notability is not there to discuss "involuntary celibacy" as if it is a recognized psychological condition or sociological group outside of the Internet subculture are why I think you need formal consensus to refocus this article in any major way. As for my opinion on any RfC, I've already given it: [10]. I don't think it's likely to be successful, given that a) the prior discussions concluded that the idea of involuntary celibacy in the "broad sense" is not backed by sourcing, and should just be discussed at sexual frustration, and b) coverage has, if anything, trended more towards discussing incels in the context of the Internet culture in the couple of years since. I would love to not have to deal with arguing this same point yet again in a new RfC, but if you think it's worth the time and has a chance of success I'm certainly not going to claim veto power. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Excellent. I think we're now in agreement. I'll wait a couple of days in case anyone else wants to chime in. If not, I'll go ahead & add 1) a slightly amended expansion to our Female Incel coverage; 2) some scaled down & tuned up sympathetic/other criticism (without a section header, & with no addition to the lead, & which no doubt yourself or others will later further modify) ; 3)I'll add the one line to the lede that you agree with.

I was only suggesting a possible RfC as I mistakenly thought you might prefer a formal concensus before we add that one line. (the RfC would have been about just said single line) I've no intention of trying to refocus the article in any major way. Again sorry for creating that false impression. Both now and looking forward, I don't expect it will ever be optimal to refocus back to broad sense, pretty much for exactly the reasons you've explained. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Great, sounds like there's a pretty straightforward path forward! I've (obviously) got this article on my watchlist so I'll keep an eye out for your changes. Thanks for being so willing to discuss all this, and for helping improve the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Source quality

• On source quality: For a mature topic, we might not want to give any weight to opinion pieces at all, except perhaps to highlight the view of an especially relevent expert. But this is a quite new topic. We're currently giving weight to the view of relatively junior journalists in publications whose reliability we've specifically questioned . Arwa Mahdawi is a respected columnist at a major bradsheet. So not sure why we'd want to reject these sources on quality grounds, at least for this article. Esspecially as I only proposed adding a relatively small section, still leaving over 90% of the focus on male incels? I'll get to Writ Keeper's point on apparently seperate sub cultures soon, I'll probably wait a few hours so less chance of distracting GW at work. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

  The section wasn't removed because of concerns over source quality, nor does that seem to be the predominant concern about said section in this conversation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. But GMG's points regarding source quality seemed worth addressing, and it seemed much easier to do so than to start specifically discussing the various NPOV & WP:OR issues with the article. But now you've graciously invited me to be blunt, I guess the its time to do so. FeydHuxtable (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, got it. It wasn't clear to me that you were specifically replying to GMG here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm around, but mostly indisposed. GMG^talk 21:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)