Talk:Incel

"Often white" is inappropriate in the lede of this article.

You could say the same thing for virtually any large group. But we don't. We don't say that doctors or ballet dancers or geeks are "often white," even though it's assuredly true.

It's a weasel phrase. "Often white" - what does that even mean? What numerical threshold does a group have to cross to be considered "often white"? About 17% of professional basketball players are white - are professional basketball players "often white"?

And the sources cited don't particulary support the assertion. For example, source 23 from the Anti-Defamation League, "Online Poll Results Provide New Insights into Incel Community," says the following:

While roughly 55 percent of respondents identify as white or Caucasian, the remaining 45 percent of are equally divided among a range of ethnic and racial groups, including Black, Latino, Asian, Indian, Middle Eastern or Other/Not Sure.

Is 55% "often white"? Well, maybe - it's a weasel phrase - but considering that 81% of incels are from North America and Europe, white men actually appear to be *underrepresented* among incels, compared to the general population.

It would only be appropriate to say "often white" if the community was specifically about whiteness in some way - and no sources make any kind of case for that. It's baffling that anyone thought it was appropriate to put in the article.

The actual body of the article goes into detail about the nuances of race in the incel community. It isn't appropriate for the lede. KarakasaObake (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The inline source used for that claim goes into significant detail about how the community is "specifically about whiteness"--see section "4.2. Abduction and ethnic identity". I think the discussion of whether this belongs in the lede is fair, but I don't think it's so cut-and-dry that it should be removed beforehand. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no section 4.2 in the article.

There is, however, a section 2.3, which includes the text "and, among non-white incels, the "just be white" (JBW) theory, which suggests that Caucasians face the fewest obstacles to relationships and sex," explicitly refuting the idea that the community is "specifically about whiteness." KarakasaObake (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure which article you're talking about, but I'm talking about this one, which has a 4.2 as I described. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I thought you were referring to the Wikipedia page itself. But the source you're referencing also explicitly refutes that the community is "specifically about whiteness." From the source:

"data suggest their orientation towards race and ethnicity is complex. Some incels advocate White nationalism, others discuss White privilege and intersectionality, while others still argue that incel-status trumps all other forms of identification"

"incels have (surprisingly) multifaceted discussions of race, ranging from support for White nationalism to critiques of White privilege. While social psychological theories predict that race/ethnic identity should operate as the more salient group identity in this context, we document instances where the opposite is true and incels assert the primacy of their incel identity"

And, again, you could say the exact same for doctors or ballet dancers or geeks: some advocate White nationalism, some discuss White privilege and intersectionality, and some are uninterested in racial identification. KarakasaObake (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but doctors don't, as a whole, discuss their race as an inherent part of their being doctors. That paper shows that (presumably) an absolute majority of incels are white, and that self-definition as either white or less-than-white and is a strong trend in incel communities, which is not true of doctors or ballet dancers, so I don't think that's an apt comparison. Yes, the paper does also show that there is a current of inceldom-trumps-ethnicity, but I don't think that goes a long way towards saying that race is irrelevant to the topic. And that's just one source; there are three others in the inline citations to that statement. "Assessing the threat of incel violence" talks about The white supremacist discourse pervasive on incel forums. The WaPo article goes out of its way to say that What makes the incel culture different is that these are primarily heterosexual white men.... The NBC article talks about how “They’re young, frustrated white males in their late teens into their early twenties who are having a hard time adjusting to adulthood. They’re the same kinds of people you find in white supremacy writ large,” Beirich said. “They have grievances about the world they’ve placed onto women and black people.“ If these sources think it's relevant, I don't know why we wouldn't too. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Incels also don't, as a whole, discuss their race as an inherent part of their being incels. Some do; most don't.

The only academic source we have on the issue is the one we've been discussing: Halpin and Richard's "An invitation to analytic abduction." They actually examined the community and said they were "surprised" by the multifaceted discussions of race taking place there.

Frankly, that is a far better source than WaPo and NBC. And Halpin and Richard specifically discuss how the popular media is misreporting incels:

"Using abduction, we've highlighted surprising findings: not only do incels discuss White privilege and intersectionality, but some members situate “incel” as a master status that unifies men across racial and ethnic groups. This finding reveals that incels are more heterogenous than reported, particularly in the popular media..." KarakasaObake (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

"some" =/= "most". "most don't" is unsupported by the current sources. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

"Most do" is also unsupported by the sources. The sources do say that about 55% of incels are white, so in order for "most" incels to be discussing whiteness as an inherent part of being incels, about 91% of white incels would need to be doing that. There is no claim in any source that this is the reality. KarakasaObake (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed (except for the wholly arbitrary 91% threshold), but the sentence in question didn't say "mostly white", it said "often white", which, given the information in the sources, is not realistically disputable. We have thre or four reliable sources that say that race is a relevant subject w/r/t incels, and one reliable source that says it's sometimes relevant and sometimes not, not being definitive either way--that sounds like a convincing reason to keep the sentence to me. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The 91% figure isn't "wholly arbitrary", it's basic math. If 55% of incels are white, then for "most" incels to be discussing whiteness, then 91% of those 55% would be discussing it, that is: $0.91\times 0.55\approx 50.1\%$. ~Anachronist (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

How does 'they are described as' count as something factual? I can describe the Presidents of the US as as reptilian aliens from Alpha Centauri, so can I then factually include it on the Wikipedia article as factual? It is 'factually' based on assumption, and even worse, as you noted, to the exclusion of studies that contradict it. 193.119.44.239 (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

If you can get that published in reliable sources and journals, perhaps we can talk. I'm not sure which sources you're referring to as being excluded. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It's inappropriate and should be removed. Commemorative1 (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Incels primarily white?

Incels (in the original sense as involuntary virgins/non-sexual actives) are very much more common in Japan and South Korea. So get the racism out of this article. 2A01:598:B184:2B4:35C8:92D0:62E6:C67D (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

They actually are not. Informal polling of the incel community has reported 55-60% identify as white. Zaathras (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Once again, this article is about the internet subculture, *not* about the "original sense", so your concerns are misplaced. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

yes hikimori is a large part of that culture. Or else change the title to (US-centric view on incels) or something similar. (-- me being not from the US) 2A01:598:B184:2B4:35C8:92D0:62E6:C67D (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

As this is the English Wikipedia, a focus on us is kind of expected. Zaathras (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Since the idea of that sentence was added, there's been plenty of (primary academic) sources which challenge the implication put forth by trumpeting 'incels are mostly or primarily or often white' as if it's notable. The implication being the forums are unusually white, and with respect to larger parent platforms that the forums were on or derived from. That's the implication by putting it in the lede of a digital journo article or Wikipedia. Academics challenged that, among those who made it a point to research race on the forums. If you want to find the academic sources that challenge that, go ahead, but I don't really care about this debate. There were talk page wars over that sentence before the academics challenged it, because a few journalists said 'mostly white' after browsing incels.me's selfie thread from 2018 or something, is what I remember. Bashfan34 (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

In general, most of this Wikipedia page is anchored by 2018 news articles on Minassian, and related commentary. There's been a lot of writing in reliable sources since then. The framing of incels in media has stayed about as negative, (with some exceptions) but there's been updates, and this subject is among those updates. Bashfan34 (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC) — Bashfan34 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Willwill0415 (talk · contribs).

If these originating forums were mainly white, which is likely, that may still be significant to this particular subculture, or it might not be. It's still up to sources to decide this, and journalism can still be reliable for this kind of thing. If you know of specific research that explains this, please point to it. Just saying that there have been updates in broad terms is not enough. Grayfell (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The incel communities are mostly white, or at least the self-described ones (some sources here say a tad over 50%). Hence not removing that sentence. The updates are about whether this is unusual ie notable, considering that the USA is mostly white, and Reddit clocks in at almost 70% white. And the incel forums focused on in this article are the Reddit offshoot ones in English and reportedly ran out of the USA. This is what the Sylvia Jaki source already in the article partially gets at, which alone is enough to alter the lede should the IP editor choose to make an account and do so with. As far as others, sorting through academia on incels now takes hours, and considering I haven't edited that sentence yet, don't feel like doing anon IPs work for him. Bashfan34 (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC) — Bashfan34 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Willwill0415 (talk · contribs).

So a half-truth? They're technically across the midway mark to qualify as mostly? Why not describe exactly what percentage of people are 'mostly' and let the reader decide! 193.119.44.239 (talk) 07:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

If it were 56%, or even 70% corresponding to a similar percent of the population in North America, the emphasis also strikes me as dishonest. The article is emphasizing it as something irregular, something notable. You qualify this 'remarkable' fact about the demographic of the community when at worst, it is probably inline with the expected racial demographics of the community as a whole. 193.119.44.239 (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The 55–60% percentage being mentioned above is from "informal polling"—as far as I'm aware it's not mentioned in the article because there isn't a sufficiently reliable source that begins to try to take a stab at percentages. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Really? I always thought the sources that mentioned the percentage were fairly reliable Trade (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm white and REALLY DAMN tired of seeing in media "white" and "incel" when the statistical reality is arabids are actually per capita the most spree shooters read below

Faisal Hussain was an Arabcel of Pakistani origin who is responsible for the 2018 Toronto incel spree shooting that occurred on Danforth Avenue in the Greektown neighbourhood of Toronto, Ontario. According to The National Post, Faisal Hussain had a "dark obsession with death, violence and 'incel' ideology". Police on searching Faisal and his property found a copy of a manifesto by Elliot Rodger, images of him, as well as stories Alek Minassian.

Biography

According to The National Post, "Hussain’s dark obsessions started early." As a child was found drawing a man being cheered by a demon for decapitating a woman, and vocally admiring the Columbine school shooters . Faisal had no criminal record but had several interactions with police before the doing his incel shooting. He was 29-years-old at the age of the shooting and police say the "Hussian's family did not 'even know him that well and what he was up to.'" He has a twin brother.

Description of the Shooting

Search warrants unsealed two months after the shooting showed that Faisal had stood over a woman and shot her four times during a incel shooting rampage that ended with Faisal shooting himself in the head. Faisal has twin brother had tried to persuade him to turn his life around several hours before the incel shooting spree, but by the time his twin brother made his arguments Faisal had already tuned him out.

There was an Indian witness to the shototing, a man named Jaspal Singh. Hussain said to Jaspal, “Don’t worry, I’m not going to shoot you." After that Hussain killed 18-year-old Reese Fallon and 10-year-old Julianna Kozis Thirteen other persons became victims and were injured but where not killed, ranging in age from 17 to 59, as Hussain fired at pedestrians and businesses.

Stats on Arabcel shooters in the Anglophone Americas

Faisal Hussain is a notable Arabcel (arabcel is a portmanteau of "arab" and "incel") . The angolophone americas (countries in North and South Americas that are majority English-speaking) include the United States, Canada and other countries like Belize and Dominica. It is a statistical reality and fact that a higher percentage of Hussain's ethnic group (arabs, berbers, libyans, iranians, ect.) become incel shooters, which occurs at a higher frequency and rate in Hussain's ethnic group than any other ethnicity. One can caluclate this figure by gathering data on all the incel spree shooters (i.e. every incel shooting that has ever happened in the anglophone americas) and categorizing the shooter by their ethnicity . After gathereing data on the ethnic makeup of the anglophone americas (i.e. population sizes for each ethnicity in countries part of the anglophone americas), one would divide the number of shooters into the total population size of each ethnicity to yield the per capita number of incel shooters per ethinicty. Conducting this statistical analysis will yield the result in which of all the ethnicities in the world, the one most statistically likely to become incel shooters is the Arabcel. Faisal Hussain was of course an important part of this statistical truth and reality, and is part of a growing global growth in Arabcel populations. DroppingInNotONe1 (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that ethnicity is unrelated to the ideology, though be careful with using the word "arabid".

Unless you're trying to say it should be changed to often Arabic, which would just cause more problems. commemorative (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Please see the Wikipedia policy on no original research. If you have high quality sources that contradict the existing sources on overall demographics, feel free to present them, but pointing to one incident in which an attacker was non-white, some material from the "Incel Wiki", and some original research is not sufficient to make changes to the text. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Given the first rule of wikipedia is to ignore all rules

And most people here presumably care about accuracy, would like to also amend the second sentence of the main article (after the lede). The first sentence after the lede was factually wrong, when it said 1993. Now it's slightly more accurate. The second sentence says Alana's last name wasn't known at the time. This is incorrect. She used her last name to advertise her forum every time she did, you can see that by going to Google Groups and searching her name, as Google Groups have archived all the relevant Usenet posts. When the first two sentences of an article are inaccurate, it's ok to do original research. That or delete the article for being a premature take on a topic, where facts are not currently a concern for journalists 2600:4040:403C:F300:494C:D5CE:66A2:C454 (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Just one example of how even the first two sentences of this article are provably wrong https://groups.google.com/g/alt.support.shyness/c/qsZKuUTf2dk/m/h3zK9DUEf3QJ 2600:4040:403C:F300:494C:D5CE:66A2:C454 (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is not that the last name was unknown in some absolute way, but rather that she was known only by her first name on the relevant website. If you would like to propose better wording in accordance with the sources, please do! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why you're asking me to consult secondary sources when they refused to even fact check the date of creation of the "movement". The reason the secondary sources say no one knew her by her last name is because she requested journalists not associate her last name with the subject. She says that on her LoveNotAnger website. If the sources on this subject don't care about facts, then they are awful and not worth buildling an encyclopedic article over. I mean good god they leave out more than two thirds the history and then get it wrong 2600:4040:403C:F300:F7A:E246:2476:2C4 (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Also the third sentence is also factually wrong. 2600:4040:403C:F300:F7A:E246:2476:2C4 (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Look if all Wikipedia is is a Google aggregator, you can get an AI bot to do that in 10 years or so. I assume part of the reason of the ignore all rules rule, is to deal with water is wet type stuff, that an AI bot would miss. And even the first few sentences are saying sky is green type stuff. 2600:4040:403C:F300:F7A:E246:2476:2C4 (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Not all reliable sources are reachable via Google, but that is the general sort of idea. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Every source is in this is reachable via Google search or Google Scholar. The first few sentences of this article are wrong or misleading or obfuscating obvious facts, Wikipedia should fix it imho. Then should fact check the rest or delete the article for being a premature take on a topic. 2600:4040:403C:F300:F7A:E246:2476:2C4 (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Difference between AI bots and humans are humans care about accuracy 2600:4040:403C:F300:F7A:E246:2476:2C4 (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand the article is protected and requires autoconfirmed access, but why not simply achieve that and fix it yourself (in accordance with Wikipedia policies)? Dumuzid (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Because everyone who tries to fix it gets banned through lies. The only accurate stuff in this article is in spite of the active moderation, or because that which was written was about people the moderators didn't like 2600:4040:403C:F300:F7A:E246:2476:2C4 (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay then. Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Avant-garde musician Henry Flynt coined the term "involuntary celibate" in 1974 after being called a "creep" by Helen Lefkowitz in 1956

Former and temporary Velvet Underground member Henry Flynt was a philosopher, musician, writer and activist connected to the 1960s New York avant-garde, he coined the term "involuntary celibate" in a 1974 manifesto entitled "Blueprint For A Higher Civilization" after being called a creep by Helen Lefkowitz in 1956, he called it the "creep theory" and gave a lecture on it in 1962, the manifesto contains early examples of the ideology of incels. http://www.vasulka.org/archive/Artists2/Flint/Blueprint.pdf Aradicus77 (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Aradicus77 (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

You would need reliable, secondary sources connecting Flynt's writings to this subculture for it to be included, otherwise you're in WP:SYNTH territory. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

calling all communities related to the manosphere misogynist is inaccurate

Father's fighting for access to their children and men's rights activists in general are not by definition misogynistic and that word should be removed. 108.52.223.8 (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The best place to discuss that would probably be at Talk:Manosphere; there appear to be scholarly sources there which characterise the manosphere generally in those terms. We defer to the sources. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Mostly white (again)

This has been discussed before in Talk:Incel#Incels_primarily_white? and Talk:Incel#"Often_white"_is_inappropriate_in_the_lede_of_this_article.

but I have sources not just argument

Looking at demographic variables, profile seemed to emerge—while incels were not more politically right-wing or disproportionately white (see Appendix 2/Tables 10 and 11) as they are often portrayed in popular mainstream media (Bates, 2020; Romano, 2018; Srinivasan, 2021), they were more likely to be living with either a diag-nosed (34%) or undiagnosed (24%) mental health condition (see Appendix 2/Table 6) and more likely to be NEET (not in education employment or training), lower educated, and still living with their parents (see Appendix 2/Tables 7, 8 and 9),which may in turn have deleterious effects on their ability to form romantic relationships.

In fact, the paper says that incels are disproportionality BIPOC ...though not by that much. I feel poetic justice would have us add that to the lede.

A significantly smaller proportion of incels were white (63.58%) compared to the proportion of white non-incels (75.13%), while the proportion of BIPOC (black, indigenous, or people of color) incels was greater than the proportion of BIPOC non-incels

I suspect that what's actually going on parental income during childhood, but obviously that's pretty hard to show.

I'd argue that this is the WP:BESTSOURCE, even though it's a study, because studies are better than newspaper articles, and actually asking asking people is better than analysing their posts for themes (which is what most of the earlier literature did), with all the limitations that come with Qualitative research.

P.S An earlier argument in some of the posts was a pedantic "mostly white" doesn't mean disproportionately white. This seems like a bit of a silly argument given I very much doubt the reader will read it like that. Also incidentaly they are no more right leaning than average according to this paper. Talpedia (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

First of all, the phrase "mostly white" is not used anywhere in the article at the moment. The phrase actually used in the lead is "often white", which is significantly less strong than you're making it out to be, and your citation doesn't do anything to change that, since we were already talking about 50-60%, and your paper shows 65%. The pargraph in the demographics section is considerably more nuanced, and includes caveats already.

I'm not super familiar with this journal, but this study is already used in the article, and frankly I'm not personally super convinced by it, though I didn't object strongly enough to remove it from the article at the time it was added. The main author is a grad student, and the research was done as part of their master's dissertation; per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence, and I don't think "significant scholarly influence" has been demonstrated here. Furthermore, it's a primary source, with data drawn from moderators of the Incel.wiki page, who shared a link to our survey on their pages encouraging incels in the community to participate, which honestly doesn't strike me as a particularly representative sample for several reasons. In fact, the author highlights "asking people" as a key limitation of the study, not a benefit. I don't think this study is particularly usable, and hoenstly after looking at it more closely, I'm actually more inclined to remove the sentences attributed to it in the demographics section than use it more extensively. Interested in other opinions, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to do a bit more reading before being pinned down to much - but let's give a provisionally response. Let's leave the specific details of wording for now, because I think questions about sourcing and fields is going to be deciding here.

frankly I'm not personally super convinced by it

I don't disagree but I'm equally unconvinced by everything else. It's basically the only thing we've got given that the earlier research is based on pretty suspicious methodology from qualitative analysis on biased samples of posts using an inductive / abductive mode of analysis to infer race from text, rather than the hypothesis based methods more common in other fields. I would have far preferred if there were more statisical studies before such a strong claim was made by scholars and reporters, and if there was a statistical review. Given this my feeling is kind of "no one knows but there is some white supremacy mixed in". I'd also prefer if people weren't actively using claims about incel radicalization for broad political purposes in my country including suggesting referring people to terrorist prevention organizations such that the accuracy of these claims becomes very important. Not wikipedia's concern of course (WP:RGW), but it makes we very interested in this topic and the need for good scholarship.

I'm not clear what I might want and what ours choices are.

• I don't feel the evidence is strong enough for wikivoice in the lead either way - I think the claim should be removed from the lede given the uncertainity.
• I'd probably like the source included in a section discussing race, caveats and all, that mentions the limitations of the discourse analysis approaches and the (assuming there are sources - one of the psychiatry reviews was moaning about this - but I'm not sure it mentions demographics directly)

It's also worth noting that this review doesn't mention race at all so the absence of comment could be interpreted as this not being WP:DUE and there not being consensus.

The issue of course is the wikipedia dislikes trusting individual's assessment about source reliability preferring more "bibiometric" type arguments (as you have used). In such circumstances I've seen people make arguments based on which fields a topic "belong too". My opinion tends to be that if you have two fields which aren't pseudoscientific both views should be expressed.

Some arguments with decreasing amounts of "subject specific knowledge"

• Statistical claims about belong to psychology not discourse analysis
• Both the views of psychology and sociology / social sciences should be represented in the article because these are distinct fields.
• This claim lies within the domain of psychology or psychiatry.

Direclty, addressing some points

significant scholarly influence

The study gets cited in this review in "sexuality and culture", (no longer a pre-print) it does not however get cited in either of the psychiatry reviews I looked at. I guess we would just cite this review rather than the source directly. My real argument is "everything is terrible" but converting this into bibliometrics this becomes - "the literature on the topic outside of discourse analysis is so small that any publication is massively influential"

particularly representative sample

I don't disagree. But these criticisms apply equally well to the preexisting research.

Talpedia (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with talpedia on the subject of race. 'often white' doesn't mean anything in anglo-forums based out of USA, and it reads unhinged. If the point is to point out white supremacy on the forums (of which there is a lot of, sanctioned by minority staff on the forums), there's sources for that and would be best just to say that explicitly. Also Talpedia your deleting of sourced info involving suicide encouragement is odd. There's plenty of sources on that, even in the last two months, including the recent ISDGlobal report and secondary commentary on it. 2600:4040:4030:5000:3367:6585:CF1F:252C (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

> Also Talpedia your deleting of sourced info involving suicide encouragement is odd.

Did I do that? I think this just got moved: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incel&diff=1141591156&oldid=1141498538&diffmode=source

Think you would get farther just by editing that particular sentence on race in the lede and sourcing it properly, that's like a 5 year old sentence, or a slight variation of one. ie before all the sources you are referencing 2600:4040:4030:5000:98F9:C300:62F7:6D82 (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure there was a bit of discussion here so I thought I should talk where first. Talpedia (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Overall talpedia, I would advocate a rollback of your additions involving violence and suicide, including the implication all violent incels are just wanting notoriety rather than actual violence. The emergence of violent incels from certain blackpill forums (since 2021, eg Davison and Genco) alone is proof against your insinuation. I agree that sources establish the existence of 'peaceful incels', but the worst incels of course have legal and practical reasons to claim they don't desire violence they advocate, and citing their whitewashing as as truth makes no sense..2600:4040:4030:5000:98F9:C300:62F7:6D82 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know I was making this implication. My addition was that about 1 in 10 incels admired these people https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Incel&diff=1141587595&oldid=1141585708&diffmode=source Talpedia (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"x out of y incels are" isn't an intelligible statement using any of the definitions present in the current article. Incels from a particular forum? Anyone self-identified as incel? As of now this article is written as a proxy for incels.me, although not officially. In that respect, I would consider the vast majority of those in incels.me supportive or sympathetic to violence. They've had over 5-6 years to change that perception with increased media scrutiny so all these academic articles acting like 2018-2020 incels.me never existed isn't very persuasive. 2600:4040:4030:5000:BFD9:4D65:D363:B3EF (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

If we're to take the subculture definition seriously, "x out of y incels are" is especially non-sensical as subcultures don't have members. Anyone trying to quantify the beliefs of all punk fans based on surveying two punk forums I'd also consider laughable. How could you possibly quantify that? Soft science academia is a joke and most published research is wrong. 2600:4040:4030:5000:96F8:E747:4BF3:77D1 (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

:shrug: define a condition of membership and analyse members, I'm summarising a review. I don't disagree that identifying membership is methodological dififcult. On the other hand if you go to a punk gig at random and everyone is an anarchist that's pretty different from 1 in 100 so the data is a useful in a sense. Talpedia (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Going to a punk gig to make conclusions on the beliefs of a global subculture without memebership would make no sense. Just as these survey articles make no sense with regards to the subculture definition. Back to the subject at hand, if you want to change the race sentences, I'd suggest just editing them and sourcing them correctly. The talk page is a garbage can for stuff people don't want to deal with. 2600:4040:4030:5000:96F8:E747:4BF3:77D1 (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I'll give people more time to reply and if people don't respond in a material way make the chagne. Talpedia (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I share some of WK's concerns. I also don't think we should be determining the lead based on "poetic justice". I do, however, wonder if we should simply remove the statement about race from the lead, since over the last few years sources have emerged drawing that into question. I think the demographics section does an adequate job of describing the available research and the fact that various sources have come to contradictory conclusions, but it would be tough to reflect that succinctly in the lead. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

References

I also don't think we should be determining the lead based on "poetic justice"

Nor do I. That was mostly a bit of WP:FORUM comment. I was just expressing annoyance at the ease with which peopole were willing to describe incel movement as a "white" movement based of limited evidence, and now limited evidence points the other way. It's sort of a statement of the worlds hypocrisy - but I would propose caution in both cases not poetic justice.

I think we should remove comments about race from the lead given that there seems to be a lack of consensus.

Alos, I think "Researchers from the University of Texas ran a poll of self-reported incels, which found that 63.58% of those who responded identified as white, a smaller percentage than expected" should read "smaller percentage than the general population". Talpedia (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

General population of *what*? The study draws no such conclusions, making that statement original research, and even if it did, it's not a reliable source. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"draws no such conclusions"

Look... I'm not just making things up:

"A significantly smaller proportion of incels were white (63.58%) compared to the proportion of white non-incels (75.13%), while the proportion of BIPOC (black, indigenous, or people of color) incels was greater than the proportion of BIPOC non-incels (36.42% vs 24.87%), X2 (1) = 6.56, p = 0.01"

They got a general set of responders and then compared the incels to the non-incels.

We are already citing the source in the text, but I've address some arguements about about reliability. Namely that it is the only source out of psychology addressing this claim, and the discourse analysis approaches are questionable. Talpedia (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Those are all within the context of the study's sample size; it's "fewer white people than the rest of the sample". The study doesn't generalize that out to mean that the incel subcommunity has fewer white people than the "general population", and saying it does is original research. As I said, how would you even define "general population"? General population of the Internet? The US? The world? The study doesn't indicate anything of the sort, and we shouldn't either. it is the only source out of psychology addressing this claim means absolutely nothing about whether this source is reliable; I know that WP:OTHERSTUFF is about deletion discussions, but the general principle works here, too. You need to prove that this source is reliable, not that there aren't *other* reliable sources. You linked to WP:BESTSOURCE above, but you're misinterpreting it; that talks about how to choose between sources that are already reliable, not how to determine whether a source is reliable in the first place. That's why it's part of the NPOV page, not the RS page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm using general population to mean "those outside the group in the study" it's fairly standard usage no OR but I'm happy to use more technical language, really the point is that in the study being incel would appear, based on the research makes you less likely to be white. "than expected" -> "than non-incel's within the study"?

"You need to prove that this source is reliable" it's already in the article, I'm just proposing improve the summary. If you wanted to delete the source you could make an argument for that.

Other stuff I could address, but it's moot unless you want to delete the source. Talpedia (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

being incel would appear, based on the research makes you less likely to be white -- this is original research; it is an interpretation of the data in the study that the study itself does not say. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Fine, it's good thing I'm writing it in the talk page then. Are you having with "than non-incel's within the study" versus "than expected"? Talpedia (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Not particularly; it's wordier without providing any additional information. I'm not opposed to it super strongly, but it doesn't seem like an improvement. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess "than expected" feels kind of meaningless to me - how are we to know what the researchers expected. How about "than non-incels"? Talpedia (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hm, that's fair, but we definitely need to avoid saying things that could be misinterpreted as talking about non-incels in general. I'd say "than the control group", but that's not really accurate, since this is a survey and not a true experiment with a real control group. Your earlier formulation of "than non-incels in the study" might be the best compromise. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good. Talpedia (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Classification of those on the autistic spectrum in the context of Incel.

Quote from Wikipedia Incel description: "Some people who identify as incel have other physical disabilities or psychological disorders such as autism spectrum disorder, and body dysmorphic disorder." I strongly object to the outmoded description of the autistic spectrum 'disorder' as either a physical disability or psychological disorder. This is hugely offensive to those of us on the spectrum. Please rephrase the quotation to remove the offensive description. it is derrogatory and for many of us, completely untrue and smacks of prejudice and lack of understanding. Thank you, from a 61-year-old gifted, independent, educated woman on the autistic spectrum. 95.147.247.115 (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I also concur on making this article Szaszian or Antonuccian, as the idea of mental illness itself is bigotry and often promotes maltreatment of those who are neurodivergent 2600:4040:4030:5000:DCBD:E737:E7C5:E288 (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

This sort of change seems reasonable to me as long as we aren't hiding material. Would something like "neurodivergence" work? I guess the statement is "this relatively rare construct is present amongst incel'" Talpedia (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

"diagnosed with the label of x", rather than "have x mental disorder" etc etc. 2600:4040:4030:5000:96F8:E747:4BF3:77D1 (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmm "label of x" feels a little value-laden. But yes, the diagnosis construction before, and used elsewhere are you happy with "autism spectrum disorder" which is presumably what the source uses? Talpedia (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Neither myself or the OP think it makes sense to pathologize mental states. Especially in the complete absence of reliable biomarkers in the brain to establish existence of any disease. The word disorder is a bit better than illness but is still used to pathologize 2600:4040:4030:5000:96F8:E747:4BF3:77D1 (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Like I'm not disagreeing. The issue is that you've got a phrase with formal diagnostic criteria (albeit applied in a social setting) so if you change the name you potentially disconnect the thing you should be pointing at. I was hoping I could avoid a bunch of reading by asking you because you might be informed on the matter, and for example be able to tell me that "diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorder" is identical to "autistic" or "diagnosed with autism", or you might say no these things are quite different. From a precision standpoint "diagnosed with autitic spectrum disorder" feels like good trade of between not accepting that the diagnosis is anything more than a label with some criteria, while not changing terminology or introducing the term label which feels potentially distracting and value-laden - I'm happier with construct.

I have no particularly desire to pathologize mental state merely accurately reference literature in a way that does not argue one way or other about "realness" of the label is that is to people's liking Talpedia (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Mental disorders, even including to the lead editor of DSM-IV, are all just social constructions at the moment. They're a collection of labels used to manage or identify individual behavior, and nothing more. 71.171.90.218 (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Elimination of the words "disorder" and "illness" from Wikipedia articles making statements about alleged mental illness makes the most sense. Eg as the aforementioned lead editor of the DSM-IV said "there is no definition of a mental disorder. It's bullshit. I mean, you just can't define it." 71.171.90.218 (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I've adjusted the wording: Some people who identify as incel have physical disabilities or psychological disorders such as depression, anxiety, autism spectrum disorder, and body dysmorphic disorder.

However, I think if you want Wikipedia articles broadly to stop describing autism as a "disorder" that would require a much broader consensus. At the moment, Autism spectrum describes autism as a "neurodevelopmental disorder". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

New study published in Current Psychology

https://www.psypost.org/2023/04/incels-tend-to-have-a-desolate-social-environment-and-are-more-likely-to-internalize-rejection-study-finds-76985 GMG^talk 12:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

FBI has recently chosen to use "IVE" to refer to what this page is about

Short for 'involuntary celibate extremist'. Rather than 'incel' or 'involuntary celibate'. The FBI report seeks to separate the violent ones from the non-violent ones through the main terminology itself.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/04/05/heres-fbi-glossary-for-flagging-violent-extremism/

72.86.42.248 (talk) 03:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

In other words, American federal law enforcement is preferring "IVE" to "incel", or "involuntary celibate" to signify extremism. Because even they don't bully on this issue anymore. 72.86.42.248 (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Could someone please add something about this into the article? --Trade (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: It isn't entirely clear what you want to be changed. It doesn't seem to me that this article is exclusively about the group the FBI uses the term IVE for, there's simply more content to cover when there are numerous important events related to that extremism. Tollens (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The FBI report choosing "IVE" as a subset of "incel" uses the subculture definition that this Wikipedia page describes all of "incel" as. The IVE definition shows no material difference in description based on current Wikipedia article lede as of this month, May 2023 72.86.42.248 (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

DHS has been allegedly defunding grant-based incel research due to alleged civil liberties concerns

See https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/11/15/dhs-mayorkas-domestic-violent-extremism/ 72.86.42.248 (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Could someone please add something about this into the article? --Trade (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Add to the article that the DHS has allegedly beendefunding grant-based incel research due to alleged civil liberties concerns. Didn't i just said that couple of hours ago? @M.Bitton:--Trade (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2023

The "Portrayals In Fiction" section has a possible addition: Since March 2022, The British soap Hollyoaks has featured an incel storyline, which has included violence and online grooming. StellaSBSG (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 03:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Ida Takes Charge, Ida Tar Ansvar, Nordic TV series for "Portrayals in fiction"

https://nordicdrama.com/viaplay-releases-trailer-for-ida-takes-charge/

"Ida moves away from home to study psychology at the University of Oslo. She is worried about most things in life, but her greatest fear is that an act of terror will take place. And when she meets Aksel, a lone wolf who is repeating high-school classes to get into the university and spends his time on dark incels (involuntary celibates) forums on the internet, she starts to think he's a potential school shooter. She tries to squelch the terror-related thoughts, but the more she learns about him, the greater the fear gets. Gradually she realizes that she needs to do something drastic to stop her escalating fear, but how far is she willing to go to save Aksel?"

https://www.avclub.com/tv/reviews/ida-tar-ansvar-2022

https://www.tvmaze.com/shows/57102/ida-tar-ansvar/episodeguide "Ida moves away from home to study psychology at Blindern. She is afraid of most things, but her biggest fear is terror. It does not get better when she meets Aksel, who spends a lot of time on incel forums online." "Ida is introduced to the idea of sleeping with an incel to prevent a terror attack." "Siri is newly single and looking for a rebound, which gives Ida an idea that could benefit both Aksel and Siri."

72.86.42.248 (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The show was nominated for an award, so think it deserves mention in the Wikipedia article 72.86.42.248 (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Link Incels.is

Please change "The largest of such forums was founded in 2017 and had 12,000 members as of March 2021" to "The largest of such forums, [[incels.is]] was founded in 2017 and had 12,000 members as of March 2021".

Please link to incels.is the article has been recently created. 128.6.36.94 (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 02:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Source for being the largest website:

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

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08912432221128545

Anyways, the source already at the end of the sentence I want to get changed.

Article on Wikipedia: incels.is

Consensus was to include it when the article is created, much like the related website Sanctioned Suicide which is included in this article too because its article was created. 128.6.36.94 (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Callmemirela 128.6.36.94 (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: the Vox article does not mention incel.is and the Halpin article does not support the contention that incel.is is currently the largest site as of March 2021. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incels.is. small jars tc 11:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Just a heads up that the Allen, TX shooter may end up relevant

See NBC News for why I say that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Already done by Liminal8bits. See [1], Incel#2020s. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Should we be attmpting to define "incel", or just documenting its use?

Starting this topic per WP:BRD. I made an edit to the lede to the effect of recasting the topic of the article as a subculture with the following edit summary (a bit weirdly written because I squished it into the char limit): this article is about a subculture. it is not about a term and the lede should not be shoe-horned into seeming like it is. the claim that "an incel is a member…" is poorly sourced. [2–4] each start by defining an incel movement, and in as much as "incel" refers to any kind of person, it is described as doing so only in the mouths of those identifying with it. we can avoid legitimising the meaning of the term given to it by the subculture without needing to OR-up a bogus alternative definition. The referred-to sources are [2][3] and [4]. User:GorillaWarfare reverted my edit in good faith asking for consensus. If you can chew through the BLUD from some keep-voting IPs !voters, I think that there is a general consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incels.is that the topic of this article is a culture and not "incels" as such, as stated in arguments made by myself user:PriusGod that incels.is belongs within the scope of this article, which have been affirmed by a few other contributors. Separately, I cannot find any direct verification of the definition given in the lede in the sources it is cited to. small jars tc 03:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking through the talk archive's as I've been asked to, it seems that this has long been the consensus. I have to say I am confused that the article has stood with a lede sentence that does not properly reflect this. small jars tc 03:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Heads up that if you edit a comment to fix a ping, you need to re-sign the comment or it won't actually send the notification. I have this article watchlisted, though.

I'm a little confused by your concern with the current lead, which states that "An incel... is a member of an online subculture of people who define themselves as unable to get a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one" and is not trying to claim that the article is about the word "incel". You're correct that the consensus has long been to describe incels in terms of the subculture, rather than as any person who is unable to find romantic/sexual partners regardless of if they self-identify (see Talk:Incel/FAQ). But that is what the lede is currently doing.

I'm also confused about your concern about the verification — are you saying that you don't believe that the cited sources verify that "incel" is used as a term to refer to the people within the incel subculture? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

is not trying to claim that the article is about the word "incel"

Okay. It would be unfair of me to compare it to something like "incel is a term that has been used online to refer to blah blah blah", but by insisting on giving a definition of "incel" rather than introducing what the article is actually about, “incel movement/ideology/etc.”, it definitely moves towards that territory.

I'm also confused about your concern about the verification — are you saying that you don't believe that the cited sources verify that "incel" is used as a term to refer to the people within the incel subculture?

they sometimes use it as such themselves, but usually only after establishing it as a self-dubbed moniker (nyt 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"), or as a movement/ideology (vox This is not an organized militant group but rather an ideal developed by the so-called “incel” movement), and never define it as such as far as I can see. I think this usage comes about as a shorthand later on in some articles simply because saying "self-identified incel" becomes repetitive. The assertion in the lede is both OR based on extrapolating from contextual usage, and undue weight on the importance of the term as referring to a certain kind of person (which is exactly what the incel community itself tends to do), rather than to an ideology/subculture (which corresponds to the mainstream view). small jars tc 04:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I much prefer the phrasing given in the FAQ you linked "This article is about a particular misogynistic online subculture of people who self-identify as "involuntary celibates" or "incels" based on their inability to find a romantic or sexual partner. It is not about all people who are unable to find a romantic or sexual partner or all people to whom the phrase "involuntary celibate" could be applied, but only to that subculture." small jars tc 04:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I think I'm understanding your concern now — is it primarily about the ordering of the lead sentence, which you think suggests the article is more about the individual members than the subculture? I think it's mostly because it's the least awkward wording. In my view, the important bit is really the last part ("subculture of people who define themselves as unable to get a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one"), which remains the same in both versions.

I have two main issues with your suggested wording, but perhaps there's a resolution that would be agreeable. The first is that it really is a subculture rather than a "movement", which suggests some sort of coordinated group working for a goal. Similarly I'm not sure the whole thing is best described as a "community", though that's at least better than "movement". There are incel communities (mentioned in the subsections), and one of which we've been discussing at AfD, but the article is about the subculture as a whole rather than one specific community, and also covers people who self-identify as incels without having any signficant connection to one of the communities. Similarly, "ideology" is something that the subculture has, but is a subtopic of this article rather than the main thrust of it. My second concern is that stating that incels are a "subculture of people who identify as 'incels', and define themselves as unable to get a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one" reads to me as though those are two different things, rather than the latter phrase defining the first.

Something like The incel subculture is an online subculture of people who identify as "incels" (/ˈɪnsɛlz/ IN-sels, a portmanteau of "involuntary celibate"): people who define themselves as unable to get a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one. is at least accurate in my view, but somewhat awkward to read. (Citations removed for brevity, not recommending removing them in the final version). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

You're right, the individual/group distinction seems like a clearer way of describing my concerns than what I had been saying about terms. I tried to take the words I used in my suggested wording directly from the sources cited, but I don't particularly mind if they are replaced with "online subculture" as the problematic impression that "incel" is a mainstream term for a certain kind of person is avoided either way. Your suggested version looks good to me but I would replace : people who define themselves with something like and who define themselves or , defining themselves for readability. small jars tc 05:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

My only remaining issue would be with the repitition of the assertion about the meaning of the word in the Lexicology section. small jars tc 06:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done with respect to the lead sentence, and I've incorporated your wording change.

Regarding lexicology, it is accurate and sourced that self-identifying members of the incel subculture are described as incels/involuntary celibates. I understand your concern with the lead sentence, since it seemed to frame the article as being primarily about the individuals rather than about the subculture as a whole, but I'm not sure I follow the lexicology concern. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. As to § Lexicology, it's quite likely that I just didn't look carefully enough for verification. If so, can you quote a source giving the term roughly the same definition to put my fears to rest? small jars tc 01:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm still not 100% sure which bit you're looking for a citation for: that individuals belonging to the incel subculture are individually described as incels? That incels are self-identifying, rather than the term being used to describe anyone who isn't having sex but would like to be? Or the definition of the subculture? The "inceldom" and "incelibacy" neologisms? To try to cover all bases:

• Individuals within the incel subculture are themselves described as "incels"

• Some self-identified incels, as they call themselves... – Vox
• Tough to quote directly, but each of the sources uses the term "incel" as a noun to refer to individuals within the movement as well as an adjective being applied to the subculture. For example, users laud Elliot Rodger, a self-identified incel who killed six people (NYT). ...became a forum for incels..., Some incels hail Rodger as the martyr of an armed rebellion – or “beta uprising” – waged by sexually frustrated incels against the “Chads and Stacys.”, And “Stacys” are attractive women who reject incels. (CNN). ...incels feel the same sort of reverence toward Rodger... (The Cut)

• "incel" refers specifically to those within the subculture, not all people who would like to be having sex but isn't

• 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 – Vox

• The subculture based around the inability to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one

• “incel” movement — an online community of men united by their inability to convince women to have sex with them – Vox
• It’s a movement made up almost entirely of men who claim they “can’t have sex despite wanting to,” according to incels.me. Central to incel ideology is the notion that members have been unfairly denied sex by women because they’re unattractive or socially awkward. – CNN

• The neologisms

• inceldom – Vox, CNN
• incelibacy – The Cut

If you can clarify which portion you think is insufficiently cited, I can pull up other citations from the article to verify if need be. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

"incel" refers specifically to those within the subculture, not all people who would like to be having sex but isn't

The "those within" part is what bothers me. Clearly it's used that way frequently enough in some of these articles, but I put that down shorthand, because the term almost always first appears drenched in quote marks and other signs of in-text attribution. The difference between these sources and a wp article is that they do not assume that readers will jump past the introduction, so they can get away with settling into using "incel" instead of "self-identified incel" after the reader has been made fully aware of the context. Because we can't make this assumption, we should use incel as an adjective all the way through, and only ever mention it as a noun, which is what prefixing "self-identified" achieves. We don't want to get mixed up with the main nominal usage, which clearly belongs to the incel community and carries all sorts of baggage. IMO the vox quote doesn't support the given definition either. They reject the usage of the term which directly refers to an "involuntary celibate" man (specifically when we talk about incels, which does not imply that it does not carry the other usage elsewhere, namely within incel communities) but what they replace it with is a definition that refers to a subculture, not to any other kind of particular individual at all. Finally, from an ethical point a view, I feel like any way of talking about "incel"-related issues that suggests that they are primarily the result of an essential characteristic belonging to certain people, when they are more accurately due to a social process in which vulnerable people may end up entwined, descends onto the same level as the rhetoric of despair that fuels these issues in the first place. small jars tc 18:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I think I understand your concern. I have no objection to replacing "incels" with "members of the incel subculture", or "self-identified incels" if appropriate, throughout. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll just try to get over myself about the claim in the lexicology section for now then. I feel like this the kind of topic I could start to loose my common sense over if I'm not careful. small jars tc 23:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Hello, I come here from the incels.is article. I am creating a discussion following WP:PM, since a merger was decided in the AfD as consensus but the merge instructions were unclear and most importantly I have substantially contributed to the other article after consensus to merge was established, so a merge might not be necessary anymore. (The AfD merge close banner says to discuss the merge on talk page, but I also decided to open WP:PAM based on WP:CCC after substantial article growth.)

Per point 3 of WP:PAM (merge discussion process)

Mergers that are controversial, potentially difficult to carry out, or where at least one is either rated Class B or higher or is over 100K in size will need assistance from uninvolved editor(s) in determining whether to merge the pages.

2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)