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 KarakasaObake (talk | contribs) at 19:02, 27 April 2022 (→‎"Often white" is inappropriate for this article.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Derogatory article

The article is openly derogatory and political. The references provided are mostly to feminist readings or even to one-sided articles. The entire article lacks balance and it fails to meet Wikipedia criteria of fairness and objective knowledge. This cannot be a protected article as it is subject to NPOV. Please, remove the protection. --86.6.148.125 (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

High level pre-FAC review

Here are my thoughts from FACing over the past year. As always, ignore what you want.

-- Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From me....


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

Note to self

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

Same thing stated twice?

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

Under Ideology: Justifications for beliefs: it is stated: 

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

Under Ideology:"Red pill" and "black pill": it is stated: 

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

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


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

Remove blogs and news references, leave the facts

There is rather distinct phenomenon. And there are good valid sources which describe it. For example, Texas domestic terrorism threat report (27). Yet it buried under tons of news publications of dubious quality. My first impression was that it's total propaganda. Nope, there are facts. So, please, let's separate the facts from politically motivated gossip, so we can see the threat and no one is blamed unjustifiably. There are lots and lots of frustrated people, laid and not-laid, misogynistic and not. Let's not blame them all of terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.214.68.8 (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to read WP:RS to review the relevant policy on reliable sourcing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
laid and not-laid Are you trying to form a coalition with people who have been married 20+ years? GMGtalk 21:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2021

In the demographics section about female incels, after the sentence "There are present day women-specific incel forums, such as /r/Femcels, /r/TruFemcels, and /r/ForeverAloneWomen.", insert:

Of these three subreddits, only /r/ForeverAloneWomen still remains to date.[1] [2] [3]

Forgonemirage (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC) Forgonemirage (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Reddit pages for these subreddits, "https://www.reddit.com/r/trufemcels" and "https://www.reddit.com/r/Femcels" say these subreddits have been banned, whereas "https://www.reddit.com/r/ForeverAloneWomen/" is still accessible and has not been banned. This website is also another potentially helpful source if my first three sources are not reliable enough, "https://www.huckmag.com/art-and-culture/tech/inside-the-online-safe-space-for-femcels/". Forgonemirage (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made this change. It's a bit different from what you suggested, but I reviewed the existing sources, and the Elle source mentioning r/ForeverAloneWomen didn't specifically describe it as an incel community, so I figured it would be best to omit it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Trufemcel subreddit". Reddit.
  2. ^ "Femcel subreddit". Reddit.
  3. ^ "ForeverAloneWomen subreddit". Reddit.

"incels are predominately white"

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

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

Again, this is a pretty clear case of racial hatred being injected into an article. I really think it should be removed because it's irrelevant. 107.127.39.46 (talk) 05:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We reflect reliable sources, not our personal views. If you know of reliable sources that contradict this point, please provide them. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Incels are a self-proclaimed group of beta males who claim a position at the bottom of the social hierarchy due to their continued romantic and sexual rejection by women.[1]

Over the past several years, an online community of self‐described 'incels,' referring to involuntary celibates, has emerged and gained increased public attention.[2]

In recent years, increasingly serious incidents of violence have been committed by young men predominantly in the United States and Canada who self-identify as incels (involuntary celibates).[3]

The online community of men self-identifying as incels, shorthand for 'involuntary celibates', has been in the spotlight thanks to several acts of mass homicide ...[4]

These cultures rail against rather than aspire to the alpha males of jock culture, whom they refer to as chads, normies, and frat boys ... and instead embrace self-deprecating identifiers such as 'incel' (involuntarily celebate) and 'betafag.'[5]

It's clearly more than "news sources" labeling people as incels. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

  1. ^ Glace, Alyssa M.; Dover, Tessa L.; Zatkin, Judith G. (2021). "Taking the black pill: An empirical analysis of the 'Incel'". Psychology of Men & Masculinities. 22 (2): 288–297. doi:10.1037/men0000328. ISSN 1939-151X.
  2. ^ Williams, D. J.; Arntfield, Michael; Schaal, Kaleigh; Vincent, Jolene (2021). "Wanting sex and willing to kill: Examining demographic and cognitive characteristics of violent 'involuntary celibates'". Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 39 (4): 386–401. doi:10.1002/bsl.2512. ISSN 1099-0798.
  3. ^ Hoffman, Bruce; Ware, Jacob; Shapiro, Ezra (2020). "Assessing the Threat of Incel Violence". Studies in Conflict & Terrorism. 43 (7): 565–587. doi:10.1080/1057610X.2020.1751459. ISSN 1521-0731.
  4. ^ Dynel, Marta (2020). "Vigilante disparaging humour at r/IncelTears: Humour as critique of incel ideology". Language & Communication. 74: 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2020.05.001. ISSN 0271-5309.
  5. ^ Ging, Debbie (2017). "Alphas, Betas, and Incels: Theorizing the Masculinities of the Manosphere". Men and Masculinities. 22 (4): 638–657. doi:10.1177/1097184x17706401. ISSN 1097-184X. S2CID 149239953.
Moreover, not to have to hit this point yet again, but the subject of this article is not "the phenomenon of 'involuntary celibacy'"--it is the misogynist subculture that calls itself "incel". Your comparison to "incels in China" is not good because that's not what the article is about. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that other articles contradicts the claim that most people in the online subculture are white. There have been some controversy about the claim in some CVE (counter violent extremism) circles @Writ Keeper:--Trade (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is already discussed in this article in quite a lot of detail (Incel#Demographics), though if you know of sources that ought to be added, feel free to provide them. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Something unrelated, i think the quotes from Political Research Associates are somewhat excessively long when compared to the rest of the article. Do you think there's a way to summarize it without hurting the article. @GorillaWarfare: --Trade (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't share your concerns about the quote length, though if you think the same information can be conveyed in fewer words I'd certainly be interested in seeing your suggested wording. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PRA citation

When looking at the PRA citations currently in the Wikipedia article here, the author is anonymous, and is PRA even a reliable source? Does Wikipedia normally cite anonymous article authors? There's no bio, or contact info for that journalist, and yet such things are basically required by Google News and other places to be considered even remotely reputable, as it seems there's no way to tell if that's a real name under that PRA article. There's not even a first, name, is just says "m. kelly".2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok so keep anon PRA article in main, lock Twohey article discussion, makes sense. In line with how this talk page has been going. Gorilla said the ref dump was valuable though 2600:8806:0:C2:913:B1D8:3F87:F9AD (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The incel ideology" + new sources are available related to NYTimes front-page article and evolving international news story

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict) The NYT doesn't say they founded the largest incel forum or name /r/incels or incels.me specifically. It seems correct to say it focuses on those who died on their other suicide promotion site, that was not explicitly incel oriented. Unclear why we would completely overhaul the Incel article on the basis of this story that isn't mainly about the incel subculture/identity/community. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, at best the IP can draw the conclusion that those who run main incel websites are heartless people who rejoice when others take their own life. But no more than that, e.g. it says nothing about the incel community. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you are making up things about the articles, I gotta quote it.
Extended content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/21/technology/suicide-website-google.html

Mr. Small and Mr. Galante also resigned as administrators of several websites they operated for involuntary celibates, or incels, men who believe women will never have sex with them because of their looks and social status.

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

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

This Wiki article is almost entirely about their forum ecosystem, and to say otherwise is an insulting lie and an insult to everyones intelligence here2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In 2017, when Reddit had banned an online group of incels for encouraging violence, Serge started an independent site for them, soon joined by Marquis, who had written to him about his interest and skills as a system administrator. --nytimes

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

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

"I manage the largest incel forum on the web",[21:00 in the audio track]

In 2017, when Reddit had banned an online group of incels for encouraging violence, Serge started an independent site for them, soon joined by Marquis, who had written to him about his interest and skills as a system administrator. --nytimes

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

In 2017, when Reddit had banned an online group of incels for encouraging violence, Serge started an independent site for them, soon joined by Marquis, who had written to him about his interest and skills as a system administrator. --nytimes

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

A follow up story says he subsequently resigned from it, so when it gets added to Wikipedia it'd make sense to say "co-founder of a group of violence-promoting incels" or "co-founder of incels.co", rather than "admin". With Lamarcus as the other and final founder, along with the context of the article, cuz this news cycle appears to be partially about crucial developments in the incel space, not just about news worthy public figures and their exposure that made them public figures, through now hundreds of republishings and multiple followups mentioning the names and the incel stuff in print, podcast, television etc form. 68.100.233.100 (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also from the Daily, you all didn't quote the full quote where he mentions the url:

Serge: Again, thank you for the introduction. I manage the largest incel forum on the web. If people come to the forum, incels.co, it is mainly because they want to be somewhere where they won’t be told, hey, hey, there is a way out.

68.100.233.100
(talk) 13:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not gonna pretend like the NYT isn't a quality source. But the original post here makes it seem like there is a detailed discussion about people who are involuntary celebrate as an offline phenomenon. But the bits from the NYT that focus specifically on incels, rather than the suicide site (all of about six paragraphs) is explicitly discussing the topic in the context of the online communities. The OP content on offline incels seems to mostly be that because the article discusses online incels (a term which it never seems to actually use verbatim), it must necessarily be implying that there is a community of offline incels (also a term it doesn't seem to use verbatim).
If we wanna have a discussion about offline incels, I'm all for it. But we've repeatedly found in discussions here that in-depth treatment of offline incels...the sources just don't seem to be there. There doesn't seem to be like any deep examination where like...Jake is a therapist and he started a support group at the local YMCA, where this is a bona fide and independent social phenomenon discussed outside the overarching context of the online subculture. Maybe there's some psychologist or sex therapists busy typing away on their authoritative book on the subject. But it doesn't seem to have seen the light of day quite yet. GMGtalk 13:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GMG, thanks for your input. If WP decides to ignore the framing on incels in a front page NYTimes source + subsequent news cycle, (which is not new on this WP article according to multiple registered users in the talk history of this page re: top-tier sources)
...what do you think about mentioning any part of the news cycle on the community most of this WP article is based off, at all? I can link all the URLs of the December-beginning incel-substory news cycle I found if you want. (but it's in the hundreds at this point so it'd take up quite a few lines ;) ) People weren't waiting even days for previous cycles to be over before adding in stuff the entire duration of this article, and this cycle began a month ago. 68.100.233.100 (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first story uses the word 'incel' verbatim 9 times, and the article follow up uses the word verbatim as well. Contrary to what you said, it uses the phrase "online incels" at least twice. The word incel verbatim and the incel topic is also mentioned in the followup, the Daily and the PBS Television broadcast among many others. It mentions the reddit trajectory of incels.co, (of which most of this WP article is based on but purposefully doesn't name) the incels.co founders names and backgrounds, and the connection incels.co has with sanctionedsuicide, etc. Please, please people read the news articles before commenting on the news articles. Not demanding it, it just makes it easier to have a convo68.100.233.100 (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Month? Shoot. I've been around this article for like the last four years. We've put in a good faith effort to search high and low for sources. I get that lots of people don't think it's fair to associate incels generally with the high profile toxicity that brought the online culture into public view. And yeah, WP:NOTNEWS is a longstanding persistent problem. But as far as we've been able to parse out, this characterization isn't just part of the news cycle; it's the preponderance of coverage in all sources considered. In a God's-eye-view, that probably has a lot to do with what's flashy and exciting. Cover the plane crash, and not the 1,000 flights that landed safely.
But we gotta work with what we got. WP is supposed to be the dispassionate average of all sources. Again, I been around the block. I can Wikipedia with the best of them. But when you're trying to advocate a substantial change to a controversial article with a couple hundred sources, you're in an up-hill battle. Research more; argue less. Personal advice, try to do it in a format like this that suggests specific changes based on specific sources, rather than arguing broad concepts. It tends to be more effective in reaching a compromise if a compromise is to be had. GMGtalk 14:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article was *created* violating WP:NOTNews if you check the history. It's fine if people wait. I'd suggest splitting the article, and will ref dump so people can use it here or in a split. 68.100.233.100 (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You'd do yourself a favor if you suggested specific changes rather than dumping sources, especially if they're being pulled from twitter. And things like "this article is biased" doesn't really count. Looking more for "this sentence should be changed thusly based on that source which says this." And for better or worse, reality intervenes, and I don't know how many if any folks involved in this article are fluent in Spanish. GMGtalk 14:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3 NYtimes, 1 PBS, 3 Uruguay news, New Statesman, Toronto Sun, House.gov, Foreign Policy, (;edit 1 Telemundo), plus more, I'm at a loss at what more would be needed. None of those are Twitter. 2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If that's not enough people here have an agenda and that'd be clear to anyone neutral reading this. 2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but you still need to put on your big kid pants and suggest specific changes based on specific sources if you actually hope to get anything done. GMGtalk 12:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-Dec general incels.co refs

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

Cousineau, L. S. (2020). 4 Sex, power, and controlling bodies.

  • Ong, K. (2020). Ideological Convergence in the Extreme Right. Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses, 12(5), 1-7.

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

  • Forsbacka, J. (2020). Så mycket hat från hjärtat som brister: en kritisk och feministisk online etnografisk undersökning av ett incel-forum.

currently most popular incel-forum in the world, incels.co. --Forsbacka, J. 2020

  • Pelzer, B., Kaati, L., Cohen, K., & Fernquist, J. (2021). Toxic language in online incel communities. SN Social Sciences, 1(8), 1-22.

incels.co is the largest active digital environment for incels with around 11,000 registered members and 3.3 million posts. -Pelzer, B., Kaati, L., Cohen, K., & Fernquist, J. 2021

  • Halpin, M., & Richard, N. (2021). An invitation to analytic abduction. Methods in Psychology, 5, 100052.

incels.co, which has since migrated to incels.is -Halpin, M., & Richard, N. 2021

2600:8806:0:C2:2490:6CD9:B4C7:8273 (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC) updated ref dump 01/04/22[reply]

If you are hoping to see content added to this page, or a new page created about incels.co, I would strongly recommend drafting the changes/page yourself (with references) rather than dumping a long list of sources. The sources list is certainly appreciated, but depends on another editor finding the time to sift through them all and create new content from it; you're certainly welcome to wait and hope that someone does that, but doing it yourself and suggesting it here for discussion (or creating a new draft article, if you are hoping for a standalone article) is more likely to achieve change. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the last Telemundo link appears to be wrong story so I deleted it. Still trying to find where those snippets of what appears to be a TV Telemundo broadcast floating around on Twitter on Facebook regarding SS/Diego could be properly attributed if at all. 2600:8806:0:C2:913:B1D8:3F87:F9AD (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed dates and order of December-January incels.co founder news cycle. Added more incels.co refs, and separated some which list it as the most popular/largest (in 2020 and 2021) and moving to incels.is (2021/2022). I'm almost 100% sure people can find refs detailing move from /r/incels --> incels.me --> incels.co for complete chain, maybe even in a single source, if people want to try to make the full connection. There are more refs for incels.co and the NYTimes Daily chose to quote the incels.co URL, and not quote the sanctionedsuicided URL. Filing this under the "for future editor" option you mentioned for this page, or if anyone decides to do a split anytime in the future. With all the eyes on them and the founders exposed by epik leak and media who chose to use that, I doubt mentioning them is promoting them anymore, as brought up earlier. Thanks, hope this Dec news cycle ref dump and associated incels.co ref dump helps anyone add to this encyclopedia with anything that makes sense to how it's run. 2600:8806:0:C2:2490:6CD9:B4C7:8273 (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy to see you're so enthusiastic in digging up sources. I'm still waiting for the part where we put on the big kid pants and say "This specific change is warranted based on these specific sources because they say this specific thing." This is the standard. GMGtalk 13:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your comment and I apologize for not being the one brave enough to do that here. The parts that make the most sense to me, with the refs available, to add here or to new/another article, though is:
  1. the /r/incels -> incels.co -> incels.is connection chain logic and timeline (depending on if people even want to name incels.is)
  2. the comment that incels.co was the largest the last two years
  3. the commment that the exposure of "a collection of incel forums moved from violence promoting incels on reddit" or "incels.co" reported founders (diego/lamarcus) were exposed by Megan Twohey and Gabriel dance in a 33 page front page NYTimes expose on sanctioned suicide and subsequently reported on internationally, with subsequent congressional scrutiny on Lamarcus and congressional and law enforcement scrutiny on Diego. (Whether or not Wikipedia actually names or otherwise republishes personal info of the founders/operators "Diego & Lamarcus" is unimportant to me, but plenty of articles from reputable news outlets listed their full names, city location, and background).
  4. The comment that Sanctionedsuicide and "a collection of incel forums moved from violence promoting incels on reddit" reportedly shared the same founders ie diego and lamarcus. And just a side note of WP:OR I'll do only once, the front page of the public incels.is forum right now shows users are mailing the US Attourney General and Congress mentioning in a (public) letter pinned to the top of their forum that they are "familiar with many members" of the sanctionedsuicide site, and entitled it, "Re: sanctionedsuicide"
  5. More info on incels.co in general given it's significance both in it's popularity in recent years and because it reportedly shared the same founders/operators (Diego & Lamarcus) of :the /r/incels --> incels.me --> incels.co --> incels.is chain. Talia Lavins book eg gives an actually surprisingly detailed take on it as far as culture, if that's what people prefer to go for. But given it might be too wp:notthnews to add it all now, this is why I'm just leaving sources here for future for seasoned veterans to decide2600:8806:0:C2:2490:6CD9:B4C7:8273 (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Friend, I've got three jobs, two dogs, a cat, a wife, and a little five year old thing that likes to draw on the walls. I ain't gonna do it for you. You're the lawyer for the plaintiff here. Pick one. Make your case. Assume I'm an idiot. These words right here need to be changed to those words right there because of that source that says this.
I can't give a better master class on how to edit Wikipedia. Be specific. If an idiot might wonder whether you're being specific enough, then be more specific. GMGtalk 13:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure he wants an Incels.is article. Can't say i oppose it. @GreenMeansGo: --Trade (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to any suggestion at all on purely principle. Obviously there are plenty of independently notable websites. Depends on whether there's enough sources available to write a bona fide article, which is really what WP:GNG boils down to in practice. GMGtalk 12:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see I'm a bit late to the party. I'm pretty sure that IP user has heavy ties to the incel world and has an agenda to push, 'blackpill incel bad' 'purplepill incel good' 'visit my purplepill website'. I recognize his writing style from RationalWiki.
Now, on the NYT article topic - incels.is (ran by Lamarcus Small and Diego Joaquín Galante) is a major player in the incel-sphere. Following release of the article, members of incels.is wrote a letter to the DOJ regarding the Sanctioned Suicide website, in which they state they were "familiar with many of the members" of the site, and that "Pro-suicide viewpoints are protected by the First Amendment". Ties between sanctioned suicide and incels.is are pretty clear. However, this basically boils down to WP:OR and there are no reliable sources discussing this. https://archive.is/GCKOx https://archive.is/29REU
If reliable sources come out about this in the future, I think it would be worthy of discussion here. Kauri0.o (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In demographics separate antisocial beliefs from psychological profile

Quick googling shows that many well-known people were either celibate, or introverted with few friends and never married. For example, Isaac Newton, Nicola Tesla, Immanuel Kant, Ludwig Van Beethoven, Vincent Van Gogh. I suggest to insert a sentence in the description of demographics to prevent extrapolation of the term on the people who are not incels. "People in the target demographics, i.e. shy, introverted, celibate, with few friends are also historically known for high creativity and scientific or cultural achievement. Therefore a caution should be used while attributing antisocial behavior to particular individuals. Antisocial ideas and beliefs is the main characteristic of incel ideology and not psychological profile or lifestyle." https://www.elitedaily.com/life/famous-successful-virgins/1347908 https://www.readersdigest.co.nz/culture/entertainment/13-famous-people-who-chose-to-stay-single/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.214.59.33 (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about people who are celebate, or who remain virgins; as the first sentence makes clear, it's about an online subculture. I'm pretty confident that none of the people you list were noted for their online activities, so there's very little danger of people thinking that they were members of this subculture. Furthermore, we don't write like that - we don't tell the reader that 'caution should be used'. Girth Summit (blether) 17:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: change title to “Incel (ideology)”.

No person should be identified by sex status, i.e. being celibate or not celibate. Public discussion of sex status of a person should be considered a form of psychological abuse and violation of human rights. Therefore in my opinion this term is derogatory. In different cases the destructive ideology is separated from people who follow this ideology. For example, nazism or jihadism. This emphasizes the fact that a person can change their beliefs. Whether the "incel" is a permanent identity and cannot be changed, or a form of antisocial ideology is not clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.214.59.33 (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is being identified here by whether or not the are celibate. As the first sentence of the lead section makes clear, incels are defined by their involvement in an online subculture. That is what this article describes. Also, there is no need to disambiguate it in the way you suggest because we have no other article called 'Incel (something else)'. (This is discussed at WP:DISAMBIGUATION.) Girth Summit (blether) 18:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please include references and data from publication by Stefan Stijelja

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

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

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

Not everything in the manosphere is misogynist

Ideology - In concext of related communities [[1]]

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

Manosphere article [[2]]

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


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

In fact, the article on Fathers' rights movement[[3]] does not define it as misogynist, which is true.

2003:F9:BF04:3700:D19D:92B6:7BC3:8EAE (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC) Heather[reply]

Actually it is consistent. Fathers'_rights_movement#Movement states "The fathers' rights movement is considered to be a part of the broader manosphere." Unfortunately the movement and any legitimate arguments around fathers' rights have been corrupted by the manosphere.Kauri0.o (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add more pills?

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

Wikipedia articles represent what is already published in reputable sources. If there are published sources that document any of the above themes, feel free to present them. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iconic photo

The article needs a photo to illustrate its subject. I propose that we use a photo of Elliot Rodger. Many people think of Rodger first when using the word incel; the first image on Google when searching 'incel' is of Rodger. In addition, the ADL, a reliable source, has its own encyclopedic entry on incels and also uses a photo of Rodger. I see no reason not to do so ourselves. --TheWikipedian05 (talk) 6:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with this choice, it seems too much to select one person to represent an online subculture. It's also not a great image, it looks like a mugshot. Girth Summit (blether) 06:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree with using this photo this way. I am the exact opposite of an incel and have been happily making love with various women for 52 years, including and most notably my wife of almost 41 years. But the overwhelming majority of guys who identify with this incel group are not guilty of killing six people and injuring many more. It is as if we decided to illustrate our article about Hippies with a portrait of Charles Manson. Not neutral. Cullen328 (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many people think of Rodger first when using the word incel – do we have a reliable source for this statement? Not every article needs a photo to illustrate its subject, and in any case a simple photo of Rodger is incapable of illustrating an abstract concept like "incel"/"involuntary celibacy" and so fails WP:IMAGERELEVANCE. We should also consider whether making a notorious murderer the face of the subculture will serve to amplify a cult of personality around him within said subculture. I've removed the photo in light of these concerns. The article already links to Rodger's bio for those who wish to learn more about him. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Girth Summit and Sangdeboeuf; this article does not need an image, and certainly not this one. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You three make some good points. I looked at other articles dealing with abstract concepts and not all of them feature an iconic photo. It would be unfair to use a photo of one single person to represent an entire subculture. --TheWikipedian05 (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Incel&oldid=1084986300"