Good articleIncel has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 20, 2006Articles for deletionKept
January 16, 2014Articles for deletionMerged
June 4, 2014Deletion reviewEndorsed
December 23, 2014Deletion reviewNo consensus
August 13, 2015Deletion reviewRelisted
August 29, 2015Articles for deletionDeleted
October 17, 2015Articles for deletionDeleted
January 8, 2016Articles for deletionDeleted
May 28, 2020Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

What's with the sidebar

While incels are typically associated with right-wing political beliefs, it seems kind of silly to add the sidebar with the conservatism series to it considering most of the articles listed in it are about intellectual and political movements and not about internet subcultures. It just objectively seems very out of place. Tucc1988 (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Any overlap between incel and conservatism seems tangential at best. signed, Willondon (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also agreed, the sidebar was a new addition in the last day or two. I've removed it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request: “mostly white”

please remove all mentions of self-identified incels being “mostly white,” being involuntarily celibate, and thus some people identifying as such results from sexual frustration from frequent rejection or a supposed mental/physical impairment.

https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/english_editorials/1161072.html

https://www.counterterrorismgroup.com/post/executive-summary-prevalence-of-incel-ideology-in-east-asia

https://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/n12194/pdf/04C_huang.pdf

incel ideologies are very prevalent around several south east asian countries and limiting this community to “mostly white” people is an unfair and biased generalisation Big Mocc (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done There are several sources in the article confirming that the subculture has more white men than men of other races. Your sources only prove that Asian incels exist, which the article does not dispute. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The study group from the source in the article included a significant portion of participants from the United States and other english-speaking countries, and because of this the racial demographic skews towards being mostly white.
Additionally, mentioning the racial identity of the individuals in the study is extraneous to the article's main focus. The racial background does not significantly contribute to the understanding of the study's findings or its implications.
Moreover, the article for gun violence in the USA does not clearly mention in the lead that they are committed mostly by African Americans, if race is deemed irrelevant in that context, why should it be included here? Big Mocc (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d recommend reading the multiple discussions on this topic in the talk page history so we’re not retreading old ground. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The one, singular discussion you are referring to did not come to any conclusion Big Mocc (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Big Mocc here. The lead sentence implies that incels have a higher proportion of caucasians than the general population, but the cited source says the proportion of whites is lower than expected. If you're going to sample a majority-white population, it isn't surprising to find majority-white sub-groups like incels, but it is surprising that this majority is smaller than expected from the surveyed population.
This little factoid isn't relevant for the lead sentence. The section on demographics goes into more detail about the subtleties, but the lead doesn't adqueately summarize it. I agree it should be removed or clarified. Simply saying "mostly white" isn't an acceptable summary. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a whole group of cites for that particular claim. I’m not particularly familiar with the newest cite that you seem to be referring to (I think it was added since the last time we went over it), but if I’m understanding it correctly, it’s not describing the proportion of incels who are white, but rather the proportion of white people who are incels. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "newest cite"? It's in the first sentence of the article. And what that sentence is describing is ambiguous, as you just demonstrated by your reading of it: the citation does describe the proportion of incels who are white, and goes on to say that this proportion is less than expected. The sloppy language in the lead sentence can be interpreted different ways, and it comes across to me as implying that incels are disproportionately white. The demographics section gives a better discussion of this. Remove it from the lead, or summarize it better to comply with WP:LEAD, which is currently does not. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term “white” here serves no purpose other than to be weaponised against people of that race, nowhere else on Wikipedia is race mentioned so blatantly, and where it has absolutely no effect on the outcome of the study’s findings Big Mocc (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that anything is being weaponized. Rather, I have two concerns here, both regarding our content policies: A cited source is being misrepresented, and WP:LEAD is being violated by failing to provide an adequate summary of the body text. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable, although that was my very first impression upon reading the article Big Mocc (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. I have no opinion on the matter, but given the contentious nature of the topic and the disagreements between editors, it's clear that this would need some kind of consensus before it could be implemented. M.Bitton (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White

We should clarify that "mostly white" only applies to United States and Canada, as the samples in the cited sources are selected from these two countries. With the rise of incel culture in Asia, especially China and South Korea, "mostly white" doesn't represent a worldwide view of the subject. KomradeRice (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Pejorative terms for men

The term "incel" is self-named. So, it can't be pejorative. The category should be removed. 178.121.24.248 (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can be used in a pejorative context, usually in comparison with "chads". Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't disagree but the article doesn't seem to convey that, or at the very least doesn't say "pejorative", in a particularly meaningful way outside of a single sentence. Most I could find was "Incel" has also come to be used as an insult against people who do not necessarily identify with the subculture, but who are perceived to be sexually inexperienced, undesirable, or unpopular.[144][145] Like any virtue or vice, they can always be used in some pejorative sense - but to categorise them as such probably needs more than a couple of pop-culture sources. Koncorde (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. Memes on twitter dot com are not encyclopedically relevant. If "Incel" is being used pejoratively we need reliable sources that say so. Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is a clear consensus. Can anyone remove the category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.120.0.61 (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does "'Incel' has also come to be used as an insult" not support the inclusion of the category? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See above. There is nothing to add. Almost any term (for example, feminist) can be used in pejorative sence, but it doesn't mean that term is pejorative. 178.121.0.83 (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree it would require a reliable source. Category removed. Mathglot (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topics in Linguistics source

@ModernDaySlavery: Hello.

This is regarding this revert.

The source lists dozens and dozens of terms, but "gynocel", "gynecomastiacel", and "mentalcel" are not given any particular weight or emphasis. The source lists eighty-one "_cell" terms, and implies that this is not a comprehensive list. None of the three you have chosen are specifically defined by the source, so the meanings are only indirectly implied from context. The source cannot be used for these definitions, nor to imply that these terms are specifically significant.

Topics in Linguistics (published by the Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra), is obscure. All sources are judged in context. Why this source for these arbitrarily-selected terms?

Your edit summary that this is a "commonly used term in incel community" is a form of original research. If you have a reliable source saying these terms are commonly used, please cite that source. Grayfell (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incels are not majority white study

https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/news/incels-are-not-particularly-right-wing-or-white-but-they-are-extremely-depressed-anxious-and-lonely-according-to-new-research 2409:40E5:1:3B84:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That says they're still majority white. Also the author uses convenience sampling so we can't draw many firm conclusions EvergreenFir (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also the paper in question is bad in a whole bunch of other methodological ways. For instance: tiny sample sizes. Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chadfishing.

@ModernDaySlavery: Hello. Start using article talk pages, please.

Regarding this revert, thanks for fixing the typo, but the cited source doesn't describe 'chadfishing' as science. Per the source: One way that incels weaponize their subordination is by Chadfishing, creating a fake dating profile with an attractive man’s photo and then mistreating women who match with the profile. In a thread receiving more than 100 replies...[1]

It the goes on to discuss how some incels use this as proof of their own inferiority, but nothing about this forum chatter can be described as science. Further, the source doesn't say chadfishing is motivated by science, the source clearly attributes this behavior to "weaponized subordination, wherein men strategically use their perceived subordinate masculine status to legitimate their degradation of women."[2] Again the goal is to degrade women, not to perform science. This is, maybe, a form of pseudoscience, but even that would need to be more clearly spelled out by a reliable source. Grayfell (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vox correspondent Zack Beauchamp

The Blackpill section gives a quote by Zack Beauchamp, who expressed a judgment over this set of beliefs. I find myself questioning whether this judgment has any encyclopedic value: the cited article is of a journalistic nature, not scientific, and its author is not a sociology scholar.

I am afraid that the section is not delivering a neutral POV, but rather some "common sense" about a set of beliefs that is "uncommon sense". Granted, the quote definitely describes the characteristics of many blackpilled men, but the question is whether those characteristics are inevitable in all people who share those beliefs. I tend to think that a man doesn't necessarily have to oppose women's sexual emancipation just because he believes he's biologically doomed to be celibate.

I wouldn't want to suggest that the quote should be entirely removed, but it should be clearly flagged for what it is: an opinion piece. Xelloss (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The quote in question:

The black pill has been described by Vox correspondent Zack Beauchamp as "a profoundly sexist ideology that ... amounts to a fundamental rejection of women's sexual emancipation, labeling women shallow, cruel creatures who will choose only the most attractive men if given the choice".

The use of this quote aligns with MOS:QUOTEPOV, and you have not presented any evidence from other reliable sources to suggest that it is inaccurate. Moreover, the underlying Beauchamp article isn't some puff piece; it's a deeply researched multi-thousand word deep dive into the topic. So, I don't see a problem with the quote. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply doesn't really answer my objection.
I have stated that the quote is from an article of journalistic, not scientific nature, and nothing in your words proves the opposite.
In other words, you're reversing the burden of proof: it's not up to me to show that there are inaccuracies in that quote, but up to whoever wants the quote in this page to prove that it reflects scientific consensus. The fact that it is a "multi-thousand word dive" (dive!) is irrelevant, when it lacks reputable scholarly citations.
Since when we publish opinions instead of science on Wikipedia? Xelloss (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd encourage you to read more about how Wikipedia defines reliable sources. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is entirely dismissive, admin. I'm not disputing that the opinion may be cited, but that the way this article is written doesn't clarify that it is an opinion. It invites the reader to take a summary judgment at face value, as if it were of a scientific nature.
Except that it's not of a scientific nature. Xelloss (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Xelloss: Ed has already explained that the quote aligns with MOS:QUOTEPOV (and I agree, as well as WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). How would you propose rephrasing that section? I don't see how there is any implication that this is some sort of scientific statement, particularly given that Beauchamp is identified as a Vox correspondent in-text. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have already addressed the issue about guidelines by explaining that the matter is not about whether this quote is allowed, but how it should be framed.
Since you are asking me how I would rephrase it, I'll take a few days to look into that matter. Xelloss (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Debunking black pill

The article needs a section dedicated to proving that the black pill ideology is objectively false using scientific studies. It is crucial to show young men that the extreme claims made by hardcore incels are incorrect and that this ideology can be extremely dangerous. It can lead to depression, body dysmorphia, harmful practices like bone-smashing, and, in extreme cases, even suicide or violent outbursts. The idea that one's lack of a romantic partner is solely due to physical appearance is an oversimplification. In reality, the reasons are often far more complex. Most people regardless their gender experience periods of involuntary celibacy at some point in their lives. The real question is: should this define who you are? Should a struggle confine you? The black pill ideology teaches that it does, which is why it is so important to debunk it. I strongly urge you to include a section dedicated to exposing the flaws of the black pill with factual, scientific evidence. Cherubionita (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Incel
No tags for this post.