Talk:Incel

Disputing neutrality

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

Are there specific ways you would change it? Keep in mind that any content should be supported by reliable sources (like NYT or, for some things, SPLC, but not limited to those of course). As the article is just starting, there's still certainly a lot to do. We don't want to be saying that "anyone who can't get a girlfriend [is] a potential shooter", and to be clear this isn't necessarily about people who can't get girlfriends but about this specific neologism and its associated community (not that they're all potential shooters, either). At the same time, we can only cover it to the extent it's covered in reliable sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The easiest method would be a new article for "Involuntary celibacy (ideology)." The way it reads now suggests all incels subscribe to incel "ideology". PUAhate and the like have no doubt contributed to fomenting violence but associating that group, and their violence, with the state of being without a partner is at odds with the origins of the term as described in Terminology and the first half of Definition. Aquinassixthway (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Involuntary celibacy (ideology) or similar seems to me to be the right way to go. This is a tiny minority of men: most men who can't get a girlfriend do not harbour these sorts of sentiments. -- The Anome (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Further to this, the whole 'ideology' is predicated on the belief that extra-marital sex is 'normal.' No doubt it has been normalized in western countries thanks to the sexual revolution, but there are also large religious and other communities who believe that sex outside of marriage is immoral. Put another way, just because some guys can't get laid, and want to, that doesn't mean everyone thinks that they ought to be doing so.198.161.4.63 (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

In my research I did find some interesting discussions of how the communities have formed around ideas that it's "normal" and "masculine" for men to be having a lot of sex — maybe later tonight I'll try to add some of that, it was interesting and I think relevant here. As for people not having sex because of religion, etc., I don't see how that's relevant here—that's more a topic for Celibacy or Sexual abstinence, and they both already discuss it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

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

They have an article too... GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

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

Again, sources please. As for the SPLC, the article does not say that the SPLC added incels to their list of hate groups. It does say they added "male supremacy" as a hate group, which is easily verified by clicking through the references or a simple Google search. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

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

@Epa101: I feel like a broken record. Please provide reliable sources to support your points and they can be worked into the article. This talk page is full of a lot of people who disagree with portions of this article, but who are notably silent when asked to provide sources that show discussion of "involuntary celibacy" outside of the violent subculture is any kind of significant viewpoint rather than just a rarely-used term for sexual frustration. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Epa101: First, just about everyone that is Celibate is involuntarily so. Meaning, very few would pass up a chance for sex under the right circumstance with a desirable partner. You are describing a symptom, not a condition. Those trying to make the symptom a condition are doing a great disservice to those affected by the various conditions that lead to that symptom. If people identify with the online subculture, then they are part of that culture. You see, we do have articles on ISIS, Al Qaeda, the KKK and Nazis. What you are basically saying is that a white person can say, "Hey, I'm white, why have an article on the KKK & Nazis? Are you calling me a Nazi?" --Well no. But if you identify with Nazis, post on their message boards, defend them, then you're probably a Nazi. Reliable sources detail how the online subculture has promoted rape, violence and hate towards women. And men who have sex with women. That's what the article is based on. There is a difference between Sexual frustration, Erectile dysfunction, a Sexless marriage and taking those conditions into the online subculture for grievances rather than seeking the proper treatments. One way leads to help, the other to Sociopathy. Dave Dial (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not a fair comparison, because none of our articles state or imply that a high proportion of Muslims are terrorists or white people neo-Nazis. Not only are most incels not part of the subculture, not all those who are part of it are misogynist or violent. An animal rights forum would likely attract a tiny minority of extremists who advocate breaking into laboratories and releasing the animals, but that doesn't mean that mainstream animal rights activism has that as one of its aims. Jim Michael (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Nor does this article state or imply that a high number of people who are celibate (whether by choice or otherwise) are members of the "involuntary celibacy" subcommunity. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The whole article is just a mess and only English version of it. Russian, Japanese or Chinese versions refer to the term just as a synonym for "love shy" and relate it with NEETdom. It's politicization by people from certain communities is just astonishing. And chosen RSes are very specific, like bunch of people thinking the Earth is flat has gathered in the same place and are promoting only their quite specific world view. Please, stop mixing a social phenomenon of a person unable to find a sexual partner with mass murderers or anything similar. And how "involuntary" can even be considered part of an "ideology"? Ivan Dolvichev (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ivan Dolvichev: Please provide your reliable sources supporting changes to this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ivan Dolvichev: Also, I'm curious, did someone post this article somewhere asking for folks to come give their thoughts on the talk page? I've just noticed a bunch of folks such as yourself who haven't edited before showing up on this talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: If you feel like a broken record, then stop saying the same thing all the time. The burden is on you - not me - to provide reliable sources. Wikipedia's policy that you highlighted is that, if there are no reliable sources, then there should be no article. There are no reliable sources for the claim that involuntary celibate people are terrorists and misogynists, so you should not say this. There is only one academic reference in this article. Most of the references are either from unreliable sources, such as The Atlantic or the New York Post, or from comment pieces that offer a subjective opinion. I did also provide sources for the argument that I was making. I said that the article for Muslim doesn't reference ISIL and that the article for Christian doesn't reference the UVF. Maybe if you're not British or Irish, you don't know what the UVF is, but they killed a lot of people in the name of Protestant Christianity. Epa101 (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Epa101: The article as it stands now is well-cited. However, you and others are suggesting changes without providing reliable sources to support them. The burden, as you said, is on you for that.

The article does not say involuntarily celibate people are terrorists (although some of the sources do: [1], [2] at a glance, would have to re-read others to find which say it in the article body). For "misogyny," all you have to do is scroll down to the references section and ctrl-f "misogyn"—it lights up like a Christmas tree with sources saying that the incel subculture is characterized by misogyny. As for the sources, The Atlantic is widely considered reliable at WP:RSN. You're right that The New York Post is iffier (it can be sensationalist, for sure). However, the one instance in this article where it's used as a reference, it is paired with another reference to The Guardian.

As for your point about academic sources, I've discussed that in a few places on this page. The very few academic sources I have found that mention "involuntary celibacy" are discussing sexual frustration, sexual abstinence, and loneliness. They are few and far between compared to the body of research I've seen discussing those phenomena, which is why I don't believe it makes sense to expand this article to try to discuss involuntary celibacy as more than a subculture. As for academic sources that discuss the subculture, feel free to add any you might have access to. I've found a couple that look like they might discuss it, but as I'm no longer in college, I no longer have access to the academic databases that would let me read them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I accept that you are trying to see my perspective on this. I feel that many of the sources currently in the article would struggle to stand up on the WP:RSN, where they seem fairly tough on fact-checking. It is now 12:21am here but I shall work through the sources tomorrow and, if I feel that the sources are not sufficiently robust to justify the claim, refer them to the WP:RSN. Epa101 (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Would appreciate a ping to those conversations just so I can follow along, but I'll keep an eye out. As a quick note, if you edit a comment to add a ping, you need to re-add the ~~~~ signature or it won't actually notify the person. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dave Dial: I think that your logic is flawed here. If the article for being White had lengthy sections on being a neo-Nazi, then that would be wrong - but it only mentions Nazism very briefly. Having a separate article is fine. I see that there is an article for the Reddit incel group that got deleted, and that is fine. What is not fine is implying that all involuntary celibate people are terrorists or misogynists. That is akin to claiming that all Muslims are Islamist terrorists or that all Christians are like Ian Paisley. Epa101 (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. There are no "Involuntary celibate" people outside of the subculture. And that is what this article is about, the subculture. And reliable sources state clearly that the subculture is misogynist, hostile & can be violent. We reflect what the reliable sources state. People not in the subculture that you, and others, want to label as "involuntary celibate", are not. You, and some other editors here, are not reliable sources. Dave Dial (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please state your reliable sources. You've made some rather bold claims there, and they require very good sources. Epa101 (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Just by a quick look on Google Scholar, I have identified academic sources on the topic: 1, 2, 3, 4. I suggest that the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources that is quoted above supports this sort of study rather than the references that are in the article currently. I hope to read these academic articles and add to the Wikipedia article when I have time, but I stand by my point that associations of being involuntary celibate and terrorism/misogyny cannot be justified by a few web links to sources that are not exactly known for robust academic research any more than we would permit referencing Fox News to associate Islam with terrorism. Epa101 (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

All four of those links point to what Denise Donnelly wrote in one of her studies. That has been discussed over and over and over again. Read the last AfD of the article. It has been proven that we already have several articles covering the basic conditions that lead to being celibate, either voluntary or involuntary. If you don't read the AfD and probably the previous AfDs too, you will continue to be confused and not understand you are just tilting at windmills with your claims there is some other thing called "Involuntary celibacy" not included in the onlince subculture. Dave Dial (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

There are certainly many involuntarily celibate people outside the subculture and I disagree with this article being restricted to the subculture. It would be like saying that all motorcyclists are in motorcycle clubs. Some people in the subculture are misogynist, violent etc. - but not everyone within it is. Jim Michael (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

That's well and good that you disagree, but without reliable sources supporting that "involuntary celibacy" is a notable phenomenon outside the subculture, it's irrelevant. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dave Dial: @GorillaWarfare: I have now posted my thoughts in full on the WP:RSN noticeboard. You are invited to share your thoughts there. I have also suggested making use of this source as a less sensationalist description of the online incel community, written before the tragic events in Toronto. Epa101 (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC) @Dave Dial: Separately, you seem to be saying that this article is just about the online incel movement. I understand more what you're saying now, although I would still question whether a glut of media coverage (questionable sources) in the last month should redefine words that have been in our respected dictionaries (reliable sources) for centuries. If this article is to focus on the online movement, then I would be in favour of renaming the article. Epa101 (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Epa101: Thanks for the ping! I'll go read through that section in a moment. Regarding the Psychology Today article you're suggesting, I was actually using that and another article by that author until it was pointed out to me elsewhere on this talk page that those are both blog posts (see the URL, or click through on the section of the website). As for your comment on media sources, media sources are widely used as reliable sources throughout Wikipedia—if you want that to change it'll require quite the discussion. Regarding redefining words, I'm not aware of any dictionary that includes the term "involuntary celibacy", but regardless, Wiktionary is the place for cut-and-dried definitions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: No responses yet. I struggle to understand how reliable media sources are agreed upon on Wikipedia. To my knowledge, the only mass-media source that is banned completely is the Daily Mail. I agree that the Daily Mail is sensationalist and very selective with its facts, but it is not the only one. It is not obvious to me when a mass-media source is acceptable or not, and it seems to me that this is not applied consistently across Wikipedia. If you tried to use similar sources to edit an article on Islam or clinical depression or zoology, I think that you would get reverted swiftly. On the dictionary point, your statement that "involuntary celibacy" is not in the dictionary would suggest that the sole definition of it promoted by Dave Dial is not widely accepted by reliable sources. As you say, we do not define words on Wikipedia, but I would vote in favour of renaming the article. Epa101 (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Epa101: Typically, any established news source that has an editorial board and a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is usable (with the caveat that we can't use writings that aren't subject to this fact-checking, like opinion pieces, blog posts, or user-submitted content). That is obviously a bit vague, so when a source comes into question that's where the RSN comes in. I'm surprised no one has commented there yet—hopefully they will with a bit more time. The Daily Mail situation was an unusual one, and I was surprised to see a formal ban put into place. Usually it's enough to agree that a source is unreliable, and remove instances where it's used—I think the Daily Mail decision was probably because it's such a well-known and prolific publication that it was being used very frequently.

I disagree with your conclusion on the dictionary thing. Dictionaries are typically not in the business of adding terms for subcultures—I doubt Merriam-Webster has entries for juggalos or rivetheads—but that doesn't mean the subcultures don't exist or can't be accurately defined.

Regarding Islam, clinical depression, and zoology—you're right that these types of sources would be inappropriate to use for clinical depression, but that's because of WP:MEDRS, which requires a higher standard for sources discussing medical topics. Islam and zoology are widely covered in exceptionally high-quality sources (peer-reviewed journals, etc.) and so those tend to be preferred when they're available, but take a look at the reference section of Islam and you'll also see The Guardian, BBC News, The New York Times, and other sources like the ones used here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 25 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per consensus to Incel. It is clear through consensus here that while perhaps an article could be written about people in general who desire to have sex but fail to consummate those wishes, this article is decidedly not about that topic. It's about the community of men whom our reliable sources actually write about. I should note that there is a strong consensus against making this article (post-move) about involuntary celibacy in general; again, consensus here is that the article is actually about the subculture. I therefore judge the consensus to dictate the following: the article, having moved to incel, is to include only basic contextualization of the broader idea of "involuntary celibacy" in the literal sense, and if there's enough meat to support more information about the literal sense of people celibate when they'd rather not be (which is an open question), then the proper response would be to make a stand-alone article back at involuntary celibacy that only lightly touches on the incel movement. It is worth noting that this article will, according to the consensus I see here (which can change, obviously!), still be about the ideology/movement, not the people - see the first sentence of the move request, which mentions a "specific ideology". (non-admin closure) Red Slash 12:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

---

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

• (edit conflict)Support alternate move To incel as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Replace the disambiguation page with a hatnote._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:20, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That might also be a reasonable alternative. -- The Anome (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that "involuntary celibacy" is a potentially misleading term, though. Since "celibacy" is abstaining from sex on purpose, the phrase is an oxymoron. However, "incel" is the WP:COMMONNAME which is why I support a move._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Making it clear that this doesn't imply to all men who can't get girlfriends is a job for the lede and body of the article, not a parenthetical note in the title. Moving the article to incel would be a better approach (it's already discussed above though). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: Based on the discussion above, I've updated the move request above to move this to incel (move target was formerly Involuntary celibacy (ideology)) -- The Anome (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Updated to a no-vote, then; I think the current title is fine but "incel" is an all right alternative if people prefer that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support. The notability of the topic derives from the specific "Incel" online subculture and its associated ideologies and/or mass killings, which is what sources cover, not the abstract concept of being involuntarily celibate. Sandstein 20:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

You have captured the heart of the argument I think, and I can see how it unfortunately cuts both ways. That seems evidence enough for a new, unambiguous entry. Aquinassixthway (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Support I support this article to be renamed to "Incel". We can add a hatnote to the Incel disambiguation page. Amin (Talk) 20:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is the name of the situation; "incel" is a contraction of the idea. Incel is a disambiguation page and that's fine to point to this. I don't think that we need an "ideology" page beyond this; there's no need for one and anything important "some entitled dudes hold ideology x,y, and z" is a sub-paragraph. --Jorm (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully, you have not responded to my argument in the section above and your reasons are "because I said so." The involuntarily celibate, incels, are by and large NOT associated with the movement represented by Elliot Rodger or his copycats, but these are the bulk of the article and what should be a psychological subject is painted with the brush of mental illness or threat to public safety. Aquinassixthway (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Meh. I think "involuntary celibacy" is a clearer title for those who don't already know what the abbreviated term means. Pretty much all the sources use both terms. I think the potential that people will be misled by the term is being a bit overblown—I don't think people outside of the incel communities who fit the technical definition tend to think of themselves as "involuntarily celibate" any more than I tend to think of myself as "voluntarily non-celibate". That said, I don't think it much matters where the article ends up as long as redirects and disambiguation are handled properly. My only opposition would be moving it to Involuntary celibacy (ideology) or similar as was previously suggested—this is the primary topic. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

  To clarify further, given some of the other discussion, my vote is either oppose the move, or support with the condition that [[Involuntary celibacy]] is redirected to this article and protected. No strong preference between the two. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• conditional support - what is this article about? I support a rename if it is exclusively about the subculture and associated concepts. That would mean ditching other usage of the term (for example, "Involuntary celibacy is sometimes attributed to social factors, such as an imbalance in the sex ratio or financial constraints,[2] or genetic factors, such as inherited unattractiveness.[3]"). That makes sense. If it's about something in addition to the subculture (as it is now, duplicating topics we already cover under different names) then oppose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• We have already stated and proved in the AfDs that there is no such thing, outside of the subculture, as Involuntary celibacy. As GW said, people don't consider themselves that any more than people who have sex consider themselves as voluntary non-celibate. We have other articles for the other meanings, such as Sexual frustration. Which was also pointed out in the Afds. So no need to move the article, this is the primary topic and common name. Dave Dial (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• I understand. Nonetheless, at every stage of every version of the article including this one it has reached out to other ~"official" treatments of the term. So I suppose that should be removed regardless. Fine with me. To the more immediate point, I opposed in the section above but on reflection I think incel may make it much clearer that we're not talking about a real thing outside of this subculture. I.e. it could not be mistaken for a concept that extends beyond that community. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Meh. Covering the incel movement seems to be the only reason to have the article, but since the name has to be explained either way, it's fine where it is. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support renaming to "Incel". Perhaps the majority of non-sexually-active humans could be described as "involuntarily celibate" but are not "incels". Meanwhile, incels themselves and anybody talking about them use the term "incel", not "involuntarily celibate". As for the general concept of involuntary celibacy, I don't think there's any need for an article about the concept of not being sexually active but wanting to be. --ChiveFungi (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

There's an article for that already: sexual frustration. -- The Anome (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons outlined above. We almost always keep a title at the phenomenon, not people with the phenomenon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose-- If the term is only a neologism, there shouldn't be an article for it. If it is used in sources(and the full name definitely is), that the full name should be used. There are more than enough reliable sources for the full name. And we aren't Reddit or 4chan, or even Wiktionary. Dave Dial (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support For the reasons stated by The Anome. The article's current title involuntary celibacy should reflect the concept as it applies to all humankind. The loose online community known as incels, as perceived lately by publications, are something else. Aquinassixthway (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

  Disagree here. From what I can tell, the term really isn't used outside of discussing these communities. It would be extremely difficult (probably impossible) to find sourcing on it as an actual phenomenon. The research that does exist should live in Celibacy or Sexual frustration, not its own article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Per the #Lead sentence section below, the term is not used solely to refer to online communities. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Probably should have put "widely" in there, above. But per the #Lead sentence section below, I've not seen that to be the case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose we tend to name cultural phenomena (broadly speaking) after the concept rather than the people who hold that belief, where such name differs, except in cases where the two could support stand-alone articles of sufficient difference and depth. In this case, 1) I couldn't see the people as needing a distinct article that wouldn't essentially duplicate the concept and 2) the article is more properly located at the phenomenon, given the standard way these things are usually done. --Jayron32 23:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

  Support now. I've been following this discussion for a week, and I am becoming convinced that "incel" is the common name. --Jayron32 01:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - playing with current media interest - wikipedia article titles I thought were encyclopediac not media acronyms JarrahTree 00:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, the media did not coin this term. As is stated on the actual page, it was used in online communities prior to its use in media. 2607:FEA8:BD9F:EE95:D987:3C96:AAAF:65F1 (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support WP:COMMONNAME and would avoid misleading readers into thinking this is an actual condition. feminist (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support The two ideas are clearly distinct, as one has a more neutral ideology to it and the other is an online subculture 2607:FEA8:BD9F:EE95:D987:3C96:AAAF:65F1 (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support Makes it clear it is about the subculture (for editors too). Also appears to be WP:COMMONNAME Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

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

• • • Oppose, I changed my mind, from the comments below it seems that lots of people are going to gut this article and convert it into a "4chan/black pill" page if there's a name change. 92.2.72.27 (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support and possibly rename to Incel (subculture), Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs), DGG (talk · contribs) and Sandstein (talk · contribs) are correct. Involuntary celibacy is a historic and and academic subject which primarily references the topic stored in my sandbox. This iteration of incel only covers the violent fringe subculture which originated from MRA groups and spread to reddit, not the historic topic. My reason for a title change is the opposite of feminist (talk · contribs)'s rationale, but surprisingly we are on the same side. Involuntary celibacy is a academic social subject, this version covers only the fringe group and should be titled accordingly. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

  Maybe DGG and Sandstein can clarify here, but I don't think you're accurately summarizing their opinions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

  Indeed. I said that there are two related subjects that probably cannot becovered in a single article. The one of the movement will be easier to write, but the one of the more general concept is of considerable importance also. DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title is clear, recognisable, and scholarly. The proposed is abbreviated slang. The self-identifying “Incel” communities are not individually notable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

"The self-identifying “Incel” communities are not individually notable." A large body of news articles published about "incel" communities says otherwise Amin (Talk) 22:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Give an example of one then. I expect we’ll find it is just mentions establishing existence, not actually coverage of the community. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Over 150K results on Google News for incel. Amin (Talk) 23:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

And as I said, from the top "Incel is short for “involuntarily celibate," and each story is about the general phenomenon, and never of any depth about any single community with reliably sourced self-identification as "incel"s. Involuntarily celibacy is a broad phenomenon that features unhappy informal ostly-online communities who self-label as incels. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, there is coverage of individual incel communities, which I added to the article. Also, the distinctions between individual incel communities is important for an article about inceldom or involuntary celibacy, whatever we decide to name it.

• Support, involuntary celibacy isn't notable (as established in previous deletion discussions); the fringe subculture is, however (as of recently). Kaldari (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Kaldari: I agree with your comment 100%, but also don't see why it should be moved to Incel. Can you elaborate? GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @GorillaWarfare: "Incel" (or "incel movement") seems to be the most common term used when discussing the subculture.[3][4][5] Also "involuntary celibacy" has too broad a scope. We are interested in reporting on the subculture, not the condition. Kaldari (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Are we trying to change a page that people have been trying to take down since 2006 because of sensationalizing related to a singular event? A move to incel would further this page's degradation from an unbiased look at a specific and important phenomenon to a big long complaint about 4chan related spaces. But agree with the general rationale, just not the naming or moving. Thing is that "incel" is not an ideology, the blackpill is. Incel is just short for involuntary celibacy. Love-shy.net does not advocate the blackpill but uses the term 'incel'. Incels.me does advocate the term blackpill. It is dependent on the community involved. I moved the blackpill forums under one section in the article. You are basically arguing for blackpill ideology to be it's own article, which is fine, but please keep this article existing and titled as it is. Involuntary celibacy also does not apply to such a large swatch of people as to be meaningless or not worth having it's own article, as in my estimation about 5-10% of the adult US population based on how many adults have had any sexual contact in e.g. the US. Take a look at the "Never had contact with the opposite sex in the last 12 months" columns by age here: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf Willwill0415 (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

  That source does not mention "involuntary celibacy" or "incel" anywhere. Would probably be a great addition to celibacy or sexual frustration, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Rather obviously oppose - proposed alternate title does not adequately meet WP:UCRN or WP:PRECISION. I see no evidence that there is consensus that the scope of this article is limited to the 4chan aspect of the subject, or that the neologism that is the proposed move location passes the WP:TYT. VQuakr (talk) 04:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unless or until, possibly in the wake of Toronto, the terms "involuntary celibacy" / "incel" gain the potential of engendering two separate articles with sufficient non-duplicating content for each concept, incel / incels should redirect to involuntary celibacy, rather than the other way around.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support Move to Incel. Persuaded that the common-name/primary topic argument supports "incel" as the title. (see, Google trends showing international heads above for 'incel', also as of this writing 'incel' is used like twice as much in our article - in particular, 'incel' is used throughout the sources section of our article). The arguments against are unpersuasive. It's claimed that "involuntary celibacy" is unambiguous, which makes little sense, given that according to the article, "involuntary celibacy", is a neologism that was created at the same time and regularly used synonymously with "incel" for the past almost 25 years - and when we have synonyms, we choose the one more common for title (here, 'incel'). It's somehow claimed "involuntary celibacy" is more encyclopedic, which is unsupported, and appears untrue, because while we do have RS encyclopedia that mention "involuntary celibacy", at the same time they mention "incel", they do not do it in encyclopedia title, they do it in articles entitled something else, entirely (which is part of the reason we previously covered this in other articles) so the 'more encyclopedic' claim has to be rejected. It's claimed that 'incel' is somehow personal, but 'incel' is, at the least, a thing, too, and it's the thing (and the persons who claim it) that are covered here, so 'incel' is the title that is best supported by policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't stand the Google Trends comparisons given as a reason for a page move. It's been proven that sources refer to the subject as both involuntary celibacy & incels. We, usually, prefer to have the correct descriptive name. As seen in the Google Trends for ISIS, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria & Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIS or ISIL have far more searches than the longer, full names. Yet our article is at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, not ISIS or ISIL. Dave Dial (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's good then that we don't choose titles based on what you can't stand -- why you prefer one neoligism over another makes little sense but personal like or dislike is not how we decide - we choose based on what's most common and ordinary and the topic, all of which points to incel, which the very reliable sources section of this article demonstrates (20 references to incel, 3 references to 'involuntary [something]'. You think this topic is encyclopedic? Then its primary and common name is 'Incel'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

As Alanscottwalker (talk · contribs) correctly shows the current article is about the subculture Incel, not the historic topic which has over a 100 years of research. In the early 20th century the sociological topic was called Involuntary sexual abstinence. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You keep pretending that's true, Valoem. It was decided by the community and a three admin panel that your arguments didn't hold water. Be sure that even if this article was moved, we would not be moving your pet project here. Dave Dial (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not true, almost every source that mentions incels also mentions involuntary celibacy. We don't decide common names by headlines of sources. Wikipedia prefers the descriptive name, not a contraction or shortening of the name. We have Coup d'état, not coup, Oprah Winfrey not Oprah and Franklin D. Roosevelt, not FDR. So it's not because 'I do not like it', it's because it doesn't effect the naming of the article. Google trends, that is. Dave Dial (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Also Alan, as you can see by Valoem's post here and his comment on another editors page(trying to get him to support a move), he and some others support a page move so they can create the old article here that was deleted. Dave Dial (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I am informing an editor of a possible error. Multiple discussions regarding this subject have appears on talk pages. As you should know I believe the deletion of the original article is still incorrect. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why I should care what Volem is doing, probebely if he tries to create an article, he will again be told it's not a stand-alone encyclopeidc topic, just like the RS encyclopedias don't treat it as a stand alone encyclopedia topic. As for your claim, that what matters is incel is in RS titles, that would just make incel title material, and the common-name and primary-topic. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - creating articles for made up words, simply normalizes these misogynistic terrorists. Perhaps a better article title would be Misogynists or simply redirect this entire article to a short section in Misogyny. The New York Times is pretty clear that Incels are misogynists who are deeply suspicious and disparaging of women. So it's pretty clear that we have sources showing it's a subset of misogynists. Nfitz (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Most incels aren't terrorists or misogynists. Most terrorists and misogynists aren't incels. Jim Michael (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think "involuntary celibacy" are not made-up words in this topic (see, neologism a phrase), when they are? And in fact, words attempting to normalize? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The sources I've seen User:Jim Michael do use incel as a subset of misogynist - even the foreign media, as I linked above. Terrorist is perhaps a bridge too far I'l admit - though the comments I've seen from women, sound like the views of these misogynists do terrorize them - so who knows, but I haven't really searched for a source for that. Alternatively, do you have a source that indicates that those who identify using this term aren't generally misogynists? Nfitz (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Not all incels self-identify as such, because it will make them even more unpopular and hated - more so now that ever. This article is about involuntary celibacy, not restricted to those who self-identify as such. Most aren't activists, don't use violence and aren't part of a subculture or related organisations. The recent sources will disproportionately link them mith misogyny, violence because a) the media like to sensationalise to gain viewers/readers and because a high proportion are in relation to the reporting of the Toronto van attack. Being involuntarily celibate doesn't necessarily lead to violence, hatred etc. The fact there are so few incel-related attacks - despite there being millions of incels - shows that only a tiny minority of them are involved in such things. Jim Michael (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think anyone who does not identify as an incel is an incel? Are you going to go around telling people, you're an incel or an involuntary celibate, whether you like it or not? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah incels are almost entirely misogynistic; they generally hate all women for supposedly denying them , per the sources too. However indeed as Alanscottwalker says, both involuntary celibate and incel are neologisms, so this isn't really pertinent to the move. It'd be way too undue for misogyny , and I don't see having an article on the topic overtly normalizes them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You are confused @Jim Michael:, this article is most definitely about the subculture. There is no "Involuntary celibacy" people who do not identify with the subculture. At least not any of any notability. That notion was proven several times, most recently in this AfD. So we aren't dealing with some made up condition that doesn't exit outside of the subculture that claims it does. Dave Dial (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not confused. The article is called involuntary celibacy, not incel subculture, so it should cover the condition, not merely the subculture. I know for certain that there are incels who aren't part of the subculture, because I've heard what some of them have said (both in person and online) and they weren't part of any subculture, group etc. The condition isn't made up - I've heard people be suicidal over being involuntarily celibate. They weren't violent, didn't express hatred and didn't want revenge - they just wanted normal sex lives. They had no paraphilias and didn't want any rape, vehicle-ramming attacks etc. against anyone. I added food critic Wilkes McDermid as a case of suicide of an apparent incel - and there's no indication that he was part of any subculture. Jim Michael (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You think you know why people want to commit suicide or do commit suicide? Really? It appears you claim to know cause and effect that there is no way, you can know. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I've heard incels say that they are suicidal because they can't get sex with women. I've no reason to think they aren't telling the truth. Jim Michael (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You've heard? So, those who identify as incels are suicidal but that would still not mean 'can't get sex' causes suicide or suicidal thoughts. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

They've explicitly stated that they are suicidal because they can't get sex. Jim Michael (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Psychiatric analyzing over the internet is bogus. The factors for suicide and suicidal ideation are multiple, and again you have no idea of cause and effect. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure the point of these comments. I provided a source. None of the rest you have. Please provide one, or take this somewhere else. Nfitz (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support per Rhodoendrites, and make clear this is about a particular ideology.--Pharos (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Why restrict the scope of the article to an ideology? Many incels are nothing to do with that, and their don't all have shared goals. The ideology, subculture etc. can be in sections of the article. Jim Michael (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The ideology is notable enough for its own article. Sexual frustration in general can be explained in that article. If this article was just about sexually frustrated people, then it would overlap and have to be merged._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Besides the black pill ideology is already just a single section. The remainder ideology fixation is supported throughout the article and the sources, even the academic study shows that the important thing is self-identification as incel - the ideology of self, here, is involuntary celebacy/incel. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

There are millions of sexually frustrated people who aren't incels; incels are a subset of the sexually frustrated. There are many instances of WP articles overlapping, so that's not a reason to restrict the article to the subculture. Self-identifying as an incel doesn't mean that a person has an ideology or is part of a subculture - it merely means that he acknowledges his problem. Jim Michael (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

That is an ideology of self, he can make it a self-problem or not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Not being able to get sex with women isn't an ideology - it's a problem. Some incels develop or join an ideology, but being an involuntarily celibate isn't an ideology. Jim Michael (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

And there is an ideology: "not being able to get sex with women isn't an ideology - it's a problem" It's a problem because that is the ideology. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I take it that you're implying that involuntary celibacy isn't real. Jim Michael (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not real as a term outside of the people who identify as part of the incel ideology. Yes, there are people to whom those words could apply that aren't part of the ideology, but we don't actually call them that. It's exactly the same way that probably most people are generally not in favor of fascism, but we don't say that most of the population is part of Antifa. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a good analogy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Being in Antifa means being an activist. Being an incel doesn't, although a minority of them are. I'm talking about all incels, not just those who play a part in the incel community. That's why I think that the article should cover involuntary celibacy in general. If the article is to be about the incel community only, then the article title should be changed accordingly - otherwise it implies that all incels are part of the incel community. Jim Michael (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "involuntary celibacy" outside of the community. If someone doesn't identify as that, they are just sexually frustrated and hostile toward women. It's a neologism created by a community, not a scientific term, so it shouldn't be used as a catch-all._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

How about those who do identify as incels, but aren't part of the community/subculture? They're not merely sexually frustrated - they've tried for years to get sex and have always failed - hence they're involuntarily celibate. Sexually frustrated people include those who are impotent, ejaculate prematurely, or not getting sex as frequently as they want to. Jim Michael (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

If they buy into the self-identification as an involuntary celibate they have bought into the ideology of involuntary celibacy/incel - they have specifically made their claim that they are unable to volunteer, having conceded their agency to their ideology. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Almost all the coverage we have uses that term for the subculture, which is the only aspect with sufficient coverage to justify an article. --Aquillion (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support as reliable sources such as this article in Psychology Today cite incel as the common or real name, ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 07:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per discussion and obvious understandable title. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

By your logic we'd have to rename BBC to British Broadcasting Company. Incel is the correct WP:COMMONNAME. Amin (Talk) 17:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support the article is about the "subculture", which is more commonly known by the abbreviated term. It's possible to imagine there being a separate article about "involuntary celibacy" as an descriptive anthropological term (perhaps also discussing people forced into joining the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages or something), but that's not what this article is currently about. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support "Involuntary celibacy" has clearly been the cause of a fair amount of confusion, with commenters here and elsewhere mistakenly assuming this is simply about people who would like to have sex but cannot find partners. "Incel" specifically refers to the community and ideology being discussed in the article and is (slightly) less prone to this misunderstanding. Moreover, it is clearly this community's primary identity.

Move Request Administrator Comments

• Administrator's comment: I was considering closing this RM, but there are a few things that bear clarification here. Valoem has material in their sandbox here that suggests the concept of "involuntary celibacy" may be notable outside the subculture that is mostly discussed here. If that's the case, then it makes sense for the present title involuntary celibacy to be kept as an article (either an expanded on covering both general involuntary celibacy and the "incel" culture, or two separate articles, with present history moved to incel). Can others weigh in on that?--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure. First the article research you link does not actually support that, it says: "Modern involuntary sexual abstinence has coined the neologism involuntary celibacy and has grown into a small subculture associated mostly with men,[25] misogyny, and pickup artistry which has been criticized for objectifying women as "brainless automatons".[26] The term distinguishes between "incel", men actively attempting to engage with women, but are constantly rejected, and "love shyness", men too shy to engage.[27]"

Second, as has been noted, we are not a dictionary, talking about terms, we cover the issues concerning sexual abstinence at its common name and quite logical name sexual frustration, or at its common and logical name sexual abstinence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• (ec) Involuntary celibacy should be a protected redirect to this article after it is moved to Incel. Numerous AfDs have determined that the concept of "involuntary celibacy" in general is not notable and/or already covered in existing articles such as sexual frustration. That has not changed. Only the Internet subculture using this label for themselves has now become notable after media coverage in the wake of mass killings. Sandstein 14:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• I disagree with the above reply by Sandstein. The terms "frustration" and "deprivation" are not synonymous. If the article sexual frustration was titled "sexual deprivation", "sexlessness" or "sexual inactivity", you might have a point. However, what you are currently arguing for is akin to saying that the article homelessness should be deleted because the article poverty exists. Sexual frustration for example includes the topic of "delayed ejaculation" which is usually associated with people who have very active sex lives, i.e. the antithesis of incel. I personally think that the topic of "sexual frustration" and involuntary celibacy" are oxymoronic to one another - completely different. 79.67.92.178 (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No. "Sexual frustration" completely and in context covers the topic -- we are not to make particularized POV forks from established common topics like sexual frustration, let alone based on what you personally believe. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that state the non-subculture topic of involuntary celibacy and sexual frustration overlap? Furthermore, sexual frustratin concerns itself only with sexuality - involuntary celibacy does not. For example involuntary celibacy also conerns itself with romantic validation (source). So, do sources exist that sexual frustration concerns itself with romanticism? 79.67.92.178 (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, we do not want a POV fork of loneliness because it's common and logical to discuss the issues of loneliness there. At least you seem to now concede "sexual frustration" has a plethora of sources on these desires you want to cover and "physical, mental, emotional, social, or religious/spiritual barriers." Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• That has been discussed and decided. If by some outrageous chance this MR is not decided by the obvious "no consensus for move"(which it, taken with the previous closed request hours before this one was opened that has been archived, should be), then moving a deleted & salted article here should be a blockable offense. Dave Dial (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

There's no reason to allude to blocking people here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with that, and it should be prominent that supervoting a 3 admin AfD that was Delet & Salt should be a blockable offense. BD2412 just relisted the MR yesterday, and the "Administrator's comment" you made as an administrator seems premature and poisoning the well. Dave Dial (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC) Making comment less aggressive Dave Dial (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply I believe that Cuchullain's comment was entirely logical. The precedent on Wikipedia seems to be that culture and associated demographics can be grouped together in one article - see for example Arabs, and sometimes they are separated. Totally ordinary sentiment given by Cuchullain. That 2015 article was written by an novice and plenty of new sources since 2015 are available. 79.67.92.178 (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about by "poisoning the well". Just as this was relisted, I was considering closing the discussion as no consensus. Considering there hadn't been new comments in several days, it seemed unlikely that a different outcome would occur without further comments, despite the fact that there's clear confusion as to what the article is or should be about in comments both sides. There are participants on either side who expressed that "involuntary celibacy" should cover "love shyness" in general rather than the involuntary celibacy/"incel" subculture, and that it's a (potentially) viable article topic. If that's the case, it's worth clarifying. If it's not the case, then at least it would be clearer to participants that we're only discussing which title an article on the subculture should be located. A no consensus close wouldn't resolve that underlying confusion; it would just kick the can down the road. An no, no one's getting blocked for adding, or simply discussing, viable material.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean love shyness is a potentially viable topic? And if it were, why would you not call it 'love shyness', but do you mean social anxiety? And what makes you think it's not in the subculture? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about the various participants who felt the article covers/should cover involuntary celibacy as the condition of, well, involuntary celibacy, rather than only the "incel" subculture. The confusion was on both sides of the !votes.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Separate from the sub-culture? 'Involuntary celibacy' is a neologism of the subculture? Who said, it's not? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Various participants on both sides, with several others alluding to the confusion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Who? I don't see anyone saying involuntary celibacy is not a neologism of the sub-culture. Moreover, practically everyone in this discussion no matter what side of the move they are on, says involuntary celibacy and incel are the same thing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The nomination's whole point is to reduce confusion between the subculture and "'involuntary celibacy' defined as wanting sex or love but not being able to get it", and several comments expressly support that aim. One opposer says "involuntary celibacy" "is the name of the situation; 'incel' is a contraction of the idea", while another says "The current title is clear... The self-identifying 'Incel' communities are not individually notable." Meanwhile other opposers said "I see no evidence that there is consensus that the scope of this article is limited to the 4chan aspect of the subject..." and "We almost always keep a title at the phenomenon, not people with the phenomenon." At least 5 commenters mentioned the possibility of two articles. One person had to ask, "what is this article about?" There's a lot of confusion, and it has resulted in a confused RM discussion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever confusion there was by the nominator, after the first support the nominator agreed incel is the common name and primary topic for involuntary celibacy. 'Contraction of the idea' just means the same idea is in a contraction: involuntary celibacy/incel, the contraction is patent and yes, it's the same idea. No one is proposing having articles on communities individually, and never have. As for seeing no consensus for just covering 4chan, no there is no consensus for just covering 4chan and neither incel nor involuntary celibacy do that, nor does this article. Sure, it's been mentioned several times there are other articles, we don't cover those articles again, we link to them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cuchullain:I don't think there is confusions by those who are well versed in the AfDs or the subject. There are a few(mostly new accounts & IPs) who conflate the fact that the subculture is what is notable while the word "Involuntary celibacy" is used in passing in some sources to mean a Sexless marriage, Sexual frustration Erectile dysfunction or other aspects of Celibacy/Abstinence. Most, whether Support or Oppose, definitely are not confused or believe there should be a separate article. Which is what it sounded like you were proposing. Dave Dial (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Further. If the article is moved to "incel" then considering the current projection of the article, it may need to be titled Incel (black pill ideology) since there are plenty of incels who do not adhere to the black pill, who may be tarred by the same brush. 79.67.92.178 (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. The last AfD was started in 2015 and it is now 2018 so it is not binding. Furthermore, if you do a search on IC from the end of 2015 to now without the words "online" or "subculture" you get tens of thousands of results, indicating new sources. Furthermore, the last close was flawed since it conflated the topics of "sexual frustration" and "involuntary celibacy". These are distinct topics since SF does not deal with romanticism - IC does. Also SF literature largely focuses on sexual dysfunction - IC literature perceives incels as physically healthy. 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) 15:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Cuchullain:, or whoever closes this RM: If you haven't, I'd recommend closely reading the previous AfDs, the versions of the article as they existed when the deletions occurred, and the rest of this talk page before making any decision on how to move forward with renaming the article (or not). The handful of previous AfDs resulted in deletion because the article tried to discuss the concept of "involuntary celibacy" as a "condition". That is really just not supported by reliable sourcing. I was the one who recreated this article over the protection (and there are certainly a few folks here not so thrilled with me for that) but my rationale was that the topic covered in this version of the article is the online subculture of folks who self-identify as involuntary celibate/incels. That subculture has received quite a lot of coverage in reliable sources, particularly since the Isla Vista killings and the Toronto attack. 79.67.92.178 makes the point above that the last AfD was started in 2015, and so does not apply, but my opinion is that that would only be the case if folks could show sources published since then that show "involuntary celibacy" is a) a condition, not just the subculture, b) actually widely discussed using that term, and c) notable enough to be forked from similar articles such as celibacy, sexual frustration, sexual abstinence, etc. Furthermore, the folks here who do want to discuss this as some sort of psychological condition should consider they will need to meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: I really didn't want to beat a dead horse, but since I've been drag into this "involuntarily" I'll give a little history. The fact is I never heard of this concept until after the 2014 Isla Vista killings. At the time I found an article located in ReaderofthePack (talk · contribs)'s sandbox, I did not write the article credit goes to her. During the discussion at the 4th AfD cunard (talk · contribs) posted the strongest argument for inclusion which I will repost here:

• Removed total copy & paste of another editors comment -giant wall of text-Both Cunards edits can be seen here & here. Dave Dial (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

His sources were never refuted, in fact prior to the triple admin deletion they discussed on a page their intention to delete the page without researching the discussion. The fundamental pillar of an encyclopedia is NPOV. We are never suppose to be political, yet it appears the reason for deletion are entirely political. By this action we no longer have an encyclopedic article. Furthermore, it should be noted that there was a wave of editors favoring inclusion after Cunard's post. Then an unknown IP claimed I canvassed two editors I've never heard of skewing the discussion in favor of deletion. An investigation was done it was confirmed the accusation was false. I cannot see a stronger example of bias editing than this.

For those looking for WP:MEDRS sources @GorillaWarfare:, they are not necessary, but they do exist. This is sociological phenomenon not a medical condition. Here are two sources from PubMed not included in prior discussions This and this. Both these sources shows that only a small percentage of people who are involuntary celibate identify with the subculture incel. FWIW, Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) supported the inclusion of the original article on his talk page. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 12:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

First of all, not only were those afd arguments including the misconstruing of policy and sources refuted in the afd, they were positively rejected, leading to SALT. As for the two sources you bring now, the first is about loneliness - we already have an article on loneliness. The second says its key-word is abstinence, we already have an article on abstinence. Read those Wikipedia articles, they already deal with the exact same things you would want in a new article. Once again, we don't need or want a POV fork. (see also WP:ONUS just because we don't include something here, does not mean we might not include it elsewhere). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

No they are definitely not. A proper close would be to analyze each source provide and explain when compared to an article such as, say Toxic masculinity, and explain while they are weak. Frankly, if involuntary celibacy does not cut the muster neither does Toxic masculinity. Your argument can be applied to anything the keyword in Toxic masculinity is "masculinity" so just redirect to that. The keyword in "Sexual frustration" is "frustration" so just redirect to that, do you see how ridiculously the argument is? Both sources never used the word "loneliness" alone, they are always accompanied by "romantic" or "involuntary singlehood". This studied concept is clearly not the same thing as loneliness or abstinence. There is a close called no consensus, one can always disagree with a close. To say be a few people say the topic is not notable does not mean its the decision was correct, nor is it improper to question the close. We've all seen this before, historically this manifests itself as prosecution of minorities for religious or other reasons. It took hundreds of years for Copernicus to be accepted hopefully it not the same thing again. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You already made clear you disagree with the three admin close, it does not change anything when you insist, "they most definitely were not", -- they most definitely, were, by the whole body of Wikipedia editors. As for your "otherstuff exists" argument, that is already long rejected. If you think "sexual frustration" should be deleted, go ahead and nominate it. But it's ridiculous to claim sexual frustration does not already cover sexual frustration from whatever POV you wan't to push, including whatever social or other causes there are. Since you admit that loneliness is covered, whatever adjective, we already have an article that covers exactly that. As for your Copernicus claim, it just shows you are definately not promoting perspective on what you are discussing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Being I did not create this article and I have sources for backing the concept which are neutral and pass GNG requirements, I am curious to know what POV you think I am pushing. I was not the only person who voted keep in the 4th AfD, in fact 19 editor favored inclusion. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You have sources, which in context are discussing things like loneliness and sexual abstinence, none require another article, we already cover exactly what you want. It's already covered. Apparently, you are now pushing the POV that this topic is somehow like Copernicus's theory of Heliocentricism. I know you disagree and disagreed with the close, the consensus was against you and the others.Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Valoem: That... is absolutely not how closes on Wikipedia work. See WP:CONSENSUS. AfDs are not a place where people provide sources supporting their arguments, which the closing admin(s) reads and evaluates in order to make a decision. It is a place where all participants review the sources and arguments, and the closing admin(s) establishes consensus based on the discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:, AfD is exactly as you said it. Editors all review the sources provided by those favoring inclusion. Those favoring deletion then have to refute sources provided as invalid. Then the closer determines which argument is stronger that is WP:CONSENSUS. I never said any differently, what did you think I thought AfD was? The question is where did you see the sources provided by myself and Cunard be refuted, DGG continued toward the end of the discussion says the source has not been refuted, other editors than claimed that there was fringe POV pushing despite Cunard clearly refuting that as well. I just provided you with two PubMed sources. Did you see the 1916 source though it was formerly known as "involuntary sexual abstinence". There is a source from WebMD which is considered reliable. There is a new source from Psychology Today that says Centers for Disease Control calculates 27.2% of men and 28.6% of women are sexless in the 15-24 age bracket which suggests the number of "involuntary celibates" is much larger than those involved in the subculture. The article states that women can be affected as well. The source also states it is men who express the dissatisfaction, possibly due to skewed Western societal views that equate sex with masculinity, success, and relational happiness. So involuntary celibacy can affect women, but those who identify as "incel" are all men. Can you genuinely say that "involuntary celibacy" is confined only to the subculture? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 06:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Valoem: Great! I'm glad to hear you've changed your tune from your previous statement, A proper close would be to analyze each source provide and explain when compared to an article such as, say Toxic masculinity, and explain while they are weak. It sounds like you understand how AfD closes work much better now.

I've had a long day at work and so I don't particularly want to try to dig through the sources you've mentioned above right now, though I do want you to know I very much appreciate you providing them; that's somewhat of a first for the folks on this page who've taken issue with the current version of the article. I will be sure to try to look at the sources you're referencing tomorrow. In the interest of expediency, there are hopefully other folks watching this talk page who can take a look and evaluate the sources for addition; they might be quicker than I. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

That 1916 source covers sexual abstinence. It's telling that you argue this thing is called sexual abstinence because we already have an article. We do not need another one to cover any of your sources. What do you want to do with the Webmed article? It discusses the Donnelly study of an incel online community. This article already uses Donnelly. The Psych. Today op-ed statistic about all people 15-24 does not suggest your POV of making claims about all or any percent of them. I am not sure what you mean by "confined" - "involuntary celibacy" and its more common contraction "incel" are words popularized online, they were then studied by examining those online. Commentary about it invariably refers to online. This article does not even make the claim that it's only men. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

At this point if you don't like the subject and don't want it on the encyclopedia you are entitled to that opinion. The subject is on page 249 of the book we might be looking at different sections and clearly uses "involuntary abstinence" where does the term use abstinence without "involuntary" in front? Terminology can have very vastly different meanings when you add or remove words. Historically the terminology abstinence generally referred to sex. I've used "toxic masculinity" as an example, do you believe "toxic masculinity" should be redirect to "masculinity". What about gender feminism do you believe it should be redirected to "feminism"? The Psych Today article is taking about involuntary celibacy not incel subculture. It is other sources in this current article that says the incel subculture is only isolated to men. Do you understand my argument? Involuntary celibacy is a historic and academic subject studied in sexology, the current version speaks only of the incel subculture. I do agree that this current article does cite Donnelly once, that is undeniable. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you want to cover a form of sexual abstinence with attendant sexual frustration, when those are already at their common logical name, so go cover them at their common logical name, no need to POV fork. Indeed, the AFD'd article said in it's first line it was covering a POV fork of sexual abstinence. The very sexology encyclopedia that's been discussed does not POV fork it like you want. The Psych. Today article discusses what this article already gives information on, including the connections with depression, autism, and social anxiety, which the op ed suggests are causal, and of course the op-ed discusses the sub-cultural issues around those, and how the sub-cultural issues interact with those. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

In the 4th AfD Cunard stated: WP:POVFORK and involuntary celibacy

Wikipedia:Content forking#Point of view (POV) forks (WP:POVFORK) says:

POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies.

Involuntary celibacy is not a "POV fork" of another article because it not "another version of the article" or "another article on the same subject" as an article where "contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page". Involuntary celibacy has been treated as a distinct social concept by the seven sources I listed above.

This point was never refuted by editors in the discussion. Every source provided showed involuntary celibacy is not the same thing as sexual frustration nor abstinence. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Relying on the mere assertions of Cunard, and pretending they were not rejected by consensus is just false. You have not even read those other articles if you don't think they are covering exactly what you want to cover - they do, in spades. You even have called it a form of abstinence. Your very claim was contradicted by the sexology encyclopedia, that you just had to have another article on that, was proven to be false. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no doubt involuntary sexual abstinence is a form of abstinence saying otherwise is ridiculous. However the two concept are distinct enough to have separate articles. Perhaps a better way to look at this is do you feel that gender feminism is a form of feminism? Do you believe that is a POV fork and should be merge? Just to note, after Wales reviewed the discussion he agreed that deletion votes were a form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so administrative override ... yes, but consensus to delete ... no. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

You should know by now that JIMBO SAYS, and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are logical fallacies, practically universally rejected arguments on Wikipedia. No they are not distinct enough, that was overwhelmingly decided, not in the form you argued for. What's left is the current form of this article where it has come to prominence, and where we can refer back to sexual abstinence and sexual frustration and the other related articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

He clearly stated this is not the case here. Do you believe that gender feminism is a POV fork of feminism? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't tell me irrelevancies after I've shown you they're irrelevant, and don't ask me irrelevancies after I have shown you they're irrelevant. You can't be serious to ask about other topics with different sources, it is literally a nonsense question. As far as Jimbo was concerned he rather baselessly argued an assumption he made about liking/not liking the culture, and he wanted focus on culture. So, focus away on culture now seems to be your argument. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Valoem To answer that question, one would have to be in that discussion and know the background. If one article has sufficient reliable sourcing to distinguish itself from the other, then you would move on to other factors to make a decision. But that question is irrelevant to this discussion. I could ask why there is no Involuntary heartbeat to go along with the Heartbeat article, or Involuntary Miscarriage to go along with the Miscarriage article, or Involuntary breathing or Involuntary hiccup articles. Which probably has almost as much relevance. In other words, we are getting sidetracked here I think. Dave Dial (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I will add that some of the sourcing may be relevant in adding sections to existing articles. I don't think everyone is saying there is no sourcing for the symptom of what some refer to as Involuntary celibacy, outside of the subculture, just that it is not a condition, but it is a symptom of other factors. To imply it is a condition in itself can by dangerous. In the medical and psychological aspect. Dave Dial (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dave Dial: All heartbeats are involuntary so I agree we cannot have an article about that. There is a fringe theory though that claims people can control their heartbeats, I don't know if that is notable or not. I implore you to look at the concept in my sandbox I believe those sources are all reliable and pass every guideline we have. Unfortunately I cannot control IPs and inactive editors who stalk my account due to my history with the subject and make bias claims. In fact I believe if they did not jump into every AfD discussion I opened the outcome may be different. I think Jim Michaels is here in good faith, he has an extensive editing history and has made valid arguments. However I strongly disagree that this subject does not intertwine white supremacy. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Valoem, I was mostly being facetious with the red linked articles I listed. But I did look at your sandbox. I don't put those other editors and you in the same category, I know you edit other articles and such. In any case, this thread is about to go off the page with the amount of indentations. So if anything new happens, perhaps start a new thread? Dave Dial (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

What the heck, Valoem? First of all, you're not supposed to copy & paste entire comments made by other editors. You give links to their comments, don't copy & paste them into other discussions. Much less produce a giant wall of text from an AfD to a MR from another editor. Then you ping editors who have not commented here, when you believe they would be editors that support your position. How many times have you been told that is canvassing is against the rules? You continue to do the same things over and over, even when told not to. That is disruptive and tendentious editing. Dave Dial (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) And for the record Flyer22Reborn already pinged all of us into the discussion, and Cunard is involved when mentioning him it is actually proper to ping him. None of that is relevant(Personal attack removed) Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Good luck convincing an editor posting what you actually said is a personal attack. I am sure you understand the relevance to this discussion. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don’t feel like I need to explain myself. Mghabmw (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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)

Chris Harper-Mercer

There are no sources linking him to a community or that he is an incel or that his attack was any more incel related than Vester Flanagan, Adam Lanza and others he listed as idols. The sources don't support inclusion of his murders being incel related. Is there any sources that go beyond his response to a question about whether he was saving himself for someone special (he responded that the "saving" was "involuntary" on a dating forum, not incel forum)? He was an anti-religious Aspy that sought attention[6]. Friendless loner w/ no girlfriend and anger issues can't be the inclusion criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:102D:F1B4:EEBD:9A50 (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

question would be if he wanted a girlfriend but couldn't find one for a good amount of time and if he gave that as a reason for his shooting. I don't know the answer cuz I don't know his story, I never fought for his inclusion of exclusion. Willwill0415 (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

His statement 'involuntarily so' qualifies him for inclusion. I'm not aware of Flanagan or Lanza having said anything about being celibate, let alone involuntarily celibate. Jim Michael (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Really? That's not what the article says 'incels' are and he didn't give it as a reason for the murders. He did rant about organized religion and asked his victims if they were religious before executing them. The source doesn't make the claim that he was motivated by incel ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:950C:C113:D6B9:3587 (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The heading of that section is List of mass murders by self-identified involuntary celibates. It doesn't specify that they did the murders due to being incels. In comparison, there's no evidence that Flanagan or Lanza were incels. Jim Michael (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Mercer didn't identify as being an "involuntary celibate." This article is about the membership in a movement not a state of being. Half the editors on Wikipedia are "involuntarily celibate" and "single but looking" isn't the criteria. Mercer's comment on a dating site that he was looking for a g/f is not self-identifying as being part of the "ivoluntarily celibate" culture. It's even less associated with the murders. Elle and others make no connection other than a dictionary. Yes, he was a lonely, angry, Aspy that blamed religion for ills of the world. He was mentally ill. --2600:8800:1300:16E:D56A:A243:7756:4805 (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's his manifesto praising black, Indian and Asian women. Praising Asian men. Racist rant against black males. Motive is to be a mass murderer. Lists a number of mass murderers as inspiration. Uses "involuntary" but as agent of evil, not celibacy. [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:D953:EB6D:2BC6:AFB0 (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

[8] GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

non peer reviewed blog with no evidence that he is member of incel community. Not being able to get a girlfriend is not enough. He is not "self-described." He used the word "involuntary" in two writings. One was a dating site. The other his manifesto. The dating website referenced virginity, the manifesto referenced being an agent of evil. How is his common use of the word "involuntary" being used in one place (not in incel forum) as "self-identified member of incel community?" There is no proof he visited or posted even though there is speculation. Do you not see how weak the sourcing is for "self-identified?" It's a convenient label for an agenda against that community but it's not rigorous. Read his manifesto and sources and tell me how you extract "self-identified" from it. The lack of rigorous sourcing opens up the list of incels to an overly broad category of people whose mental illness precludes personal relationships at any level. By the standard being applied here, half of Wikipedia are "incels" which is a huge issue with conflating mental illness with an ideology. There is only tenuous connection between Mercer and the incel community, most of it comming from ideation of Mercer. The community apparently idolizes a number of violent actors regardless of whether they were incels themselves and it explains Mercer citing "Flanagan, Columbine kids, Adam Lanza, and Seung Cho." It's already been established that being celibate, not by choice, is insufficient criteria and not what this article is about. Then list Mercer as an incel despite the only evidence being he was celibate, involuntarily. He didn't even hate women but seemed to hate Black men (and only black men) and religious people. [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:C593:90D2:5C60:7152 (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that—that's my bad. I hadn't realized that portion of Psychology Today was blog content until I noticed it in the URL after you pointed it out. I'll replace. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Should be all set now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The WaPo source that we use to link r9k to incels says: Whether or not the poster was actually Harper-Mercer — a question we don’t have the answer to yet — other self-identified incels have taken it as a call to arms, threatening violence at half a dozen other schools around the country.[10]. Hardly rock solid affiliation (Adam Lanza seems equally revered despite a direct connection). Other googled sources seem to dispute whether r9k is an incel community at all (I'm not sure what the difference between beta male and incel is, but they seem adamant they are different).

Yep, see the wording I added. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Unfortunately, the move to "Incel" (which I disagreed with, of course) and emphasizing that "Incel != Involuntary celibate" now means that since Mercer didn't identify as an "Incel", merely as an "involuntary celibate", having him in a list of self-identifieds is not appropriate. He becomes more like Sodini, someone who is used as an inspiration, but not a self-identified incel. So the list goes down to 2 members. So the list might as well be deleted. Honestly, I think moving the article back might be better. --GRuban (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

First, no one has to accept that "involuntary celibacy" and its contraction "incel" are not the same thing in order to call this article, incel. But on this particular matter, Wikipedia did not connect Mercer to this topic, regardless of what you want to call it, see eg. [11] Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@GRuban: Yeah, I disagree that "incel != involuntary celibate" thing. Basically every source referring to incels uses the full version of the term. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:43, 8 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)

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)

Edit warring to remove white supremacy from article

As seen here(1,2,3,4,[12]) by Magnacartalibertatum removing the reference and continued here(1) by Jim Michael placing a {{cn}} tag next to the reference. Yet right after the mention is a dearth of reliable sources that clearly state the subculture is aligned with white supremacy.

First already in the article:

• The Guardian:

  ...[T]he community seems to be largely white. And that’s evident because race comes up, a lot. Sometimes, in the form of a kind of racial pseudo-science that advocates use to explain the dynamics of heterosexual relations. The age-old racist argument – that black men are “taking our women” – is made regularly. Racist slurs are chucked around casually. There seems to be a significant overlap with organised white supremacy....Reading through the posting history of individual aliases, it’s possible to chart their progress from vague dissatisfaction, and desire for social status and sexual success, to full-blown adherence to a cohesive ideology of white supremacy and misogyny. Neofascists treat these websites as recruitment grounds. They find angry, frustrated young men and groom them in their own image. Yet there’s no Prevent equivalent to try to stamp this out.

Much has been written about financial hardship turning afflicted white communities into breeding grounds for white supremacist politics

• Vox

  The recent disruptive violence of incels — a shortened form of “involuntary celibates” that refers to an online enclave of extreme misogynists — may seem like a lone outlier with little connection to the racialized politics of white supremacists. But in fact incel culture, the “men’s rights” movement, and their focus on what they perceive as belittled masculinity have more in common with the broader alt-right than you might think.

• Globe and Mail

Second, there are others already in the article, but these can be added- USA Today

Misogyny can be a precursor to other forms of extremism...What starts as sexual entitlement can, in the right echo chamber, lead a man to become "radicalized" into a "culture of entitlement and grievance," with implications for racial, ethnic and sexual minorities. "Where this merges with broader far right, and particularly the alt-right and the white nationalist communities, is we see a lot of people pass through this men's rights community, or at least engaging with this type of material and ideas, before they go on to participate in other forms of bigotry," Hankes said. SPLC considers incels a subsection of the men's rights movement, which claims that men are discriminated against, often using anti-women rhetoric.

• NBC News

There are many others. At this point, removal of the description or the {{CN}} tag could almost be considered vandalism. Edit warring needs to stop and be discussed, at the very least. Dave Dial (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Only the first source links them strongly - and even that says 'seems to be largely white'. The others merely say that there is an association of some sorts. That's not enough to state that the subculture is white supremacist. There are incels within the subculture who are of various ethnicities. Jim Michael (talk) 23:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The article stated(before it was changed)

Discussions in incel forums are often characterized by resentment, misanthropy, misogyny, white supremacy and the endorsement of violence against sexually active women and more sexually successful men.

All of the references back that statement up. To say otherwise is just plain wrong. Dave Dial (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I made this change before I saw this section, because of the sources cited at the end of that sentence, two of them refer to the incel subculture as racist (but not specifically "white supremacist"). However, now seeing this discussion, I've undone that change pending a decision here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Either one works, both racism & white supremacy are sourced. But the removal and CN tags are wrong. There are many sources that refer to the discussions on the forums as racist & white supremist. Dave Dial (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

There's a lot of black and asian white supremacists then I guess looking at the userbases of even the worst forums. And I guess Elliot Rodger and Minassian were white. What a joke article.Willwill0415 (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Willwill0415: Cite. Your. Sources.

How many times do I have to ask you (and others on this page) to provide sources supporting the changes you're asking be made? Without providing sources, your posts are wasting everyone's time; just look at the template at the top of the page. If you feel the need to spout your opinions on "involuntary celibacy" or what have you without providing usable sources, maybe try a blog, journal, or /dev/null. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Willwill0415, if you're not going to contribute positively toward the discussion and toward consensus, please don't add your own commentary here and make it harder for others to do so. This is a discussion page, and this is a discussion - not a political radio talk show or a place to rant. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll also add that if GorillaWarfare hadn't reverted your revert citing a supposed talk page consensus (which has clearly not been reached), I would have. Keep the discussion here, and don't start the path down edit warring. It's disruptive and against Wikipedia's policies. Resolve this dispute properly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• According to the following source [13] : "there is a large non-white, or “ethnicels” participation on these forums. A significant number of these people who self describe as Incels identify as non-white, says Mann. I see a lot of South Asian and east Asian men and boys — or people of south Asian and east Asian origins." There are also some paywalled citations that suggest incels have a large ethnic minority dmographic. This suggests that to me the addition of white supremacy is incorrect. 92.2.78.81 (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• That doesn't preclude the other sourcing stating:

  Discussions in incel forums are often characterized by resentment, misanthropy, misogyny, white supremacy and the endorsement of violence against sexually active women and more sexually successful men.

  Also, for those watching this page one of the main "incel" forums(incel.me) have multiple threads concerning this article, telling members to "fix" the article.One such thread. If you look at that thread, one member has a profile picture of Josef Mengele, with another thread that pretty much shows the mindset of that forum, another user icon is Richard Spencer. Original research, but letting editors know to expect some ips, "new" and/or sleeper accounts. Dave Dial (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dave Dial: Ah, that explains it. I suspected as much. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@92.2.78.81 can't ping IP. Incel subculture definitely has roots in white supremacy, that cannot be disputed. Just because there are non-whites in the group does not reject the idea that white supremacy is among their ideals. Rodger the "poster child" of incel explicitly stated his hatred for other races. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@92.2.78.81 That is an opinion piece, not a reliable source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I would recommend a page protection of the article. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

You can request it at WP:RFPP if you want, though I doubt it'll go through. Either way, I can't be the one to protect the article per WP:INVOLVED. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Just goes to show what I know, looks like the page was protected after all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Firstly, Elliot, Mercer or Minassian being poster children for incels is not an argument in favor of their white supremacy; it is an argument against it since the former two are mixed race, while the latter is middle eastern. Secondly, I oppose a page protection. As you can see from my recent contributions, I am a content creator; why should I be blocked from editing merely because I am an IP? Is there an anti-IP witch-hunt on this page? If so, I would advice them to read WP:IPs are human too whose summary states "Unregistered users can edit articles and participate on talk pages in the same way as registered users. Their input is just as important in building consensus". 88.104.32.185 (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Even though I'm never going to open an account since I do not wish to get wiki-addicted, I will also defend newer accounts; the summary on WP:BITE states "Do not be hostile toward fellow editors; newcomers in particular. Remember to assume good faith and respond to problematic edits in a clear and polite manner." So, GorillaWarfare, Dave Dial and others, are you going to live up to these guidelines that asks you to treat newcomers and IP's favorably? 88.104.32.185 (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  I said above that I was not going to protect the page—it would have been against the admin policy for me to protect a page I wrote and have been deeply involved with maintaining, just as it would be against the admin policy for me to unprotect it now. WP:RFPP is the place to discuss the protection, or bring it up with the admin who protected the page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The fact that there are some white supremacists on some incel forums doesn't show that white supremacy is an ideology of the community. The fact that there are many incels on the forums who are black, Asian, mixed race etc. whom are welcomed, indicates otherwise. Jim Michael (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Once again, we base Wikipedia articles off of what information is available in reliable sources, not your opinion of the racial makeup of incel forums. If you can find reliable sources verifying what you've said, please add them to the article as a counterpoint. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The three incels who are in the grid, i.e. Mercer, Rodger, Minassian; the first two are mixed race, the latter is middle eastern, and yet somehow this is a white supremacist movement? How does that make sense? 88.104.32.185 (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Rodger openly wrote about his hatred of other races particularly Asians, then proceeded to kill his Asian roommates. Minassian hailed Rodger. I don't know anything about Mercer. I am sure not all members of the Incel communities are racists, but some certainly are. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 09:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

REMOVE THE WHITE SUPREMACY TAG, it is not relevant to the discussion. I don't care what "it seems like" according to The Guardian's op-ed. Here's a poll straight from incels.me, which is much more reliable than any "journalist"'s thoughts on the matter:

[14].

The only reason I can see you guys keeping that in is because of some deepseated agenda. Magnacartalibertatum (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

This there really only 61 people that identify with this subculture? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No, of course not, but whatever it "seems" like to The Guardian is not concrete enough to merit adding a white supremacy tag to the article. Much of the movement is mixed-race, and this is reflected not only by the race of the killers, but by the polls they hold on their websites. It would be more accurate to remove the tag altogether, because it has no grounds. Magnacartalibertatum (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Some weird internet poll on a forum is most definitely not a reliable source. Even if it were, it would't trump the many sources for article for this:

Discussions in incel internet forums are often characterized by resentment, misanthropy, misogyny, white supremacy and the endorsement of violence against sexually active women and more sexually successful men.

The fact that you believe some kind of internet poll on a message board is a reliable source should make it clear you should not edit this, or any other article. At least until you have a better grasp of Wikipedia policies. Dave Dial (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

You don't know anything about this subject, Dave, and I'd prefer if you stopped injecting your personal politics into the articles onto this widely-disseminated site.Magnacartalibertatum (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Magnacartalibertatum: If anyone is injecting personal politics here, it's you. You need to familiarize yourself with the reliable sourcing policy. An informal poll on a message board is not a reliable source. It won't be added to the article, and it's not useful to reference in this discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The way the article is framed gives off an incorrect perception of the group, and I'm the one who has the personal bias? Give me a break. Magnacartalibertatum (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Magnacartalibertatum: If the article is inaccurate, please provide reliable sources that portray it more accurately. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The sources provided do not prove that the group of involuntarily celibate people are white supremacists, so it's more that you need to remove the reference than I need to provide sources. The Guardian says they "seem," not that they are. Read the sources that Dave Dial provided.Magnacartalibertatum (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The Guardian says they seem to be largely white. It is unequivocal about the racism within the communities. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is perplexing (on the other hand, I am not that committed to this particular language in the article). There are two reasons though this discussion is perplexing: 1) the article statement does not say all incels are white supremacists -- but for some reason the criticism above seems to contend that it does, and 2) whatever your definition of "non-white", it's certainly possible for "non-whites" to espouse white supremacy (but again, and more importantly, the article does not seem to be saying all, anyone, are white supremacists.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Call them mixed-race white supremacists then, because this group is not exclusively white.Magnacartalibertatum (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, that makes no sense, no-one is being called white and all are not being called anything. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

incels.me's rules include a prohibition against race-baiting, and the site is clearly welcoming of all ethnicities. Jim Michael (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

That's great, but the rules page of one incel community is not a reliable 3rd-party source, nor do they speak for other communities. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

incels.me is the primary incel community, and it isn't white supremacist because they are mixed-race and do not advocate white supremacy, which is noted by the site's polls and the race of the killers, including a West Asian and an East Asian. Magnacartalibertatum (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

You can repeat that as much as you like, and it may well be true, but it doesn't change the fact that we need reliable, third-party sources to verify. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree, some feminist blogs have started to admit that the Incel Community is pretty varied(https://wonkette.com/633072/awww-the-incels-have-a-new-nazi-friend) and another investigator that have researched the community (https://medium.com/@joelhill/hope-cope-and-rope-the-sad-truth-behind-the-incels-movement-a7dc8955ceaf) agree, one single outlook at Incels.me or r/braincels can tell that non-whites seems to be majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.198.119.239 (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Two blog posts and some original research of two incel communities are not sufficient for the reliable sourcing requirements to be added to the article, nor are they useful for discussion here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Oddly enough that Medium blog appears to confirm that many incels of whatever race have bought into white supremacy as a form of self-hatred or just hatred. Same with the other blog post. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:14, 8 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)

FAQ

Given how often certain questions come up, this page seems like a good candidate for a talk page FAQ.

I went ahead and started one, which is now displayed at the top of this page (and located at Talk:Involuntary celibacy/FAQ). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: looks good to me! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Nice, thanks for that! Hopefully people actually see/read it and don't just scroll past all the yellow boxes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

"The term "involuntary celibacy" was first used in 1993."

Google books search gives results for this term beginning from 1807. Other search does state as per "Understanding sexuality Adelaide Haas, ‎Kurt Haas "Sometimes psychotherapy or counseling is needed to help people cope with involuntary celibacy (Brown, 1980)" So it seems that the term is definitely older than that. I have to add that a cursory review of search results shows a decent amount of coverage on the condition both in historic and psychological publications. I am really perplexed why there is such opposition to have an article on this subject.It should at least be a sub-section in Celibacy article. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it can't be covered in sexual abstinence? It's not that there is opposition to covering the various issues of not having sex or the lovelorn, it's that we should put them in common-name context. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It does seem to be older as a phrase ([15]), but does not seem to be used in the same way. I think it was first used in 1993 in the modern understanding of incels and entitled heterosexual masculinity. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The book states" The involuntarily celibate include people who are physically or psychologically handicapped, or socially rejected. Women and men who are imprisoned may also be prohibited sexual relations for many years" "in the modern understanding of incels and entitled heterosexual masculinity." As I understand incels come from all backgrounds and the term is not defined as "entitled heterosexual masculinity"(whatever that is)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

"re you suggesting it can't be covered in sexual abstinence?"

Abstinence invokes the possibility of choice, the term involuntary means lack of such choice. In any case where the condition is described the authors use the term involuntary celibacy not involuntary abstinence. There definitely is such term, it is decently covered.Why shouldn't it be described or have paragraph about it in celibacy article? Also it will need explanation in this page as well since the term incel comes from it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

"White supremacism"

To highlight in the lead that some incels also happen to be racists is as stupid as to write in the lead of the article on homosexuality that left-handedness is a bit more common among gay than among straight people. Textbook case of POV pushing and red herring, meant perhaps to demonize this group. Does anyone here have an issue with incels? Miacek (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)