Talk:Incel/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

David Berkowitz

I don't think the Son of Sam fits here. There's been lots written about him, including a lot quoted by our article, and it doesn't say anything about involuntary celibacy. The only source that connects him to involuntary celibacy is a very questionable one, and even it doesn't give any reasoning for why it calls him an incel, merely that he hated women, which is not at all the same thing. Hatred of women and involuntary celibacy are barely even correlated, plenty of misogynists have lots of sex, and this very article says that the first person to call herself an involuntary celibate was a woman. We might equally well put Jack the Ripper here. --GRuban (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain how the source is "very questionable"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Sure. Wear Your Voice Mag doesn't have a Wikipedia article, I see no evidence of editorial review, the author is one Sherronda J Brown who has no reputation as a historian that I can see, here is her Patreon where she is appealing for people to give her money and says she "Sherronda J. Brown is creating pop culture and media analysis through a Black feminist lens", which is not really relevant to the Son of Sam. In other words this is just one person's uneducated opinion. The Son of Sam is the subject of some heavy duty historical analysis, not to mention being a living person. And just read the article itself, not a word actually backs up Brown's claim that Berkowitz was involuntarily celibate at all, much less that it was his reasoning for his crimes. He says he killed women for lots of reasons, including that they were whores, that a dog told him to do it, that he was demonically possessed, and that he was part of a Satanic cult. He is not a shy person for giving reasons. But the reasoning that he wasn't getting any sex is conspicuous by its absence. --GRuban (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Yea, that source may be a source for general reference for the term incel, but it's not a source for including Berkowitz as an incel. Dave Dial (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. I've removed that source for now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I think that's a fair critique. "Incel" as a contemporary term and subculture came about only after the rise of online culture, so it makes sense to scrutinize any examples that were pre-Internet. (I see it's been removed now) -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you your Gorillaship. A great injustice was remedied here, think how Berkowitz's reputation could have been irreparably harmed ... his whole life could have been ruined! ;-P --GRuban (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@GRuban: [1] GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Last paragraph in Lede needs a rewrite

The last paragraph in the Lede needs a rewrite:

Incels gained recognition in the 2010s with the creation and subsequent banning of the controversial /r/incels forum on the popular website Reddit, and a number of spree killings committed by self-proclaimed involuntary celibates or people professing similar ideologies. Involuntary celibacy is sometimes attributed to social factors such as an imbalance in the sex ratio, or financial constraints,4 or genetic factors such as inherited unattractiveness.5

There has to be a better source than the second one listed here from Yourtango.com. The 'factors' are perceived, through social awkwardness and/or mental illness. Dave Dial (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Article name

Superseded by the more formal move request below, please comment there. Sandstein 20:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If we focus the article on the subculture, rather than the supposed condition, wouldn't it make more sense to name the article Incels rather than Involuntary celibacy? I assume Incels is also the more widely used term. Sandstein 09:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm planning to expand the article some more. Maybe we should wait and see what the end result looks like. 92.2.72.27 (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Sandstein:, the norm is not to abbreviate, unless/until the abbreviation becomes standard. I don't beleive it is at that stage in usage yet, so my feeling is that it should be unabbreviated throughout. Others are welcome to comment. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
On second thought, I actually support a page move. Go ahead, be bold. 92.2.72.27 (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I am not in favour of a page move. Also, the name should be about the phenomenon, not an abbreviation of the people who identify as it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
But is there a meaningful distinction between the two? What's notable about the topic appears to be the groups and persons who use this label (and their Internet activities and mass killings), rather than the label as such. Sandstein 11:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I think there are arguments for such a move, and arguments against it but this title was pushed through a salt, so it's practically fiat accompli, which begs creating disruption. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
We have White supremacy not White supremacists, we have Pedophilia not Pedophiles. Similarly there is a convention to not use states as nouns - e.g. "person who has schizophrenia" not "schizophrenic" , "doctor who performs abortions" not "abortionist". We try not to tightly define people by attributes.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but if it's decided, this article's topic is sociology, and the common name is incel, - that's a valid argument, too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
So find me an example where the article name is tethered to person with the attribute rather than the condition/trait/whatever itself. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Incel, -- why are you insisting it's a person, when "incel" is a neologism for two words, neither of which are required to be a person (even if it also means a person, the article is about the thing not the person and 'incel' seems the common name of the two-word thing.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. "Incel" is abbreviated jargon that you pretty much have to already experienced to understand; "Involuntary celibacy" is mostly self explanatory, and not so long as to be unmanageable. Our article for Humint is titled Human intelligence (intelligence gathering), which is noticeably longer. --GRuban (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose move; "Incel" is too ambiguous to meet the naming criterion of WP:PRECISION. VQuakr (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support much of this article is linking spree killings with the incel movement. Involuntary celibacy, the condition, does not link closely with spree killings. Incels, the movement, links closely with spree killings. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Undecided but I don't get the argument that "involuntary celibacy" is unambiguous - if you ask most people who have never heard the phrase 'involuntary celibacy', they would tell you 'it's not having sex involuntarily' but this article is not about that, we have other articles about not having sex for multiple reasons, including involuntary reasons. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - When reliable sources use the term "incel" it is almost always quickly identified as meaning "involuntary celibacy." As this article has been framed to be about that concept and not just the culture around it, we should use the full name. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Article should be named "Incel" as it is much more commonly referred to, as shown by Google Trends.[1] Amin (Talk) 16:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, too many people see the word "celibate" and their first thought is "oh, you're part of some religious vow. 2A00:23C0:7801:2501:9565:4FD3:C9D4:3879 (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • 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) 18:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Questions: Are you arguing that 'involuntary celibacy' and 'incel' are both neologisms for the same thing, or are you arguing that they are not both neologisms, or are you arguing they are not the same thing? Why would they not both be the same thing, and thus both neologisms? If they are both neologisms, what argument are you making for choosing one over the other? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Google Trends". Google Trends. Retrieved 2018-04-25.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Online communities section

The Involuntary celibacy#Online communities section seems out of place to me. I agree with whoever placed the tag saying it should be converted back to prose, but it also seems to be a somewhat arbitrary, unordered list of communities—sort of like "if you're looking for an incel community, pick one of these!" Some of them, like /r/incels, love-shy.com, etc. are well covered in reliable sources, but the list of others seems a bit unnecessary. They're mentioned occasionally in various articles, but listing them here seems rather undue. I'll probably go in and convert these to prose/trim the section down in a few hours once I finish up some work, but figured I'd post here in case anyone has any other thoughts on the matter. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

My first reaction was to nuke it from orbit. Unfortunately, I've developed filters since my earlier admin years... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I've taken an initial stab at reworking it. Definitely room for further improvement as I'm just a wikipedia novice. 146.115.172.19 (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Sure looks a lot better than it did! Nice work. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Oh I see... Toronto attack connection. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
Wikipedia is not frozen in time. When the facts change, we change. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Hard Agree with Andrew--Jorm (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

👍 Right on. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
Thanks, Casliber. That about sums up my thoughts as well. Dave Dial (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
👍 Great summary. -- Fuzheado | Talk 04:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
It'd be good to get some more material for the Psychology section. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Open editing is not using your tools to push your content, which is admin abuse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Waste editors' time with pointless bureaucracy? I wouldn't count on it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)

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)

  • 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 [2]. --Holdek (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

@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)
That's because you are using blogs posts you agree with as reliable sources Willwill0415 (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
(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)
I read it, the entire article is undue weight on 4chan and related spaces Willwill0415 (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Please provide sources to support this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • @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)
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)
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)
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)
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: [3]. 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)
See 2 subthreads up here for list of sources which are questionable at best. Willwill0415 (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)
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: [7]. 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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
Hence the misogyny Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Put them all in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Put in all the sources with the varying definitions? Jim Michael (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
"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)

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)

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)
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)
See my comments elsewhere; you need to provide sources for all this stuff. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
Source just got shifted ahead to the next sentence, supports both sentences. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
off topic discussion, with at least one blatant WP:BLP violation]]. Cool it--Jayron32 22:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What? Men don't choose to have sex, only women do? It's just not true. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Not a part of manosphere?

Someone removed that incels are a part of the manosphere. (see [8]) 92.13.136.69 (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Only those incels who are active in the subculture are part of the manosphere. Jim Michael (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
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)

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)

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)
and now there is literally nothing anyone can learn from the wiki Willwill0415 (talk) 07:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

  • Support as porposer. 92.13.136.69 (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This article is about the online subculture. It may be that Chubbuck committed suicide because of her inability to find a romantic/sexual partner, but there's nothing in those sources saying she was involved with the subculture. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
This argument is perhaps more appropriate for the rename discussion above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
@Dave Dial: I think you mean "shouldn't" above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Oops. Fixed. Dave Dial (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
  • Oppose per GW.--Jorm (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
  • Oppose --Placing people into categories because of the personal opinions of editors is not prudent, and against Wikipedia rules. Dave Dial (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)

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)

That's fine with me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I will go ahead and make the change. 92.13.136.69 (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I was not the one who removed the edit—I would wait for broader consensus. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
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)
(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)
  • Okay, so does anybody object to the following edit: here? 92.13.136.69 (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    @Jorm, is there a reason for your objection? 92.13.136.69 (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
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 [9]. 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)

Definition of sexual frustration

A hatnote currently defines sexual frustration as "the topic of people who wish to find a romantic or sexual partner but cannot". Is that a correct definition of sexual frustration? 92.9.151.112 (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

We don't need a hat-note, we have a section on this, and yeah, an unsourced definition. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 07:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
? 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)
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)
"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)
I'd go even further and say that involuntary celibacy is totally distinct from sexual frustration. Sexual frustration does not deal with romanticism - involuntary celibacy does. Also sexual frustration literature largely focuses on sexual dysfunction - involuntary celibacy literature perceives incels as physically healthy. Also the term "frustration" ignores the fact that some incels are content with their inceldom. Also, the first search return on SF is in the context of "couples in long-term relationships" - again, antithesis of incels. 79.67.92.178 (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Some incels are physically healthy; some aren't. Incels by definition are unhappy with their situation - they're celibate but want to be sexually active. Some incels are in relationships in which their partners are withholding sex. Jim Michael (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

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)

When you fixed this problems, what response did you get? --Jayron32 13:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@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)
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)
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)
@Jayron32: No disagreement there, hence why I pointed out the term isn't typically used to discuss sexual frustration. Thank you for clarifying, though, I might not have been quite as clear as I should have. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Blackpill is a subculture, being involuntarily celibate is a life circumstance. There used to be a scholarly artice in here specifically about incels as a *life circumstance*, because the researchers were smart enough to know what being involuntarily celibate meant (Donnolly, Burgess study) but ya'll scrubbed it Willwill0415 (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@Willwill0415: How many times do I have to ask you to provide sources showing "involuntary celibacy" is a common term used to describe folks who aren't in romantic relationships or having sex, despite wanting to? As for the Donnolly article, it was mentioned here, but I believe it was removed per WP:UNDUE. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Psychology

@Willwill0415: I undid your edit that rewrote the psychology section, largely because the wording suggests it is likely to become a recognized condition, which is not supported by sourcing. As for the author of the source used there, calling her a "food writer" is not entirely accurate. Her bio says "Caitlin Dewey is The Washington Post's food policy writer for Wonkblog. She previously covered digital culture and technology for The Post." GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Archives Other Than The Wayback Machine?

Recently looked up "incel" for the first time in a few years, and was frankly horrified to find Wikipedia, of all places, basically implying that I should be shot on sight in self-defense for being a near-middle-age male virgin, due mostly to my lack of social skills from Asperger's syndrome. I understand that some violence-espousing MRAs have hijacked the term, but that's mostly because involuntary celibacy is universally difficult to discuss for lack of understanding, even by those of us who suffer from it. There was at least one online community whose members mostly discussed it rationally; it included female and homosexual incels, and even when misogyny did crop up, it was politely and and logically argued against. People just shared their experiences (or usually total lack thereof) in hopes of finding solutions. I'm sorry if this is against policy, but I have to post this somewhere as a sliver of proof that incelsupport.org (it went through several shutdowns and renames) existed:

http://incel.myonlineplace.org:80/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=36e8507de01bf62d0fecd78629c2b898&f=6

It had its own jargon too, the only traces of which I can find on WrongPlanet.

Vocel: Voluntarily Celibate (counterpart to incel)

Medcel: Someone celibate for medical reasons, including some psychological ones like phobias.

Marcel: Someone trapped in a sexless marriage.

MOTAS: (Member Of The Appropriate Sex) the type of potential sexual partner one would seek for a solution, used to be gender and orientaion-neutral and prevent trolling.

As this site dated back more than a decade, any thorough archive of it would be proof that forums were not "typically associated with hate groups" until this recent movement drowned out any reasonable discussion. Perhaps this mostly applies to the word "incel", but for comparison, see the article on the swastika: believe it or not, three quarters of it addresses its etymology and religious meaning without mentioning Nazis! Bumblevivisector (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bumblevivisector: Sometimes you can find older websites in Google's cache, but the Wayback Machine is usually the best bet for archives like that. However, as has been mentioned many times elsewhere on this page, even if we were able to find an archive of the website, we can't incorporate our own research on these communities into the article. If there are reliable, 3rd-party sources that draw these conclusions, those can be added. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Incel/Archive_1&oldid=845205034"