Jump to content

Talk:Incel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 79.67.92.178 (talk) at 15:19, 3 May 2018 (→Requested move 25 April 2018). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Recreated despite salt?

@GorillaWarfare: could you summarize what has changed about this subject such that it should be recreated despite being salted? For background:

— Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see... Toronto attack connection. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rhododendrites:! In my opinion, the subject has very much needed an article for a long time, since long before the Toronto attack. It was the Toronto attack that drew my attention to the fact that there wasn't an article at all. I think the previous articles were flawed in that they tried to treat "involuntary celibacy" as a psychological or medical condition; I think this article discussing the term itself is well within the criteria for inclusion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a supervote, putting your opinion over a 3 admin panel that closed the last AfD with no discussion. Dave Dial (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not frozen in time. When the facts change, we change. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hard Agree with Andrew--Jorm (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Rhododentrites and Dave Dial: - All of the conerns about AfD 4 have been addressed with the media coverage after the Toronto attack. Reliable news outlets have directly referenced "incel" as a phenomena and tried to explain it in depth. We're talking sources like Washington Post, NY Times, The Guardian and Globe and Mail. They all have incel explainers, giving the public a deep dive into the pattern of influence from this subculture. I don't think any good Wikipedian can argue that we should delete an article about this now, given how widely it is being covered and we'd look like fools if all these WP:RS's are talking about the term and we're not. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, I tried to copy my edit-conflicted statement and accidentally reposted another editor's. Anyway, what I was hoping to say was that I definitely don't mean to supervote, or "pull weight". I rewrote it and was extremely careful about following reliable sourcing; the previous editions were largely based on some very shaky sources. If need be I will happily open a discussion somewhere you suggest about whether this article should be kept in its current state, but I also see no reason under our deletion criteria that it should be removed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record at one point I wrote a fuller recounting (no pun intended) of the various processes. Each of the processes had mixed consensus, with vastly experienced editors on both sides. For my part I always asserted keep, and thought the salting excessive because nobody was trying to recreate the article outside of process. Until this time. That said, this article in no way looks like any version of the previous pagespace. The Psychology Today article was not available during the last process, and I believe this addition significant. IMHO there was no way a few Wikipedia editors were ever going to put a salty lid on an entire subject matter describing a condition affecting tens of millions of humans at any given time (the incarcerated, the elderly, the disabled, others). Recreation was inevitable. What happens after is likewise unavoidable. BusterD (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't nominate the article now for AfD, I just thought there was a procedure one would have to go through to recreate an article that had been Deleted & Salted. Especially via a 3 admin panel. Heck, I was thinking about emailing @Casliber: after reading some things today about this subject, about such a process. I would say though, when the protection comes off, we might expect a concerted effort to change the article into something that it is currently not. Also, I agree with the editor below about the Son of Sam inclusion. That one is a stretch too far. Dave Dial (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I swear I'm not playing dumb here, but I don't know of any procedure required to recreate a previously-salted page. DRV seems to be the place for undeleting pages, not suggesting new versions. As for the Son of Sam thing, could you elaborate below on your concerns? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My answer is that I do not know either. That's why I was going to ask Casliber. Don't get me wrong, you've done a Hell of a job writing the article, and if we have to have one about this subject(and it's obvious now that we do), yours is the one I would choose. Concerning SoS, I'll take another look and answer below. Dave Dial (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support keeping the article; well cited (with one exception, cough) just look at the References section. What has changed? Well, half the references were just published after the Toronto attack. --GRuban (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Right on. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The previous incarnations of the page were written in such a way to reify the term as a valid condition. My strong objection was that people in the situation (of being involuntarily celibate) would (wrongly) come across this (non-)psychological term and assume it rather than get help for anxiety/depression/social phobia etc. The current incarnation is a radical shift and aligns much more closely with my interpretation of it and the social phenomenon. I pushed for its dleetion as a psychological term with no secondary sources. I am much more inclined to keep it now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Casliber. That about sums up my thoughts as well. Dave Dial (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Great summary. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, @Casliber:. It was your comment on the 4th AfD that nearly kept me from writing this draft, but it also made me realize it makes sense to have an article on this topic that treats the concept as it is: a neologism that is not an actual condition. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be good to get some more material for the Psychology section. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all above. There are now sufficient references in reliable sources to support this article, and this version, unlike previous versions, describes the online community, and does not support this as an actual condition. -- The Anome (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"I think the previous articles were flawed in that they tried to treat "involuntary celibacy" as a psychological or medical condition; I think this article discussing the term itself is well within the criteria for inclusion." 'condition' can be debated for ages. It's at the very least a self-descriptive life circumstance. If people are going to move this article to be emotionally edited, scaremongering about the blackpill subculture (not contained in every incel community) whenever theres a large and relevant public event, this page is going to get re-created over and over and over. Willwill0415 (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It can be debated for ages if that's what you want to do, but without reliable sources showing that the term is used in that context enough to give it weight such that it should be included in the article, it won't actually be added. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked this topic up because of the Toronto news, and I agree that we do need to cover it somehow, previous AfDs notwithstanding, as it is something that seems to pop up in the news and in public discourse rather frequently. I also think that this article's approach, covering it as a social phenomenon of online misogynists rather than a supposed medical or psychological condition, is appropriate. Sandstein 09:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GW should have appealed the "salt" (with a draft, if she just had to write her thoughts down, right now), not by overriding the salt. There was/is no need to rush it: we did cover it before this article, just not with its own article. - -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just following up since I opened this section. For the record I don't have a problem with the article. As indicated by my second comment, I had only scanned it before commenting, jaded by the messy discussions this article has caused in the past. It does look to be notable at this point, for better or worse. I do tend to agree that, as it's clear many other users have wanted to create this article but couldn't as it had been salted, it would've been better to create a draft and/or go to DRV or some other process. Though I understand what that process is isn't exactly clear, that's exactly what any non-admin user would encounter, too, so taking steps that anyone else would have to do to figure out the best way to proceed would've been ideal. Regardless, there's not much point in belaboring procedural business at this stage. It's notable, and I suppose the past chaos probably helped this version get off to a good start (151 watchers of an article that didn't exist yesterday!). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is why it's abuse of tools, you don't get to enforce your content editing by tools -- it shows disrespect and distrust of others and creates disrespect and distrust. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it an abuse of tools, personally--WP:SALT says: Contributors wishing to re-create a salted title with more appropriate content should either contact an administrator (preferably the protecting administrator), file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, or use the deletion review process. In any case, it is generally preferable to have prepared a draft version of the intended article prior to filing a request.. While it does say that having a draft is preferable, the language is pretty clear about drafting it not being mandatory. It also does mention DELREV or RFPP, of course, but it gives talking to an admin as another option, and talking to an admin without a draft prepared seems pretty much on par with what GW did here, though she was of course able to cut out the middleman. Probably not best practice, but I don't think that can qualify as an abuse of tools, especially given the changed circumstances and rewritten-from-scratch new article. the inherent imbalance between admins and non-admins in this situation is probably more an argument for increasing the use of extended-confirmed protection rather than full protection for salting in general, though that's not really relevant in this specific case Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The wikilawayering in your statement is just silly, 'not best practice' you concede, its not best practice because it is abuse of position. You are not given tools to run over other editors decisions, that should not be hard to understand. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting it is an abuse of administrative tools to not file the bureaucratic paperwork of requesting a different administrator unprotect a page prior to moving a draft of an article which is completely different than the one which was deleted previously is, at best, ludicrous. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest? It is abuse. The only thing ludicrous is your statement. If you think consulting others, when decisions have been made by others is just bureaucracy, you don't know what you are talking about. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, "abuse". Yeah we're being repressed. Here we are, having an article and a conversation, but OH NO ABUSE. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, abuse. One doesn't abuse and then say, ok lets talk, now, the abuse already occurred. As for you being repressed, perhaps you should get that checked out. -- Alanscottwalker (talk)
Many of those watchers would be watchers of the previous articles (watchers stay between deletions) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. That's the point I was making. All of those past deletion discussions made for this one having lots of watchers at the outset. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

I'm surprised to see that this article has been recreated despite the repeated community consensus on not creating it. Like I stated at Talk:Sexlessness, involuntary celibacy was debated many times and the term involuntary celibacy was WP:SALTED. As noted above, we had Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination), Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 7, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 December 21 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 9#Involuntary celibacy. But then again, I always wondered why the community was so opposed to having an article on this. I mean, I know that Casliber objected on medical grounds (WP:MEDRS), but I and others argued that the matter could be covered from a social viewpoint and did not need to be WP:MEDRS-compliant. In fact, Valoem had made sure not to present the matter in a clinical way. I see that Casliber has noted above that he is okay with the latest incarnation of the article. In case anyone who was involved before hasn't been alerted. I am following Sandstein's lead and am pinging editors who were involved in one or more of those debates to weigh in on this latest issue; these pings are taken from the ping list that Sandstein created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination). I did not ping Tarc because I know that he is indefinitely blocked. User:SSTflyer is now User:Feminist. I know that TheRedPenOfDoom hasn't edited since 2015, but I pinged him anyway. And I obviously did not ping myself. If anyone else should be pinged, feel free.

Notifications of the participants in previous discussions

Also pinging Turris Davidica, who edits the Celibacy article and has expressed concerns before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • When I originally supported keeping the article at AfD, I was naive enough that I did not realize that the term was used as a code, and that some of the motivation for creating the article originally may not have been as straightforward as it appeared. Had I realized, I would still have supported it, but with some reservations. Now that its use in that way has become much more public, there is no basis whatever for not having an article. The principle NOTCENSORED is fundamental to WP. I disagree that there are exceptions.
The only concern I have is whether we need more than one article to cover the different aspects DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with this new iteration. First of all I'm not going to argue with GW, who's more hairy and powerful than me, and second we now have a pretty good reason to do so--decent sourcing. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't read the new article yet, so I don't have any opinion on it per-se. I just want to comment on the process. Admins have the ability to do all sorts of things. With that ability comes the responsibility to wield your mop with care. The more controversial an action is likely to be, the more you should hesitate to take that action on your own. Start a talk-page discussion. Start a DRV. Ask another admin to give you a quick reality check. By the time an article has been deleted at AfD three times, been through DRV three times, and been subject to the extraordinary action of being salted by an admin triumverate, you should know that recreating it will be highly controversial. Recreating it on your own wasn't cool. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last time I checked Wikipedia was not a bureaucracy, we have a fifth pillar and IAR is policy. The article was a serious problem child in its previous incarnations, which is why it was salted. This version is clearly not and is relevant to Wikipedia's purpose in covering a topic of immediate, broad interest. I have little patience with the present pearl-clutching over pure process: let's go write an encyclopedia, for God's sake. Acroterion (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Read below, not only are there are problems with this article - they could have been avoided. (And really why are you commenting here, if you think you should be doing something, else, or do you just impose dumb advice on others.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you are mostly interested in arguing primacy of protection policy and dismissing three well-established principals of Wikipedia as "dumb advice"? I'll ignore the implied personal attack, but please dial back the dudgeon, it's tiresome. I'm commenting here because I'm concerned that Wikipedia is gradually being consumed by creeping process for the sake of process, and this present discussion appears to advocate process for the pure joy of process without accomplishing much of anything toward encyclopedia improvement.Acroterion (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm interested in Admins doing their job, which is not pushing their content editing with tools - if you don't like our fundamental consensus processes, then you should be very uncomfortable, especially if you have tools. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've already made that point (repeatedly), and I don't disagree with it in principle, but I don't see that this is a case of "pushing their content." It's open for editing, being actively edited, the new version is unlike the terribly problematic content that was salted, and the content is being debated, criticized and improved, which is what we do. Do three admins really make a community consensus, and is it then triply effective? I still think the fifth pillar (from which IAR is to be a sparingly-applied policy) is being ignored here. Salting is not a veto on creation of new content, nor is it a stick to be used against good-faith creation of completely new content - I've unsalted many titles, albiet subjects that I myself salted, and unsalted on request for new content by other editors. It was salted here because the deleted content was an odious mess that couldn't be fixed in the open editing environment. This is a unique case. It would be better for your case if you didn't wander into personal attack territory while trying to make your point. Acroterion (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, personal attack territory you indefensibly claim seems to be you standing on process, oh now, you want process. As for your argument that some admin should disregard the ADMIN policy and use tools to disregard a multiple AfD that resulted in salting, of course the AFD is consensus. GW admits to pushing their content with their tools - and that is precisely what they did. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not going to spend time in what's quickly becoming a circular argument. To summarize, I see no admin abuse - at most I see a good-faith IAR action that doesn't deserve censure, and I see process taking precedence over content and open editing. Acroterion (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Open editing is not using your tools to push your content, which is admin abuse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If an administrator abuses administrative rights, these rights can be removed. Administrators may be removed by Jimbo Wales, by stewards, or by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee. (Wikipedia:Administrators#Review_and_removal_of_adminship) WP:ARBCOM is thataway. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What? Now you don't want people to talk about your abuse in the section that was opened for that purpose, on the talk page that you said on your talk page it should be talked about. You have admitted to not even knowing the policies for doing what you did with tools, it's fine for you to claim negligence as your defense, but your actions still are open for criticism. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's up to you—I'm fine with you continuing to discuss what you think was admin abuse here, I'm just pointing out that nothing will actually come of it in this venue, so I don't see the point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing will come of it? Hope springs eternal, maybe you'll know just what to do next time, you think of using tools. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Waste editors' time with pointless bureaucracy? I wouldn't count on it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because you would rather waste time, with having discussions like this opened on talk pages, where you have to admit to not even knowing what the policy is that governs what you are doing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I said I'm fine with you continuing to discuss it here; I don't plan to join you. You of course can do with your time as you wish. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm fine with discussing here, because on your talk page after you discussed it there a bit, you asked it to be moved here, which perhaps you have not noticed but you have been discussing with me and with others -- it was your conversation above, with someone else, where you admitted to not knowing the policy on the very thing you did, after all.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. As noted in the #Lead sentence section below, I think the article needs work. Also, no need to ping me to this page since it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where this conversation is meant to go, then. I wrote a version of the article that is wildly different from the deleted versions, and which I was confident others would agree meets our inclusion criteria (which so far it seems to—I haven't seen anyone say otherwise). Rather than waste peoples' time with a pointless DRV/elsewhere discussion, I did a somewhat IAR move over the salt. If I've egregiously abused my admin tools, feel free to take me to ArbCom. Otherwise, what's the point of this conversation? From the framing, it seems you either think the article should go to AfD or I should be punished for the move. Maybe I've misunderstood; if you just wanted to ping folks who've participated in past discussions on the page so they could give their feedback/improvements, that makes sense. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point that some editors are trying to make is that creation was a form of editing through protection, once you cut through all of the grumpiness. I don't buy it - you lifted the protection and made it accessible to everybody, which is a perfectly ordinary admin action of no special controversy - it would only become significant if it was wheel-warring, which this is not. Admins are permitted to change the actions of other admins, apart from some well-known arbitration remedies. Three admins don't make something triple-special. Consulting other admins is a courtesy, and is not compulsory, and the absence of consultation is not abuse. Acroterion (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement is plain wrong. Your argument comports neither with the deletion policy, nor with Admin policy (see, WP:RAAA). Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RAAA discusses wheel-warring - edit-warring using admin tools over admin actions, of which we haven't had a good example in a long time, and this isn't it. A good analogy is that admin actions are subject to 1RR, not 0RR, which would make adminstrators far too powerful. I'd even argue that your interpretation on reversal of admin actions would make adminstrators' interventions effectively unassailable, Consultation is a best practice and highly recommended, but its absence isn't abusive. Acroterion (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument shows a distinct misunderstanding of RAAA, it covers every action, I should know, I wrote it. Moreover, there is discussion every editor can have before recreating a SALT, none of them are tool abuse, none of them are even tool use by the contributor seeking to recreate. Alanscottwalker (talk)
The point of the discussion is that the recreation is highly controversial and editors are concerned, as seen by the initial portion of this discussion. I didn't start this discussion. I simply contributed to it by creating an "Additional comments" subsection. I even made it clear that I don't object to this topic being covered on Wikipedia; I made this clear at Talk:Sexlessness as well. But do I feel that those who were previously involved in all of the debating should have a say on this new creation? Yes. And that is why I pinged them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and I am glad that you pinged them to give their insights. That said, I do think "highly controversial" is a bit of an overstatement—seems to be mostly you and one or two others. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Highly controversial" is apt per the past debates and the fact the option to create this article was salted. I'm not opposing its creation. The only thing I've opposed is the lead sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having opened this thread, I'd propose closing/hatting it. Too much has changed and too many people have edited it to undo GW's recreation at this point. Thus any continued discussion would be strictly about GW's act of recreation rather than anything consequential for the article. As such anyone so inclined to follow up on that should probably do so at AN, if at all (it's certainly not going to result in anything beyond a mild trouting -- if that). The article is here now, and anyone can send it back to AfD if desired (though I suspect there wouldn't be much point in that either). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although the way the article was recreated was disrespectful to the editors who have spent lots of time participating in the process before, it doesn't technically seem to violate any rule as Writ Keeper writes above [1]. --Holdek (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sodini, SYNTH

The source supporting the inclusion of George Sodini/2009 Collier Township shooting does not mention "involuntary celibacy" or "incel." As this is not the article about sexual frustration but rather a neologism (indeed identified as such) and/or a specific community, it strikes me as WP:SYNTH to decide that anyone whose actions are tied to sexual frustration (and/or romantic rejection, etc.) should be under the umbrella of "involuntary celibacy." This is getting into some of the issues we saw with previous versions of the article (the mixing of treatment of the subject as a term and the well-defined phenomena we already cover elsewhere that are related to the term/community). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was already removed. I was going off a source that mentioned Sodini in the context of spree killings by incels, and this was before the table was titled "List of spree killings by self-identified involuntary celibates" (though I see that too was changed recently). It might make sense to include him in a section discussing killings by people with similar ideologies who did not necessarily self-identify with the term, but for now I'm happy with it left to a small mention of him in prose. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
involuntary celibacy overlaps with sexual frustration but is distinct in that it is 1. involuntary and 2. involves an extended period of celibacy. Just because the blackpill is an ideology specific to certain incel communities doesn't mean this has to be an entire article about people who may have come accross blackpill ideology. Harper-mercer is in the list but Sodini hardly is. He is more of an incel than Rodger in that he actually tried to date and ask women out. In a July, 2009 blog post he wrote, "Last time I slept all night with a girlfriend it was 1982. Proof I am a total malfunction. Girls and women don't even give me a second look anywhere. There is something blantantly wrong with me that no goddam person will tell me what it is." His last post before the shooting detaile that people didn't know the full extent of his frustration and women would only ever call him a, "nice guy". He had also sought dating help to no avail before the shooting. He was by all definitions a notable person who was involuntarily celibate and carried out murders/suicide (in his final words) because of that. Willwill0415 (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments elsewhere; you need to provide sources for all this stuff. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are in my edits that got revised. You can pick and choose whatever you want from these editorial pieces because they are just opinion pieces and spin the page however you want. That's the problem with basing the entire page on opinion pieces. This page will serve to be a dumping ground for editorial articles on incels, so I guess I'll just wait for an editorial board or opinion piece writer to write more correctly about what is going on Willwill0415 (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disputing neutrality

It seems to me this article conflates a topic of psychology and medicine with sensationalism and is citing the NYT and SPLC to do it, associating anyone who can't get a girlfriend as a potential shooter. This is on the verge of bullying imo. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to link from those violent examples (Rodger, Mercer, Minassian) pages to a more neutral (less sensational) version of this page instead of associating these shooters with anyone who may be "involuntarily celibate"? Thanks. Aquinassixthway (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are there specific ways you would change it? Keep in mind that any content should be supported by reliable sources (like NYT or, for some things, SPLC, but not limited to those of course). As the article is just starting, there's still certainly a lot to do. We don't want to be saying that "anyone who can't get a girlfriend [is] a potential shooter", and to be clear this isn't necessarily about people who can't get girlfriends but about this specific neologism and its associated community (not that they're all potential shooters, either). At the same time, we can only cover it to the extent it's covered in reliable sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest method would be a new article for "Involuntary celibacy (ideology)." The way it reads now suggests all incels subscribe to incel "ideology". PUAhate and the like have no doubt contributed to fomenting violence but associating that group, and their violence, with the state of being without a partner is at odds with the origins of the term as described in Terminology and the first half of Definition. Aquinassixthway (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Involuntary celibacy (ideology) or similar seems to me to be the right way to go. This is a tiny minority of men: most men who can't get a girlfriend do not harbour these sorts of sentiments. -- The Anome (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this, the whole 'ideology' is predicated on the belief that extra-marital sex is 'normal.' No doubt it has been normalized in western countries thanks to the sexual revolution, but there are also large religious and other communities who believe that sex outside of marriage is immoral. Put another way, just because some guys can't get laid, and want to, that doesn't mean everyone thinks that they ought to be doing so.198.161.4.63 (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my research I did find some interesting discussions of how the communities have formed around ideas that it's "normal" and "masculine" for men to be having a lot of sex — maybe later tonight I'll try to add some of that, it was interesting and I think relevant here. As for people not having sex because of religion, etc., I don't see how that's relevant here—that's more a topic for Celibacy or Sexual abstinence, and they both already discuss it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of ridiculous to think that just because VICE magazine and a few losers think that "incel" is an actual thing, we need an entire encyclopedia article about it. At the least, this should be treated the same as the "freemen on the land" nonsense.198.161.4.63 (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They have an article too... GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Involuntary celibacy is a life circumstance, "incel" *can* mean the blackpill, which is an ideology specific to many, but not all incel or involuntary celibate forums. If we want to make the entire article about people associated with blackpill ideology, then just rename the entire article "The Blackpill". Involuntary: "one without will or conscious control" Celibacy: "the state of abstaining from marriage and sexual relations". Allana's defunct website, and the active love-shy.net (which considers incel and love-shy as near synonyms and has hosted both groups since 2003) communities as well as many people outside 4chan use the hard definition unrelated to the blackpill. Would be good to include more info about severe physical disabilities causing inceldom instead of conflating the "blackpill" with a term with a fairly obvious meaning. The version before I edited it definitely had a bias steered way too much to the most caustic 4chan and 4chan-like boards. Also, the SPLC didn't add incels to their list of hate groups. See https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/groups it's not in there, they just did the same thing with incels that they did with MRAs, they made an article about sexist and violent patterns within communities but didn't officially add the whole shebang to their official list of hate groups. The New York Times article is just one opinion of many, it's essentially a blog and the author has no relation to any incel communities to make the author notable. Willwill0415 (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, sources please. As for the SPLC, the article does not say that the SPLC added incels to their list of hate groups. It does say they added "male supremacy" as a hate group, which is easily verified by clicking through the references or a simple Google search. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have just caught up with this media wave. I must say that, as someone is involuntarily celibate, I do not like this article. It's as if you looked up the Wikipedia article for Muslim and found a list of terrorist attacks by ISIL or looked up the article for Christian and read about Ian Paisley and the UVF. This article associates being involuntarily celibate with an extremist ideology, and it does this without any robust evidence whatsoever. The sources currently used would never be accepted to give descriptions of hate speech or terrorism on other pages. Just because I've never had a partner doesn't mean that I hate women or that I justify rape or violence! I completely agree with the suggestion made by Aquinassixthway at the start. You are a good person. Epa101 (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Epa101: I feel like a broken record. Please provide reliable sources to support your points and they can be worked into the article. This talk page is full of a lot of people who disagree with portions of this article, but who are notably silent when asked to provide sources that show discussion of "involuntary celibacy" outside of the violent subculture is any kind of significant viewpoint rather than just a rarely-used term for sexual frustration. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Epa101: First, just about everyone that is Celibate is involuntarily so. Meaning, very few would pass up a chance for sex under the right circumstance with a desirable partner. You are describing a symptom, not a condition. Those trying to make the symptom a condition are doing a great disservice to those affected by the various conditions that lead to that symptom. If people identify with the online subculture, then they are part of that culture. You see, we do have articles on ISIS, Al Qaeda, the KKK and Nazis. What you are basically saying is that a white person can say, "Hey, I'm white, why have an article on the KKK & Nazis? Are you calling me a Nazi?" --Well no. But if you identify with Nazis, post on their message boards, defend them, then you're probably a Nazi. Reliable sources detail how the online subculture has promoted rape, violence and hate towards women. And men who have sex with women. That's what the article is based on. There is a difference between Sexual frustration, Erectile dysfunction, a Sexless marriage and taking those conditions into the online subculture for grievances rather than seeking the proper treatments. One way leads to help, the other to Sociopathy. Dave Dial (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a fair comparison, because none of our articles state or imply that a high proportion of Muslims are terrorists or white people neo-Nazis. Not only are most incels not part of the subculture, not all those who are part of it are misogynist or violent. An animal rights forum would likely attract a tiny minority of extremists who advocate breaking into laboratories and releasing the animals, but that doesn't mean that mainstream animal rights activism has that as one of its aims. Jim Michael (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nor does this article state or imply that a high number of people who are celibate (whether by choice or otherwise) are members of the "involuntary celibacy" subcommunity. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 April 2018

Updated: Involuntary celibacy → Incel – This is a specific ideology held by a tiny fringe minority of men, and not the same thing as "involuntary celibacy" defined as wanting sex or love but not being able to get it. Most men who can't get a girlfriend don't subscribe to this ideology, or anything remotely similar; we should not paint them as such. "Incel" should then redirect here, as it is used exclusively in relation to this ideology. We can have "Incel (disambiguation)" for the other possible meanings. -- The Anome (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC) -- The Anome (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 00:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That might also be a reasonable alternative. -- The Anome (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that "involuntary celibacy" is a potentially misleading term, though. Since "celibacy" is abstaining from sex on purpose, the phrase is an oxymoron. However, "incel" is the WP:COMMONNAME which is why I support a move.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Writ Keeper: Based on the discussion above, I've updated the move request above to move this to incel (move target was formerly Involuntary celibacy (ideology)) -- The Anome (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to a no-vote, then; I think the current title is fine but "incel" is an all right alternative if people prefer that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The notability of the topic derives from the specific "Incel" online subculture and its associated ideologies and/or mass killings, which is what sources cover, not the abstract concept of being involuntarily celibate. Sandstein 20:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have captured the heart of the argument I think, and I can see how it unfortunately cuts both ways. That seems evidence enough for a new, unambiguous entry. Aquinassixthway (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support I support this article to be renamed to "Incel". We can add a hatnote to the Incel disambiguation page. Amin (Talk) 20:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is the name of the situation; "incel" is a contraction of the idea. Incel is a disambiguation page and that's fine to point to this. I don't think that we need an "ideology" page beyond this; there's no need for one and anything important "some entitled dudes hold ideology x,y, and z" is a sub-paragraph. --Jorm (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, you have not responded to my argument in the section above and your reasons are "because I said so." The involuntarily celibate, incels, are by and large NOT associated with the movement represented by Elliot Rodger or his copycats, but these are the bulk of the article and what should be a psychological subject is painted with the brush of mental illness or threat to public safety. Aquinassixthway (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. I think "involuntary celibacy" is a clearer title for those who don't already know what the abbreviated term means. Pretty much all the sources use both terms. I think the potential that people will be misled by the term is being a bit overblown—I don't think people outside of the incel communities who fit the technical definition tend to think of themselves as "involuntarily celibate" any more than I tend to think of myself as "voluntarily non-celibate". That said, I don't think it much matters where the article ends up as long as redirects and disambiguation are handled properly. My only opposition would be moving it to Involuntary celibacy (ideology) or similar as was previously suggested—this is the primary topic. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • conditional support - what is this article about? I support a rename if it is exclusively about the subculture and associated concepts. That would mean ditching other usage of the term (for example, "Involuntary celibacy is sometimes attributed to social factors, such as an imbalance in the sex ratio or financial constraints,[2] or genetic factors, such as inherited unattractiveness.[3]"). That makes sense. If it's about something in addition to the subculture (as it is now, duplicating topics we already cover under different names) then oppose. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have already stated and proved in the AfDs that there is no such thing, outside of the subculture, as Involuntary celibacy. As GW said, people don't consider themselves that any more than people who have sex consider themselves as voluntary non-celibate. We have other articles for the other meanings, such as Sexual frustration. Which was also pointed out in the Afds. So no need to move the article, this is the primary topic and common name. Dave Dial (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand. Nonetheless, at every stage of every version of the article including this one it has reached out to other ~"official" treatments of the term. So I suppose that should be removed regardless. Fine with me. To the more immediate point, I opposed in the section above but on reflection I think incel may make it much clearer that we're not talking about a real thing outside of this subculture. I.e. it could not be mistaken for a concept that extends beyond that community. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. Covering the incel movement seems to be the only reason to have the article, but since the name has to be explained either way, it's fine where it is. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming to "Incel". Perhaps the majority of non-sexually-active humans could be described as "involuntarily celibate" but are not "incels". Meanwhile, incels themselves and anybody talking about them use the term "incel", not "involuntarily celibate". As for the general concept of involuntary celibacy, I don't think there's any need for an article about the concept of not being sexually active but wanting to be. --ChiveFungi (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's an article for that already: sexual frustration. -- The Anome (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons outlined above. We almost always keep a title at the phenomenon, not people with the phenomenon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose-- If the term is only a neologism, there shouldn't be an article for it. If it is used in sources(and the full name definitely is), that the full name should be used. There are more than enough reliable sources for the full name. And we aren't Reddit or 4chan, or even Wiktionary. Dave Dial (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For the reasons stated by The Anome. The article's current title involuntary celibacy should reflect the concept as it applies to all humankind. The loose online community known as incels, as perceived lately by publications, are something else. Aquinassixthway (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree here. From what I can tell, the term really isn't used outside of discussing these communities. It would be extremely difficult (probably impossible) to find sourcing on it as an actual phenomenon. The research that does exist should live in Celibacy or Sexual frustration, not its own article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per the #Lead sentence section below, the term is not used solely to refer to online communities. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should have put "widely" in there, above. But per the #Lead sentence section below, I've not seen that to be the case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong support, I already indicated support before, but didn't explain. The current name is more ambiguous. Also, using the term "involuntary celibate" to me seems like forcing a designation upon people. Its akin to calling a Palestinian an Arab. Although both are correct, many Palestinians prefer to be called Palestinian rather than Arab. Similarly, most incels call themselves incels, not involuntary celibates. 92.2.72.27 (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The self-identifying “Incel” communities are not individually notable." A large body of news articles published about "incel" communities says otherwise Amin (Talk) 22:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Give an example of one then. I expect we’ll find it is just mentions establishing existence, not actually coverage of the community. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Over 150K results on Google News for incel. Amin (Talk) 23:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said, from the top "Incel is short for “involuntarily celibate," and each story is about the general phenomenon, and never of any depth about any single community with reliably sourced self-identification as "incel"s. Involuntarily celibacy is a broad phenomenon that features unhappy informal ostly-online communities who self-label as incels. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, there is coverage of individual incel communities, which I added to the article. Also, the distinctions between individual incel communities is important for an article about inceldom or involuntary celibacy, whatever we decide to name it.
  • Support, involuntary celibacy isn't notable (as established in previous deletion discussions); the fringe subculture is, however (as of recently). Kaldari (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. Are we trying to change a page that people have been trying to take down since 2006 because of sensationalizing related to a singular event? A move to incel would further this page's degradation from an unbiased look at a specific and important phenomenon to a big long complaint about 4chan related spaces. But agree with the general rationale, just not the naming or moving. Thing is that "incel" is not an ideology, the blackpill is. Incel is just short for involuntary celibacy. Love-shy.net does not advocate the blackpill but uses the term 'incel'. Incels.me does advocate the term blackpill. It is dependent on the community involved. I moved the blackpill forums under one section in the article. You are basically arguing for blackpill ideology to be it's own article, which is fine, but please keep this article existing and titled as it is. Involuntary celibacy also does not apply to such a large swatch of people as to be meaningless or not worth having it's own article, as in my estimation about 5-10% of the adult US population based on how many adults have had any sexual contact in e.g. the US. Take a look at the "Never had contact with the opposite sex in the last 12 months" columns by age here: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf Willwill0415 (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That source does not mention "involuntary celibacy" or "incel" anywhere. Would probably be a great addition to celibacy or sexual frustration, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather obviously oppose - proposed alternate title does not adequately meet WP:UCRN or WP:PRECISION. I see no evidence that there is consensus that the scope of this article is limited to the 4chan aspect of the subject, or that the neologism that is the proposed move location passes the WP:TYT. VQuakr (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unless or until, possibly in the wake of Toronto, the terms "involuntary celibacy" / "incel" gain the potential of engendering two separate articles with sufficient non-duplicating content for each concept, incel / incels should redirect to involuntary celibacy, rather than the other way around.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Move to Incel. Persuaded that the common-name/primary topic argument supports "incel" as the title. (see, Google trends showing international heads above for 'incel', also as of this writing 'incel' is used like twice as much in our article - in particular, 'incel' is used throughout the sources section of our article). The arguments against are unpersuasive. It's claimed that "involuntary celibacy" is unambiguous, which makes little sense, given that according to the article, "involuntary celibacy", is a neologism that was created at the same time and regularly used synonymously with "incel" for the past almost 25 years - and when we have synonyms, we choose the one more common for title (here, 'incel'). It's somehow claimed "involuntary celibacy" is more encyclopedic, which is unsupported, and appears untrue, because while we do have RS encyclopedia that mention "involuntary celibacy", at the same time they mention "incel", they do not do it in encyclopedia title, they do it in articles entitled something else, entirely (which is part of the reason we previously covered this in other articles) so the 'more encyclopedic' claim has to be rejected. It's claimed that 'incel' is somehow personal, but 'incel' is, at the least, a thing, too, and it's the thing (and the persons who claim it) that are covered here, so 'incel' is the title that is best supported by policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't stand the Google Trends comparisons given as a reason for a page move. It's been proven that sources refer to the subject as both involuntary celibacy & incels. We, usually, prefer to have the correct descriptive name. As seen in the Google Trends for ISIS, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria & Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIS or ISIL have far more searches than the longer, full names. Yet our article is at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, not ISIS or ISIL. Dave Dial (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's good then that we don't choose titles based on what you can't stand -- why you prefer one neoligism over another makes little sense but personal like or dislike is not how we decide - we choose based on what's most common and ordinary and the topic, all of which points to incel, which the very reliable sources section of this article demonstrates (20 references to incel, 3 references to 'involuntary [something]'. You think this topic is encyclopedic? Then its primary and common name is 'Incel'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As Alanscottwalker (talk · contribs) correctly shows the current article is about the subculture Incel, not the historic topic which has over a 100 years of research. In the early 20th century the sociological topic was called Involuntary sexual abstinence. Valoem talk contrib 15:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You keep pretending that's true, Valoem. It was decided by the community and a three admin panel that your arguments didn't hold water. Be sure that even if this article was moved, we would not be moving your pet project here. Dave Dial (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, almost every source that mentions incels also mentions involuntary celibacy. We don't decide common names by headlines of sources. Wikipedia prefers the descriptive name, not a contraction or shortening of the name. We have Coup d'état, not coup, Oprah Winfrey not Oprah and Franklin D. Roosevelt, not FDR. So it's not because 'I do not like it', it's because it doesn't effect the naming of the article. Google trends, that is. Dave Dial (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also Alan, as you can see by Valoem's post here and his comment on another editors page(trying to get him to support a move), he and some others support a page move so they can create the old article here that was deleted. Dave Dial (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am informing an editor of a possible error. Multiple discussions regarding this subject have appears on talk pages. As you should know I believe the deletion of the original article is still incorrect. Valoem talk contrib 16:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why I should care what Volem is doing, probebely if he tries to create an article, he will again be told it's not a stand-alone encyclopeidc topic, just like the RS encyclopedias don't treat it as a stand alone encyclopedia topic. As for your claim, that what matters is incel is in RS titles, that would just make incel title material, and the common-name and primary-topic. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - creating articles for made up words, simply normalizes these misogynistic terrorists. Perhaps a better article title would be Misogynists or simply redirect this entire article to a short section in Misogyny. The New York Times is pretty clear that Incels are misogynists who are deeply suspicious and disparaging of women. So it's pretty clear that we have sources showing it's a subset of misogynists. Nfitz (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most incels aren't terrorists or misogynists. Most terrorists and misogynists aren't incels. Jim Michael (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think "involuntary celibacy" are not made-up words in this topic (see, neologism a phrase), when they are? And in fact, words attempting to normalize? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I've seen User:Jim Michael do use incel as a subset of misogynist - even the foreign media, as I linked above. Terrorist is perhaps a bridge too far I'l admit - though the comments I've seen from women, sound like the views of these misogynists do terrorize them - so who knows, but I haven't really searched for a source for that. Alternatively, do you have a source that indicates that those who identify using this term aren't generally misogynists? Nfitz (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not all incels self-identify as such, because it will make them even more unpopular and hated - more so now that ever. This article is about involuntary celibacy, not restricted to those who self-identify as such. Most aren't activists, don't use violence and aren't part of a subculture or related organisations. The recent sources will disproportionately link them mith misogyny, violence because a) the media like to sensationalise to gain viewers/readers and because a high proportion are in relation to the reporting of the Toronto van attack. Being involuntarily celibate doesn't necessarily lead to violence, hatred etc. The fact there are so few incel-related attacks - despite there being millions of incels - shows that only a tiny minority of them are involved in such things. Jim Michael (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think anyone who does not identify as an incel is an incel? Are you going to go around telling people, you're an incel or an involuntary celibate, whether you like it or not? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah incels are almost entirely misogynistic; they generally hate all women for supposedly denying them , per the sources too. However indeed as Alanscottwalker says, both involuntary celibate and incel are neologisms, so this isn't really pertinent to the move. It'd be way too undue for misogyny , and I don't see having an article on the topic overtly normalizes them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are confused @Jim Michael:, this article is most definitely about the subculture. There is no "Involuntary celibacy" people who do not identify with the subculture. At least not any of any notability. That notion was proven several times, most recently in this AfD. So we aren't dealing with some made up condition that doesn't exit outside of the subculture that claims it does. Dave Dial (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not confused. The article is called involuntary celibacy, not incel subculture, so it should cover the condition, not merely the subculture. I know for certain that there are incels who aren't part of the subculture, because I've heard what some of them have said (both in person and online) and they weren't part of any subculture, group etc. The condition isn't made up - I've heard people be suicidal over being involuntarily celibate. They weren't violent, didn't express hatred and didn't want revenge - they just wanted normal sex lives. They had no paraphilias and didn't want any rape, vehicle-ramming attacks etc. against anyone. I added food critic Wilkes McDermid as a case of suicide of an apparent incel - and there's no indication that he was part of any subculture. Jim Michael (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You think you know why people want to commit suicide or do commit suicide? Really? It appears you claim to know cause and effect that there is no way, you can know. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard incels say that they are suicidal because they can't get sex with women. I've no reason to think they aren't telling the truth. Jim Michael (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've heard? So, those who identify as incels are suicidal but that would still not mean 'can't get sex' causes suicide or suicidal thoughts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They've explicitly stated that they are suicidal because they can't get sex. Jim Michael (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Psychiatric analyzing over the internet is bogus. The factors for suicide and suicidal ideation are multiple, and again you have no idea of cause and effect. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure the point of these comments. I provided a source. None of the rest you have. Please provide one, or take this somewhere else. Nfitz (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why restrict the scope of the article to an ideology? Many incels are nothing to do with that, and their don't all have shared goals. The ideology, subculture etc. can be in sections of the article. Jim Michael (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ideology is notable enough for its own article. Sexual frustration in general can be explained in that article. If this article was just about sexually frustrated people, then it would overlap and have to be merged.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Besides the black pill ideology is already just a single section. The remainder ideology fixation is supported throughout the article and the sources, even the academic study shows that the important thing is self-identification as incel - the ideology of self, here, is involuntary celebacy/incel. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are millions of sexually frustrated people who aren't incels; incels are a subset of the sexually frustrated. There are many instances of WP articles overlapping, so that's not a reason to restrict the article to the subculture. Self-identifying as an incel doesn't mean that a person has an ideology or is part of a subculture - it merely means that he acknowledges his problem. Jim Michael (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is an ideology of self, he can make it a self-problem or not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not being able to get sex with women isn't an ideology - it's a problem. Some incels develop or join an ideology, but being an involuntarily celibate isn't an ideology. Jim Michael (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And there is an ideology: "not being able to get sex with women isn't an ideology - it's a problem" It's a problem because that is the ideology. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I take it that you're implying that involuntary celibacy isn't real. Jim Michael (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not real as a term outside of the people who identify as part of the incel ideology. Yes, there are people to whom those words could apply that aren't part of the ideology, but we don't actually call them that. It's exactly the same way that probably most people are generally not in favor of fascism, but we don't say that most of the population is part of Antifa. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good analogy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being in Antifa means being an activist. Being an incel doesn't, although a minority of them are. I'm talking about all incels, not just those who play a part in the incel community. That's why I think that the article should cover involuntary celibacy in general. If the article is to be about the incel community only, then the article title should be changed accordingly - otherwise it implies that all incels are part of the incel community. Jim Michael (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "involuntary celibacy" outside of the community. If someone doesn't identify as that, they are just sexually frustrated and hostile toward women. It's a neologism created by a community, not a scientific term, so it shouldn't be used as a catch-all.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about those who do identify as incels, but aren't part of the community/subculture? They're not merely sexually frustrated - they've tried for years to get sex and have always failed - hence they're involuntarily celibate. Sexually frustrated people include those who are impotent, ejaculate prematurely, or not getting sex as frequently as they want to. Jim Michael (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If they buy into the self-identification as an involuntary celibate they have bought into the ideology of involuntary celibacy/incel - they have specifically made their claim that they are unable to volunteer, having conceded their agency to their ideology. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. First the article research you link does not actually support that, it says: "Modern involuntary sexual abstinence has coined the neologism involuntary celibacy and has grown into a small subculture associated mostly with men,[25] misogyny, and pickup artistry which has been criticized for objectifying women as "brainless automatons".[26] The term distinguishes between "incel", men actively attempting to engage with women, but are constantly rejected, and "love shyness", men too shy to engage.[27]"
Second, as has been noted, we are not a dictionary, talking about terms, we cover the issues concerning sexual abstinence at its common name and quite logical name sexual frustration, or at its common and logical name sexual abstinence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Involuntary celibacy should be a protected redirect to this article after it is moved to Incel. Numerous AfDs have determined that the concept of "involuntary celibacy" in general is not notable and/or already covered in existing articles such as sexual frustration. That has not changed. Only the Internet subculture using this label for themselves has now become notable after media coverage in the wake of mass killings. Sandstein 14:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the above reply by Sandstein. The terms "frustration" and "deprivation" are not synonymous. If the article sexual frustration was titled "sexual deprivation", "sexlessness" or "sexual inactivity", you might have a point. However, what you are currently arguing for is akin to saying that the article homelessness should be deleted because the article poverty exists. Sexual frustration for example includes the topic of "delayed ejaculation" which is usually associated with people who have very active sex lives, i.e. the antithesis of incel. I personally think that the topic of "sexual frustration" and involuntary celibacy" are oxymoronic to one another - completely different. 79.67.92.178 (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. "Sexual frustration" completely and in context covers the topic -- we are not to make particularized POV forks from established common topics like sexual frustration, let alone based on what you personally believe. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources that state the non-subculture topic of involuntary celibacy and sexual frustration overlap? Furthermore, sexual frustratin concerns itself only with sexuality - involuntary celibacy does not. For example involuntary celibacy also conerns itself with romantic validation (source). So, do sources exist that sexual frustration concerns itself with romanticism? 79.67.92.178 (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we do not want a POV fork of loneliness because it's common and logical to discuss the issues of loneliness there. At least you seem to now concede "sexual frustration" has a plethora of sources on these desires you want to cover and "physical, mental, emotional, social, or religious/spiritual barriers." Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to allude to blocking people here.--Cúchullain t/c 15:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The last AfD was started in 2015 and it is now 2018 so it is not binding. Furthermore, if you do a search on IC from the end of 2015 to now without the words "online" or "subculture" you get tens of thousands of results, indicating new sources. Furthermore, the last close was flawed since it conflated the topics of "sexual frustration" and "involuntary celibacy". These are distinct topics since SF does not deal with romanticism - IC does. Also SF literature largely focuses on sexual dysfunction - IC literature perceives incels as physically healthy. 79.67.92.178 (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence

The lead sentence currently says, in part, "involuntary celibacy is [...] the online subculture of incels." But scholarly sources do not restrict the term to "the online subculture of incels." Furthermore, scholarly sources discuss the topic outside of the incel terminology/aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of the online subculture is clearly notable, but from what I could find, this term is not widely used in research to refer to people who are not having sex, but would like to be. (Caveat here that I've lost access to most of my databases now that I've been out of college for a few years.) Unless the term is actually widely used, I think that kind of research should live at celibacy, sexual frustration, or some more accurate title. I don't want what research has been done on that broader subject to accidentally legitimize an extreme ideology by borrowing the name. That said, I imagine by now there is probably some academic research out there on the online subcultures that could be added. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that the academic book sources, such as ones seen on Google Books, that use this term don't restrict the term in the way that the lead sentence currently does. A couple of those sources are in this article, as seen in the Definition section. So the lead needs to do a better job addressing the broader aspect of the term, or this article should be renamed "Incels." We don't need readers confusing the academic usage as solely or mainly being a Reddit subculture matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's used less in research is the "blackpill" subculture and ideology which is worthy of being included in this article but not worth spreading all over the article including hinting at it lead sentence. Blackpill is a subculture, "incel" is not, as it refers to involuntary celibacy, which is a self-descritive term. "involuntary celibacy" being a self-descriptive term with important and interesting effects on society. I don't want to see people's distaste over the idea that someone can consider themselves involuntarily celibate with the fact that there are people who are involuntarily celibate Willwill0415 (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And this edit you made to the lead has made it so that the lead doesn't even summarize that aspect of the article. By the way, the definitional issue regarding this topic was one of the issues in all those debates regarding creating this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion above about moving this to Incels that might interest you, then. This article is really meant to cover the online communities—were it not for them, I don't think there would be sufficient sourcing for it to exist. (Also, for what it's worth, I did read the deletion discussions before creating this one). GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As shown in the several AfDs we've had, there is no scholarly term referring to 'involuntary celibacy'. Other than offhand mentions that discuss Sexless marriages, celibacy and sexual frustration. Which we already have articles for. There's no psychological or other medical terminology that sufficiently discusses this topic in any other fashion than the current subculture. Dave Dial (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare, yes, I see that section. Going by the comments there, people who are opposing do not feel that the article should be restricted to the incel/Reddit subculture aspect. Some commenting feel that the online community aspect and the broader aspect should both be covered in this article. Others wonder if they should have separate articles. We've been over all of this times before. Since the concept is the same for both aspects -- "wishing but being unable to find a romantic or sexual partner," I do not see that two separate articles are needed. Also, use of the term incel is not restricted to the Reddit subculture. Like this 2016 "The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Family Studies, 4 Volume Set, Volume 1" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 238, states, "Researchers see involuntary celibacy, or incel as it is often abbreviated, as a social opposite of having an active sex life. This is despite a person being open to sexual intimacy or seeking such intimacy [...]."
Dave Dial, academic book sources take the time to define this term, as seen by a quick look on Google Books. Most of the sources, including the Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia source, cite Donnelly or Donnelly and her research team. Whichever way we slice it, those sources are not restricting the term to online communities, and certainly not to Reddit. All we have for the online community/Reddit stuff are media sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would say people who want to but cannot find a romantic/sexual partner and incels are very, very different. The latter is a member of the first group, but just because a square is a rectangle does not mean they are the same thing. Perhaps a more apt comparison would be people who are unemployed and wish to find jobs, and people who are unemployed, want to find jobs, and blame immigrants for their inability to find them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
? Donnelly is research on an on-line incel group, all of those 30 some people who identified themselves as incel in that group. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever term is used, and I'm saying this per what the different sources state, the sources are discussing people who want to have a romantic partner and/or sex life and are unable to. Also, even though you state that "people who want to but cannot find a romantic/sexual partner and incels are very, very different", the lead currently states "incels (an abbreviation for 'involuntary celibates') describe their state of wishing but being unable to find a romantic or sexual partner." I'm not seeing the difference, or sources distinguishing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In popular usage, the term primarily refers to the topic of online communities and forums for people who self-identify as involuntarily celibate. Agreed the lead should be clarified. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For Pete's sake, Flyer22, that's citing Denise Donnelly. I suggest a thorough look at the last two AfDs. Otherwise, this is tedious and just re-litigating the reasons why the old article was freaking deleted and salted. Hint-hint, there is no scholarly/medical/ terminology discussing this beyond what I have already pointed you to. This article is about the subculture. Period. Dave Dial (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dave Dial, I said that "academic book sources take the time to define this term, as seen by a quick look on Google Books. Most of the sources, including the Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia source, cite Donnelly or Donnelly and her research team. Whichever way we slice it, those sources are not restricting the term to online communities, and certainly not to Reddit. All we have for the online community/Reddit stuff are media sources." I stand by that. Donnelly is currently cited in the Definition section. And WP:Reliable sources cite her or a definition similar to hers, and you are saying that the lead should continue to restrict the definition in the way that it has? The lead, per WP:Lead, is meant to summarize the article. If the article is only going to stick to the media definition and media sourcing, then do remove the Donnelly sourcing and text from the article. Good luck keeping it out of an article titled "Involuntary celibacy," though. Same goes for Elizabeth Abbott's commentary. There is no need for me to revisit the past discussions. Not a one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with flyer22, involuntary celibacy, while it was defined in small corners of the internet, is now a fairly widely used term on the internet. Blackpill is a subculture. Incel is short for involuntary celibacy which is completely self-descriptive, and the Donnelly research team acknowledged it needed to be studied more but of course was a *real phenomena* that had *important and real effects* on society*. The internet gets this without reading scholarly articles. At the end of the study contained in the Journal of Sexology and the Sexuality and Society Reader, the researchers concluded there was not enough scientific research done on involuntary celibacy, writing, "Until the phenomena of involuntary celibacy has been fully investigated, and the results disseminated, it will remain a taboo topic, cloaked in mystery and ignorance, and an untold number of persons will continue to suffer in silence and isolation" Willwill0415 (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lead doesn't say "involuntary celibacy is the online subculture of incels", it says "Involuntary celibacy is how the online subculture of incels (...) describe their state". Which is accurate. This wording makes clear that the term "involuntary celibacy" isn't an abstract concept in broader usage in academia or society, but limited to and associated with a particular subculture. Similarly, e.g. white supremacy isn't the idea that the color white as such is the best color there is, but a racist ideology promoted by and associated with racists, which is how we describe it. Sandstein 08:05, 26 April 2018 (+

"Involuntary celibacy", of itself, appears to be another term for a combination of loneliness and sexual frustration. (As other people have said above, it's also self-contradictory because the practice of celibacy is by definition voluntary.) It should be distinguished from the "incel" ideology, which takes loneliness, sexual frustration, and a general feeling of lost privilege and status, and radicalizes them into misogyny, and in rare cases, violence. Perhaps this article should be split into two to reflect this? -- The Anome (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. As you note, the broader concept is already covered in such articles as sexual frustration, which is why an article about "involuntary celibacy" in the abstract has so far always been deleted. What's (now) notable is the specific ideology and subculture developed around the term, and that's what we cover here. Sandstein 10:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Involuntary celibacy" overlaps but is distinct from sexual frustration in that it being *celibate* against one's intentions. Sexual frustration can mean having bad sex, it can mean anger over erectile dysfunction, it can mean not having a fetish fulfilled. It can also mean inceldom, but it is not 100% synonymous with inceldom. Willwill0415 (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

incels being all males

While coventional wisdom would tell you that virtually all incels are males, there are females and in fact the person who coind the phrase involuntary celibacy was a female. The fact that that statement is not sourced as well makes me think it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.40.234 (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

What statement? You mean "Incels are almost exclusively male" in the lead section? It's sourced... the source is at the end of the sentence. Marteau (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the other things the OP mentions, such as "the person who coind the phrase involuntary celibacy was a female" is already extensively discussed in the article. I'm not sure what changes we should make, since every objection the OP seems to have were (sourcing and noting the coiner was female) were already in the article... --Jayron32 10:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the citation in the lead is now gone. I'm not really invested in this article and I'm not down with finding out where it went, but I assure you it was there at the time of my comment above. Marteau (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Source just got shifted ahead to the next sentence, supports both sentences. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, there are women who fall under the category of inceldom, and I added some more of that to the article, especially if the women are in sexless relationships or are severely unnattractive. There have always been women in incel communities. They just generally don't post sincerely or are allowed in the "blackpill" incel communities. Willwill0415 (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
off topic discussion, with at least one blatant WP:BLP violation]]. Cool it--Jayron32 22:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Being in a sexless relationship doesn't prevent a woman from having sex. Even if she decides not to leave her partner and he is unable and/or unwilling to have sex with her, she can still very easily get plenty of sex with other men. Being ugly reduces the proportion of men whom a woman can get sex with, but there is still a substantial percentage of men who glady have sex with ugly women - some of whom prefer ugly women. If being ugly stopped women from being able to get sex, then Aileen Wuornos would have been a lifelong virgin. Jim Michael (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Technically there's a way for any person to have sex by paying. Technically almost no one is incel except severely disabled people in the bottom 2% of income if we think like that. Those who call themselves incel are incel by the rules and values society has set up (e.g. don't pay for sex, stay with your partner, don't cheat). This is the reason why you find women from /r/deadbedrooms going on /r/braincels Willwill0415 (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you claim that it's only severely disabled people in the bottom 2% of income. There are millions of poor straight men who are mildly disabled or not disabled at all who can't get sex with women and can't afford prostitutes. You seem to wrongly believe that prostitutes' fees are low and hence easily affordable by 98% of men. Jim Michael (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are both off-base here anyway. What makes you think that a disabled person can't have a romantic partner and needs the services of a prostitute in order to have sex? Most disabled people are either already married and have children or have had sex before on a regular basis. We already have articles for Sexual frustration, Disabled people, Celibacy, Autism, Erectile dysfunction and many other types of related(or unrelated) articles to what you are referring to. There is something else that sets the people who identify as "involuntary celibate" apart from these other articles. And it's not what you claim it is. Dave Dial (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of us said that most or all disabled people can't get sex. However, it is true that it is extremely difficult for poor disabled men to get sex, because women routinely reject them - women choose who has sex, not men. Those poor disabled men who are in relationships were in most cases in relationships when they were not both poor and disabled. You also seem to have failed to acknowledge the fact that there are many men (and a smaller number of women) who can't get sex with their spouse or long-term partner (any more). Your last two sentences seem like you want us to play a guessing game - just say what you mean. Jim Michael (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What? Men don't choose to have sex, only women do? It's just not true. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most men spend a huge amount of time, money and effort in order to get sex - and in most instances they fail. They can only choose to have sex with the tiny minority of women who want them. The large majority of women have a massive number of men who want sex with them, whom they can select from - and they typically reject the vast majority. On a first date, the vast majority of men want to, and try to, get sex - he has usually decided that before the date begins. Most women don't want sex on a first date, so in the large majority of cases, the man and woman don't have sex. Courtship, whether for a one-night stand, marriage or anything in between, typically consists of a man expending a great deal of time, money and effort to try to convince a woman that he is worthy of her. An ugly, fat, uneducated, poor woman with an awful voice and repulsive personality has more potential lovers than a highly-educated, rich, handsome, tall, athletic, charming man has. Sexual demand is that gynocentric. Jim Michael (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jim says:

Most men spend a huge amount of time, money and effort in order to get sex - and in most instances they fail......An ugly, fat, uneducated, poor woman with an awful voice and repulsive personality has more potential lovers than a highly-educated, rich, handsome, tall, athletic, charming man has.

WTH?! Holy fuck, dude. What planet do you live on? Dave Dial (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Michael: Repeating unsourced incel ideologies here does not make them true, nor does it strengthen your points. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This section has become a forum; can we hat it please? These arguments aren't useful.--Jorm (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The popularity of the term and the claims against it having an article

The arguments against keeping this article are mostly poorly formed incorrect ideas that were incorrect in 2014 as well as now and are just being repeated ad nauseam. While it is true that there was once a claim that this deprivation is an illness this was removed back then, stating there is no evidence for such a claim and that Donelly didn't present it as an illness. Nobody objected to this removal. People behind the deletion were members with a clear agenda, some of whom have been banned and publicly shamed by now and some of who openly state they are trolling this term on notorious websites like Kiwifarms. In any case, the term is now in so much constant use and being used in academic papers all across the board, from medicine to journalism, that Wikipedia will just become more of a joke if it keeps burying its head in the sand. Terms for deprivations like homelessness or poverty have their articles, but this deprivation can't? Term for communities and ideas like alt-right have their articles but this can't? Somebody is running an agenda and it pretty clear what kind of an agenda is it. Andrey Rublyov (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this deprivation deserves to stay as it's own article. Also, 'illness' is vague. Donnelly presented it as something that causes unessesary suffering but of course couldn't refer to it as an official condition. See the full study in the book The Sexuality and Society Reader pg. 170, the previous source didn't contain the full text. The researchers say after the study that "Until the phenomena of involuntary celibacy has been fully investigated, and the results disseminated, it will remain a taboo topic, cloaked in mystery and ignorance, and an untold number of persons will continue to suffer in silence and isolation". So they do acknowledge it causes suffering. Willwill0415 (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic sentence

If someone has metaphorically swallowed the black pill, the concept is sometimes used in verb form as in "blackpilled" or its synonymous interchangeable term LDAR (which stands for "lay down and rot") to illustrate that one has become aware of the philosophy of the black pill.

Whatever this is, it ain't a full sentence. GMGtalk 16:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an attempt at cleaning it up. --Jayron32 16:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please not make the gist of this entire article about 4chan, 4chan-related-spaces, and the blackpill ideology?

And instead have in as an unbiased article about a life circumstance and a collection of communities. Before I edited the article, almost the entire thing was an emotional writing in reaction to recent events, which had a lot to do with 4chan (and associated spaces). When you write about 4chan associated spaces like the website incels.me, you are essentially writing about a lot of very insincere sexist trolls pretending to be involuntarily celibate (as well as feminists pretending to be sexist trolls pretending to be incel), and letting them define the narrative of the real life phenomenon of inceldom. There were (and I guess still are) dozens of sources from blogs with unbiased opinions about involuntary celibacy. Characters closer to 4chan and the blackpill culture like Elliot Rodger and Alek Minassian, and sexist trolls, are uplayed while everything else was downplayed. I put love-shy.net in here again (and noticed many before me have tried to keep it in), and put more about Sodini and others. Someone needs to put more stuff about Harper-Mercer imo. There aren't an infinite, or even large, amount of people to add who are notable for being involuntarily celibate or incel (same thing). If someone went on a mass shooting + suicide for erectile dysfunction, I'd assume they'd stay in the erectile dysfunction page regardless if they used the correct term for erectile dysfunction or not. Similarly, even if a shooter doesn't use the full term "involuntary celibacy" that's not a reason to diminish him/her in importance in the article. There's a reason incel forums choose specific people to talk about, because they *are* the most notable incels. Sodini is an extremely notable incel, for reasons you can see in my edit, perhaps moreso than Rodger given he tried to date women and failed. What about if we added more about the involuntary celibacy of people with severe physical disorders and in sexless marriages, instead of jumping on the media sensationalizing on the blackpill. If we have so much to write about the blackpill (which is an ideology) compared to inceldom (which isn't an ideology), then maybe someone should make a whole new article for blackpill culture. Willwill0415 (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Willwill0415: No, we can't—the reliable sources discuss involuntary celibacy/incel communities in this way, and Wikipedia reflects them. There is research that discusses the concept of people who wish to have sex but can't find partners; they rarely use the term "involuntary celibate". Please read the sources before making massive changes to the article like you have. Please also copyedit your changes a bit better. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's because you are using blogs posts you agree with as reliable sources Willwill0415 (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which of these are blogs? I was busy at work today so didn't follow the changes that happened since I last looked, but I was very careful in my writing to only use reliable sources, and will happily remove any unreliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's your fault, but currently sources # 6 8 9 14 15 16 22 23 24 27 29 37 38 39 40 45 50 51 are all blog posts at worst or biased opinion pieces at best, *just in the name of the pieces*, and I've also read the all. And more often than not, the reason they are cited is not for information that can't be found in other reputable places but for a way to spin involuntary celibacy as a violent, dangerous subculture rather than a life circumstance and a collection of communities and anonymous comment boards. Willwill0415 (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I see you're new here, so please take a look at our policies on original research and neutral point of view; specifically the subsection on undue weight. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I read it, the entire article is undue weight on 4chan and related spaces Willwill0415 (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide sources to support this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
over 1/5th of the current sources are from biased blog posts about inceldom RE: the recent Van incident, which people are adding info as the media sensationalizes about the blackpill instead of unbiased sources about incels or inceldom. Another 1/5th or so sources are blog posts from feminist blogs or watch groups. How is e.g. Sodini and love-shy.net unrelated to involuntary celibacy? Willwill0415 (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat from above: Which of these are blogs? You can say that some fraction of them are blog posts, but until you identify the sources you have an issue with it's hard to move forward. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Willwill0415: You say you've read the policy pages, if you read BRD you would see that your changes have been reverted three times now, by two seperate editors. You must now get consensus on the Talk page for the changes you wish to make in the article. Most of which I disagree with. So stop edit warring and discuss the changes. But I'm not going to SeaLion away my time on the this Talk page either. Dave Dial (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done editing, but *I* gave reasons for my edits, and no reasons were given for counter-edits, the article is a politically motivated joke and you know it. I can't go over every little thing because the entire thing is sourced on blog posts you agree with and feminist/hate-watch articlesWillwill0415 (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't given sources. You say "I can't go over every little thing," but you've yet to go over even one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everything except the psychology section is based on biased blog posts, you want me to list them all? Anyone here's a specific criticism, the psychology section is based off Gilmartin research on the link btw autism/mental-disorders and inceldom and incorrectly attributed to the Georgia State U. / Journal of Sexology study, which never even mentions autism or related disorders. That study contains a ton of interesting stuff about the life circumstances of incels, but people here would rather write an entire article based on blog posts about blackpill ideology. Willwill0415 (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is what I'm looking for! Now that you've pointed out an issue, I can fix it; you're right that the study citation got messed up, and I've moved the cite back to what I think it was meant to be: [5]. For what it's worth, the citation wasn't removed; it just looks like the inline cite got a bit jumbled in a rework. As for the blogs thing, if you'd like to list all the sources you feel are blogs, please do. Also feel free to just list a couple. At least at a brief scan of the refs, I'm seeing a couple of academic sources, a ton of reliable news sources (The Guardian, The New York Times, NBC News, The Hill, Newsweek, The Washington Post...) Not sure about that YourTango one, and will look into it. But it does not at all appear that 2/5 of the sources are unreliable, as you claimed above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See 2 subthreads up here for list of sources which are questionable at best. Willwill0415 (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean #The popularity of the term and the claims against it having an article? I don't see mentions of blog sources or other unreliable sources being used in this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC) Just found what you meant -- thought you meant subsections. Looking now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the list of "unreliable sources" provided by Willwill0415

@Willwill0415: I'm referring to this revision of the page, since it was the most recent live version when you made your comment that had 51 refs. I removed some references between then and seeing your comment (so the numbering has changed).

You're welcome, I guess, for going through all of these. In the future, please familiarize yourself with WP:RS and do some research at the reliable sources noticeboard, because this was largely a waste of my time. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you relunctant gatekeeper. I guess if a bunch of editorial boards and opinion writers decide that they want to stop hyperfocusing on online trolls and say something positive about the better incel communities, then you and whoever wrote this will re-write this gender politics motivated article with way to much emphasis on 4chan spaces and online trolling? Also, back to the first thing I brought up, there's no source in the entire article for the final paragraph that contains the Gilmartin research written except the Washington Post article. It would be better to link the Wa. Post article to the psychology section, but it's still a weird choice for the psychology section, a single sentence out of a Wa. Post opinion piece based on Gilmartin of all people. I don't know what inline mistake you were talking about. Neither source #11 or any of the sources previously linked to that paragraph talk about the relationship btw inceldom and autism as written. It's nowhere in the Donnelly study. Willwill0415 (talk) 05:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will say this for what feels like the tenth time: if you have reliable sources saying "something positive about the better incel communities", please provide them. I have been doing my utmost to respond to your concerns with the article, and the "reluctant gatekeeper" jabs, etc. are not appreciated.
I'm having a hard time following what you're saying about Gilmartin; I'm not seeing him mentioned in the article at all at this point. As for the inline mistake, I linked my fix above, but will link it again: [9]. It looks like the WaPo article was accidentally moved to the end of the paragraph, implying it was the source for the whole paragraph, whereas I wrote the final two sentences using The Journal of Sex Research article as a source. I fixed that in the edit I've linked, although you're right that the autism bit is not supported by The Journal of Sex Research source. I've moved sources around once more to add the WaPo article as a source for that—it does say Both Gilmartin and the Georgia State researchers suggest that involuntary celibacy is part of a self-sustaining package of psychological issues: depression, neuroticism, anxiety, autistic disorders. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ok sorry for the relunctant gatekeeper talk. I'm just saying I'm not seeing it in the Georgia State research so I think Dewey Rainwater from the Wa. Post is incorrect, I'll kindly suggest people fill the psychology paragraph with stuff that is actually in the Georgia State/ Journal of Sexology research, or maybe I'll submit my edit for that section again some other day. Right now it seems like second-hand Gilmartin research as it's vague and people seem to only be able to link it to the Wa. Post author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willwill0415 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stacys

Sources disagree on what 'Stacys' are. The Guardian say they are attractive women, the BBC say they are sexually prolific women and Gulf News say they are women who sexually reject men. Jim Michael (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an important point, in relation to this article. Any more than the several meanings of Infidel between members of ISIS or the Taliban. Dave Dial (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it is basically all three - attractive women who are (at-least in the minds of incels) sexually prolific and reject them Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it's commonly-used terminology within the incel subculture, then its use and definition are relevant to the article.
There's a big difference between those three definitions. Although there are many women who fit two or all three of those categories, there are many women who are fit one of those definitions without being in either of the others.
Islamists use infidel to mean non-Muslim, so that isn't really comparable. Jim Michael (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that it encompasses any available woman. I'm not quite sure what the incels believe women should do - try to befriend them? Profess their love? - but virtually no woman is going to do it. They are extrapolating some women's rejection of men to encompass all women, in other words a faulty generalization.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the misogyny Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Put them all in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Put in all the sources with the varying definitions? Jim Michael (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Stacys" have been described as code for 'attractive'[cite], sexual,[cite], or rejecting[cite] women. "Chads" have been described as . . . etc. or something like that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkes McDermid

I created a new section to add the suicide of this food critic, but it was removed because he didn't use the term incel. Not everyone who is an incel self-identifies with that particular word, but he still fitted the definition. Jim Michael (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article isn't about the general topic of Sexual_frustration etc, it is specifically about the term and internet subculture. Without sources connecting him to this, it is WP:OR, and there's no need for every suicide, murder, or thing that was ever about not having a girlfriend to be in this article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at the article and I could see multiple potential/maybe causes, but absolutely nothing that anyone could say as why - so not only does it not directly connect with this topic, it is not close, without pushing it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most incels aren't part of a subculture and many aren't active online. I didn't say we should cover all sexual frustration, because there are many sexually frustrated people who aren't incels. Jim Michael (talk) 19:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whether they are in or not in the subculture or online or not, there needs to be an WP:RS that states that they are an incel, or that they identified as an incel - otherwise it is OR, you're doing your own research/thinking to say that person is an incel. Galobtter (pingó mió)
I put the same thing in the article and it got deleted as well. It's not a coincidence that multiple people are finding the same small number of notable people that apply to this article. Apparently people think it takes research to conclude that Sodini and McDermid were involuntarily celibate. I have no response to this. It's politically motivated nonsense. There's no special research needed. We know what involuntary means, we know what celibate means, we know that both these men considered themself involuntarily celibate by looking at reputable news sources. If we had an article on people that died from involuntary starvation, but we wouldn't add notable people unless they said "involuntary starvation" in a personal blog regardless of the fact that they would have complained of not being able to access food in a final blog post before their death, I would say that would be silly. Willwill0415 (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The current list has been trimmed to include only those who self-identified as involuntarily celibate. I've retitled it so that's clearer. I did include Sodini in the original list (before that title), but I do think at this point if we want to include folks who share ideologies but who don't self-identify as incel, it should be discussed here first. I actually agree with the folks who wanted to remove Sodini, even though I myself included him—there is a huge distinction between folks who want a romantic/sexual partner and can't find one, and people who identify with the involuntary celibate subculture. It is only the later who should be included here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you warn me in the edit section GorillaWarfare? I didn't exceed any revision limits or break any rules, I also referred to the talk page etc. You supposedly want accurate stuff in here that has reputable sources right? Willwill0415 (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copying over from your same question on my talk page:
We have a process called the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If you first boldly edit an article and it's reverted (as has happened a few times with your edits to the involuntary celibacy article), the next step is to discuss the edit on the talk page in order to reach a decision on whether the content should be changed. Re-adding the content is not productive, and is liable to lead to sanctions for edit warring.

As for WP:BRD, I first mentioned it in this edit summary, then again in this notice on your talk page. These are what I was referencing in this edit summary. It seems like you're missing a lot of the things I'm trying to say to you: asking what you were warned for when it was mentioned explicitly both in an edit summary and on your talk page, and referring to sources as editorial pieces...[that] are just opinion pieces after I 1) finally got you to tell me which sources you felt were unreliable, and then 2) went into great detail to explain how the sources meet our reliable sourcing criteria. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suicide has multiple factors. The intro to suicidal ideation says: "Suicidal ideation is generally associated with depression and other mood disorders; however, it seems to have associations with many other mental disorders, life events, and family events, all of which may increase the risk of suicidal ideation. For example, many individuals with borderline personality disorder exhibit recurrent suicidal behavior and suicidal thoughts." So no, you absolutely cannot say what caused people you want to personally diagnose to commit suicide. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black pill incels vs other incels

I think that a couple of editors of this article seem to be conflating black pill incels with other incels who do not subscribe to the black pill ideology. Some media outlets also seem to be making this mistake. I'm not sure whether this misrepresentation means we requires a "POV tag" or a "disputed tag" at the top of this article. 92.2.72.27 (talk) 04:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We will deal with that issue when there are reliable sources that deal with it, and not because a few random people say we're wrong.--Jorm (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with 92.2.72.27, also elitism in the statement about random people from a former wiki employee. The article has had love-shy.net e.g., the oldest incel board (2003) in it multiple times from different people. It doesn't advocate the blackpill ideology anywhere on the site and the time I put it in I had reputable sources that mentioned the site. Willwill0415 (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Willwill0415, please explain why Jorm's former employment status is relevant to this discussion? Do you believe that supporting adherence to Wikipedia's core content policies is elitist? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only a tiny minority of incels are black-pillers, so the article should make that clear. Jim Michael (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a reliable source that backs up that statement, please feel free to provide it and we can modify the article accordingly. Otherwise, you should drop this stick.--Jorm (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a part of manosphere?

Someone removed that incels are a part of the manosphere. (see [10]) 92.13.136.69 (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only those incels who are active in the subculture are part of the manosphere. Jim Michael (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-added that, albeit not to the lead. I have no strong objection to it being in the lead; I mostly was just having a hard time coming up with how to fit it into the existing wording. The previous wording was Self-identified incels are almost exclusively male, and are a subset of the broader manosphere., which is a little awkward because I think it's really the incel communities that are a subset of the manosphere, not the individuals.
Also, @Jim Michael: I know you disagree with the article being exclusively about the subculture, but at this point in time it is. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's the incel community which are part of the manosphere, whilst many other incels aren't part of the community or the manosphere.
If the article is to be confined to the subculture/community, the article title should be changed to reflect that. Jim Michael (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There were repeated WP:AFDs for that topic, leading to it getting removed or that removal endorsed on seven separate occasions. The only reason this page was created is because the recent spate of killings by members of the subculture produced coverage sufficient to justify an article about what drove them; but the topic hasn't gained any other notability or coverage outside of that aspect, so going beyond that would run into the same problems the AFDs found. --Aquillion (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, people have pointed out to you already to the AfD and decision that there are no larger group of people who aren't associated with the subculture that are 'incels'. We already have articles on the many aspects that are associated with the different aspects that lead one to be abstinent, either voluntary or not. Sexless marriage, Erectile dysfunction, etc., there are many other articles as well. You seem to want to group everyone together and have them fall into some kind of condition that doesn't exist. Dave Dial (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yet I know that incels outside the community do exist, because I've encountered them. They were all single and not impotent. They couldn't find women who were willing to have sex with them, but they weren't activists or part of any subculture. One was a lesbian - all the others were heterosexual men. Jim Michael (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you talk here about your opinions and your anecdotes until your face turns blue, the article will not be changed without significant, reliable coverage supporting your points. Continuing to just provide anecdotes and your opinions is wasting everyone's time, including your own. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Dave Dial/User:GorillaWarfare, I'm interested in your opinion on Absolute Beginners, which are a German equivalent to incels in the Anglosphere. Some sources German describe AB's as both a subculture and a demographic. Do you think this conflation of the demographic group and subculture group in Germany is a mistake? 92.13.136.69 (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have access to the cited source and so I can't really confirm. It would be helpful if you'd list the sources you're referring to here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the german article on Absolute Beginners. It seems to discuss their incel article as both a social phenomenon and subculture. I was wondering, if the German article can merge the two topics, why can't this English language article do the same? 92.13.136.69 (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I point to the AB article is because AB is a grassroots movement in germany that devloped from a completely different stem to the incel movement, yet incels and AB's seem to refer to the same social phenomenon. The only difference between AB's and incels seems to be that incels tend to have radicals online in their midst while the AB's have developed a support group without attracting any radicals. 92.13.136.69 (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it's the community, why is Chris Harper-Mercer listed? The shooting he did is largely religious based and he cited a number of previous killers that are not incels as inspiration. His reply to a comment, is used to justify inclusion but it's really a fringe view to say he was a member of a community. Elle is used as a source but has nothing that indicates a community or culture involvement. The best source on Mercer is [here http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-school-shootings-2017-story.html]. He's an Aspy. --2600:8800:1300:16E:6882:46D1:1667:450A (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Donnelly

I removed the Academic Usage section, which was essentially nothing but cites to a single paper by Donnelly (there was one other cite, but it only used the words in passing and not with any sense that they had a specific meaning, merely as one category of celibracy they were discussing.) The WP:FRINGE nature of that paper and the WP:UNDUE weight some people want to ascribe to it was at the crux of the multiple deletion discussions in the past; I don't feel there's anything to be gained by citing it here. To the extent that it comes up in discussion of incel subculture, it can be better-cited through secondary sources, which cover it with more nuance, rather than trying to dig into it as a primary source. (The fact that the term sprang out of academic usage is mentioned earlier on the page, for instance.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable—an entire section for one article is probably undue. I'm likely going to re-add some of the associated content though (for example, the bit that distinguishes involuntary celibacy and asexuality) since that seems relevant. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
and now there is literally nothing anyone can learn from the wiki Willwill0415 (talk) 07:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide

Since there has already been a lengthy discussion above on including suicide, I thought I'd start an RfC for wider input. Do you support adding the following sentence on suicide: see here ? 92.13.136.69 (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the term "subculture" is subjective, so we won't get anywhere arguing on that. Secondly, collectively the terms "incel" or "involuntary celibate" are used exactly 19 times. Thats nineteen references to "incel" in the article, and yet she's not incel? By that logic Mercer should also be deleted from the article, and arguably Elliot Rodger, since the former was not involved in any subculture, while the latter was more involved with anti-PUA culture rather than an incel subculture. 92.13.136.69 (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is perhaps more appropriate for the rename discussion above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's absurd that you think an opinion piece by a college student is a source for labeling Chubbock an incel. If you really believe that's a reliable source for that, then you probably should shouldn't be editing this article. Dave Dial (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dave Dial: I think you mean "shouldn't" above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Fixed. Dave Dial (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You just dismissed The Times as a reliable source and yet I should not be editing this article? 92.13.136.69 (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit regarding Chubbock cited The University Daily Kansan, which describes itself as "the student newspaper of the University of Kansas." The Times source you included makes no mention of Chubbock. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You argument is one of semantics. If I say that "i'm starving"; and then a minute later say "i'm hungry" according to your flawed logic I said two completely separate things. @Gorillawarfare The Times article merely cited the prevalence of suicidal ideation among incels; they were cited separately. 92.13.136.69 (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No, my argument is that you're accusing Dave Dial of dismissing The Times as a reliable source when the majority of your edit (and as I understand it, this section) is sourced to an article in The University Daily Kansan, a student newspaper. Either you're accidentally conflating the two sources or you're trying to legitimize the inclusion of the Chubbock suicide by citing alongside it an article in The Times that makes no mention of her. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree with GW above. And furthermore, I do see the similarities of suicide bombers, domestic violence perpetrators and the incel subculture that the Times describes. I just don't know if that part should be included. It definitely shouldn't be included along with the Chubbock suicide. They are unrelated. Now, we might want to create a Comment section and move this thread there, or hat it. It's getting pretty long. Dave Dial (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
His argument was against the student news source. Whats your argument for deleting The Times as a source? 92.13.136.69 (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to your logic about 90% of wikipedia should be deleted since i doubt that most of it is sourced to Washignton Post/NYT. Since Chubbuck being incel is uncontroversial, satisfactory news sources are fine. 92.13.136.69 (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a section about suicide should be added, which is what I and another editor separately tried to do by including Wilkes McDermid. Incels (whether part of the incel community or not) have a high suicide rate; that's important to note in the article. Jim Michael (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree with adding suicide you should add a "support" vote in dark italics. 92.13.136.69 (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support adding a section on suicide, but not using the sourcing that you did - a student newspaper and paywalled Times article. Jim Michael (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Paywalled articles are still viewable through search engines. I gave a quote as a lead. 92.13.136.69 (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support --No reason not to. Suicidal thoughts are more common than any other kind of extremist talk on the extreme incel forums. I think every person mentioned on the page attempted or successfully committed suicide, which is weird to scrub out of the wiki. This emerging implicit hard rule against mentioning suicide just seems to be entirely politically motivated Willwill0415 (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I'm willing to close this thread if we could come to a compromise. It seems you guys are fine with the Times source. If so, how about we leave the sentence that is attributed to The Times, and delete the Chubbuck bit? 92.13.136.69 (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will go ahead and make the change. 92.13.136.69 (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was not the one who removed the edit—I would wait for broader consensus. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the above discussion nobody seemed to onbjec to the Times source, except for Jim Michael on the paywalled premise. However, the pay-wall content can easily be viewed through a search engine since I gave a quote. 92.13.136.69 (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The discussion was open for under three hours, and framed much differently. Three people in addition to yourself weighed in. The change you just tried to make was proposed 20 minutes ago and I was the only person in addition to you to opine. That does not consensus make. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so does anybody object to the following edit: here? 92.13.136.69 (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I do. And you need to wait at least 48 hours before contemplating making this change, I think, to allow other editors to opine. It is the weekend.--Jorm (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, this edit I don't really oppose or support. Can take it or leave it. I would think it could be part of a broader point about how certain people are susceptible to taking extreme actions, encouraged by organizations that promote hate and violence against others to blame them for their mental problems. There are professional people that can help people with mental disorders, but finding good doctors can oft times be problematic. Dave Dial (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jorm, is there a reason for your objection? 92.13.136.69 (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the edit, as written, attempts to muddy the distinction between what is effectively an whining, entitled ideology with real, serious problems. People commit suicide for many, many reasons, and unless there are actual statistics showing that the suicide rate of individuals who self-identify as "incel" is higher than average, this is a meaningless statement and an attempt to "pitywash" the article.--Jorm (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words "Let's ignore what reliable sources say so we can make incels look as evil as Iblis himself" 92.13.136.69 (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No. In other words, "let's let reliable sources describe how evil they are without providing undo weight to a statement that isn't solid." Lots of groups of people are associated with elevated suicide rates. When there are strong sources that actually indicate this is true then it becomes heavier. This is not that.--Jorm (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So the crux of your argument is wp:undue. Ok. Fair. That means I could win you over if I find other reliable sources saying the same thing. 92.13.136.69 (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this not what this whole discussion, not to mention 4 previous AfDs, has been about? Look through this talk page, there must be 5–10 places where I've been asking people to please support their arguments with reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    the way wp:rs works is that the more improbable a statement is, the stronger sourcing it requires. If I say that on a sunny day, the sky tends to be blue, I do not need a conglomeration of Oxford press/Cambridge press refs to say that. However, if i say that a squirrel was caught finding and then lighting a cigarette, I would. 92.13.136.69 (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, but there have not been 4 AfDs and extended discussion about an article claiming the sky is blue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • At any rate, the "Times" quote does not support the proposed text. It appears to be an opinion mentioning three things, and it's at the least undue and over- or misinterpretation to give it the one proposed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we don't have a suicide section, why do we hae a list of mass murder section? It's not typical to associate criminal activity to a culture. --2600:8800:1300:16E:6882:46D1:1667:450A (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because the sources we have discuss it in that context, and tie the mass murders to the incel subculture, and thus that is what we do to, per WP:NPOV Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't. There is no source for that made up list of incel mass murders. Heck, Umpqaa shooting doesn't even source it to incel culture but as anti-religious and attention seeking [11]. It was fabricated from synthesizing sources. You have the original incel and two copycats that are unkown what their motives are though fame seems to be more important than incel revenge. It's nonsense. There are more sources discussing killers in the context of Black Lives Matter yet we don't synthesize an in-article list in the BLM article despite incidents like ambush slayings. It's a complete disregard for WP:SYNTH to make an in-article list. See WP:LIST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:6882:46D1:1667:450A (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Harper-Mercer

There are no sources linking him to a community or that he is an incel or that his attack was any more incel related than Vester Flanagan, Adam Lanza and others he listed as idols. The sources don't support inclusion of his murders being incel related. Is there any sources that go beyond his response to a question about whether he was saving himself for someone special (he responded that the "saving" was "involuntary" on a dating forum, not incel forum)? He was an anti-religious Aspy that sought attention[12]. Friendless loner w/ no girlfriend and anger issues can't be the inclusion criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:102D:F1B4:EEBD:9A50 (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

question would be if he wanted a girlfriend but couldn't find one for a good amount of time and if he gave that as a reason for his shooting. I don't know the answer cuz I don't know his story, I never fought for his inclusion of exclusion. Willwill0415 (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
His statement 'involuntarily so' qualifies him for inclusion. I'm not aware of Flanagan or Lanza having said anything about being celibate, let alone involuntarily celibate. Jim Michael (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really? That's not what the article says 'incels' are and he didn't give it as a reason for the murders. He did rant about organized religion and asked his victims if they were religious before executing them. The source doesn't make the claim that he was motivated by incel ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:950C:C113:D6B9:3587 (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The heading of that section is List of mass murders by self-identified involuntary celibates. It doesn't specify that they did the murders due to being incels. In comparison, there's no evidence that Flanagan or Lanza were incels. Jim Michael (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mercer didn't identify as being an "involuntary celibate." This article is about the membership in a movement not a state of being. Half the editors on Wikipedia are "involuntarily celibate" and "single but looking" isn't the criteria. Mercer's comment on a dating site that he was looking for a g/f is not self-identifying as being part of the "ivoluntarily celibate" culture. It's even less associated with the murders. Elle and others make no connection other than a dictionary. Yes, he was a lonely, angry, Aspy that blamed religion for ills of the world. He was mentally ill. --2600:8800:1300:16E:D56A:A243:7756:4805 (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

I know this is a new article based around a current event, but at present it illustrates, in my view, one of the fundamental flaws of Wikipedia. That is, not only its reliance on journalism, but its willingness to interpret a huge amount of 'truth-value' into journalistic claims and maintain an appearance of objectivity - and I don't mean objectivity in the sense of neutrality, but I mean in the idea of presenting a literal access to true information and knowledge about the world. To me, it is completely irresponsible to do this on such a haphazard format that, by its nature, has to rely on hearsay and journalistic conjecture on important topics over and above scholarly research. The problem is more the matter of tone, the attitude toward itsself and what it thinks it is presenting.

Pardon the potential non-sequitur but before I go on, I'll state that I'm gay and not a virgin, to avoid any potential bad faith interpretations of my criticism. I don't necessarily think that people will, but given the hot emotions understandably running around this topic, I thought I might make that clear at the outset. At the moment, this basically reads like Fox News or some politicians' attempt to interpret an internet subsculture - lacking a sort of intuitive familiarity, deftness of touch and attunement to irony and nuance necessary to get "below the surface", as well as framing the topic through a strongly politicised, alarming and moralistic frame of mind; and yet still persisting in making strong, absolute truth-claims about the subject matter. Wikipedia is a first source of information for a lot of people. It's at the top of Google. It's bizarre to me that even in the roughest stages of its article-creation it reads as if it's absolutely sure of itself. Scholarly Encyclopedias are not as confident and brusque in their assertions as Wikipedia. For something that, by chance, has found itself in a truly tremendous position of influence, I think Wikipedia desperately, desperately needs more humility and skepticism.

The subject header Discussions in incel forums are often characterized by resentment, misanthropy,[3] misogyny and the endorsement of violence against women and more sexually successful men,[2][4] a concept incels describe as the "black pill" is particularly abysmal, for two reasons. One: the "black pill" as encompassing an ideology and mode of action, when, for all intents and purposes, it seems simply to refer to a fatalistic position and worldview regarding the sexual dynamics of their society and immediate social situation and its implications for one's sexual chances, that may or may not then drive some such men who describe themselves as blackpilled to violent ideation or actual violence. I have seen the word blackpill, like redpill, used in contexts completely detached from "incel" culture. Two: "a concept incels describe as the black pill" makes a very strong absolute generalisation, which in the case of a decentralised, international community or subculture based around a socially constructed trait and an amorphous, varying set of attitudes toward it, is probably not appropriate.

Maskettaman (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you fixed this problems, what response did you get? --Jayron32 13:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Maskettaman: Can you provide examples of some of this scholarly research you'd like to see added? I don't have access to as many academic sources as I used to, but I've found that the couple of scholarly sources I've found are discussing sexual frustration (which is rarely referred to as "involuntary celibacy", so far as I've seen). GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is important to note that this article is not about sexual frustration. It is about an online misogynist culture. --Jayron32 01:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If that were the case, Harper-Mercer wouldn't be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:6C17:56B6:A146:1F4D (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Incel&oldid=839457112"