Talk:Incel

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)

"lack of a romantic partner is solely due to physical appearance" That is news to me. When it comes to attracting potential romantic partners, the socioeconomic status always seems to be more important than the physical appearance. To paraphrase something that my brother has been repeating for the last 30 or 40 years: "the one with the greatest wealth gets the greater number of lovers. The one with no wealth gets no love." Dimadick (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Well you don't have to convince me about that black pill is not real! :) Cherubionita (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Cherubionita, a prerequisite for any such section would be reliable sources to support it. *We* as Wikipedia editors cannot be the ones to debunk anything; we can only relay the debunking done by reliable sources. Do you have any? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I can provide you only scientific studies that indirectly debunk every claims of the black pill. Like this one: https://datepsychology.com/male-attractiveness-and-sexual-partner-count/

As you can see according to numerous studies male attractiveness not a good indicator of success with women. It is a minimal difference between the most attractive and the least attractive men sexual partner count by life time.

I can provide a compilation about these to debunk one by one every claims that black pill has. Cherubionita (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

While I personally agree with you that the various incel pills are entirely nonsense, the source you provided looks to be WP:SPS - as such it's of limited use within the context of Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately the article linked to debunking blackpill as pseudoscience is not a scientificly debunking the blackpill. Actually the methodology used in the article is mainly nitpicked posts from incelforums. This is not scientificly debunking the philosophy of the blackpill. Nor do I think one can scientificly debunk such a sociological claim. I would argue that argument based on evolutionary biology or psychology would be much better fit for "a scientific attempt". KalleHmath (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. To use words like "pseudoscientific", we don't need things to be directly debunked to every random person's desired threshold of confidence; it's enough to cite that reliable sources consider it pseudoscientific, as the source in question indeed does. And regardless, something doesn't need to be "scientificly [sic] debunk"ed to be considered pseudoscientific. "Pseudoscientific" and "false" are not identical in meaning. Many scientific theories have been disproven; that doesn't make them pseudoscientific, and inversely, many pseudoscientific "theories" have not been scientifically disproven. Indeed, a key feature of many pseudoscientific "theories" is that they are unfalsifiable; that is, they can't be disproven, because they don't say anything coherent enough to disprove, or they don't stand still long enough to be disproven, or any number of other things. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

"The blackpill is comprised of commonly held beliefs, such as hypergamy, the 'just be white' (JBW) theory, the 80/20 rule of dating, lookism, the halo effect and sexual racism that rely on pseudoscience" is false statement. There is statistical data and it is well agreed on evolutionary biology that a hypergamy is real. Lookism, halo effect and sexual racism are all as well scientificly proven in psychology and sociology. KalleHmath (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Wikipedia's policies require us to stick with the book from the academic publisher and not the statement from an anonymous person on a talk page calling it 'false'. MrOllie (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Well the sources are on the wikipedia pages of those topics such as the page of hypergamy. KalleHmath (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

No. This would make the article seem less neutral. MoJoBroBro (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey Cherubionita, could not agree more that countering the black pill is vital. Id class it as a second order problem on a level with AI & climate change. While it may be a net consoling & protective influence to a small minority, it's a clear net negative for tens of millions of young men & women across the world.

This said refuting the black pill effectively is a little more challenging than perhaps meets the eye. Even if your link was a meta-study in a top journal rather than just a blog, us including it in our article might do more harm than good. The article is largely aiming to disprove the popular wisdom that the type of men incel call Chads commonly have the most sexual partners. It's not trying to disprove the central black pill point that Incel's romantic status results from their looks. In fact, parts of it reinforce the black pill. Direct quote: Additionally, it may mean that being mid is sufficient. The “looks test” is binary. You pass it, you’re in, and from that point you can choose to pursue casual sex or you can choose to have a relationship. You meet the threshold.. with the obvious corollary that if you're below mid and you don't pass the threshold , you're not in the game and aren't going to get any sex, just as the black pill prophets preach.

It would sadly likely be no more effective than to repeat common gaslighting from the BrazillianMartian IT era "TeeHee Inkwell! Looks don't matter silly! I'd rather date an ugly 5'4" Janitor who is kind, than a Brad Pit lookalike who is mean. It just so happens I'm dating a 6'3" Timothée Chadamet type, but the only reason I'm with him is his caring personality."

Let's review how your concern is covered in the top tier reliable sources - as Writ Keeper is saying these are really important if you want to change content here on Wikipedia. As of 2025, you get a largely different picture depending on what discipline you look at. In sociology and related fields, the attitude to incels remains broadly hostile, with little analyses of value. Albeit things have improved a little in recent years e.g as per this relatively compassionate 2024 systematic review: The incel phenomenon: A systematic scoping review . (This one is open access and you can read for free, other sources are behind paywalls unfortuneatly)

The CVE and especially Cognitive science fields mostly take a much more sympathetic and insightful view on incels. It was from CVE that we had probably the first journal article to discuss the need to refute the blackpill in a sensible way (2021). As the below review level articles show, in Psychiatry there's much emphases on incels wellbeing and promoting their best interests, including mentioning the importance of helping them move beyond their black pill outlook, but there's little in the way of actual debunking of core black pill concepts: Psychosocial Characteristics of Involuntary Celibates (Incels): A Review of Empirical Research and Assessment of the Potential Implications of Research on Adult Virginity and Late Sexual Onset or Involuntary Celibacy: A Review of Incel Ideology and Experiences with Dating, Rejection, and Associated Mental Health and Emotional Sequelae

This just released study does specifically debunk certain black pill attitudes: Seeing through the black-pill: Incels are wrong about what people think of them But if focuses on showing that how contrary to what Incels think, the general public is largely sympathetic to incels, would like them to have romantic success, and mostly doesnt blame them for their predicament. But even if incels believed this (& ~90% of hardcore incels won't IMO) I don't think it speaks to your central concern.

As you suggest, there are indeed extreme incels who claim a mans looks are the only thing that matters for dating success, with some even saying it's been like that forever. Which would be contrary to the finding of virtual every single 20th century study that's considered this question. But pointing this out is only going to debunk the weaker versions of black pill ideology, making black pill overall even more potent. The smarter research cells already know a mans looks used to be far less important, having reviewed for example the Personal sections of late 19th & early 20th century newspapers, where they report that single women often said they don't care about looks , and never give good looks or height as a required characteristic- just good character, money and sometimes status or class. But the world has changed since then. Young women now earn 9% more than young men across the UK, with a similar situation existing in some US localities (though not at State level AFAIK, and certainly not nationwide.) A minimal level of good looks is now considerably more important for a young man's dating success than it was even 15 years back. There's no up to date high quality source to refute this unfortunately, nor is there likely to be for some years (though would love to be wrong.) Countering the black pill here needs some subtlety, though I'm going to go out on a limb and say you have been helpful in this regard. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit request - typo

"Incels also argue that dating apps have amplified and intesified female hypergamy"

Change "intesified" to "intensified" NaniTheDandelion (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Plantdrew (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Involuntary celibacy redirect

Propose Involuntary celibacy to redirect to Sexual abstinence. According to lead Incel is subculture, not the involuntary celibacy itself. Sexual abstinence covers involuntary celibacy. HudecEmil (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The place to propose this is at WP:RFD. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

"Involuntary celibacy" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Involuntary celibacy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 1 § Involuntary celibacy until a consensus is reached. HudecEmil (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit request to complete RfD nomination

Involuntary celibacyInvoluntary celibacy has been listed at Redirects for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

{{subst:rfd|content=

to the top of the page and }} to the bottom to complete the nomination. Thank you. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done Left guide (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

"Member of an online subculture"

Thread retitled from Dangerous Conflation.

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

---

Describing any given incel as "a member of an online subculture" is a dangerous generalization. It indirectly funnels involuntarily celibate people (particularly men, of course) towards online communities that often feed into toxicity towards women and society more broadly. And yes, I did read "Q2" and "A2" at the top of this page. I maintain the criticism of this description. I think something as simple as ". . . who is sometimes . . ." before the aforementioned definition would help resolve this conflation. To put it another way: not all -- and in fact probably not even MOST -- incels are a part of some incel community online. A lot of people are involuntarily celibate but never feel obliged to join a group of them online, and I think it's harmful to them (and to the general public) to suggest otherwise. AnonAJ (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

The term 'incel' is not typically used to refer to the group of people you are concerned about. MrOllie (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

What do you think "incel" is short for? ~2026-39811-70 (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

For the members of online subculture described by the article. Portmanteaus are not abbreviations. MrOllie (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

"Incel" is literally (actual use of "literally") an abbreviation, to be clear.

And also: no. AnonAJ (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Nah. The article is correct as-is and follows the usage of the cited reliable sources. We're not going to take your word over theirs. MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Ya, the article is incorrect as-is.

"We're" I couldn't care less about your opinion or jacketing yourself under an appeal to majority lmao AnonAJ (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

And not all -- and in fact probably not even MOST -- people opposed to fascism are part of some antifa community online. Nevertheless, Antifa_(United_States) exists. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:30, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I would have the same criticism, to be clear. But regardless, I don't think I said anything about Antifa. AnonAJ (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

You shouldn't. Words can have meanings other than what their face value might imply. "Antifa", despite being literally a contraction of "antifascist", isn't used to mean just anyone who's against fascism. It's used to denote members of a particular political movement. "Incel" is the same way. If you're someone who has never had sex despite wanting to, yet you don't like what the incel online subculture promotes or represents, congratulations: you're not an incel. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I should, I do, and I will.

You are objectively incorrect in your analysis of what makes someone an incel. AnonAJ (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Then cite your sources. To move this outside of pure abstraction and more towards Wikipedia policy: articles, their subjects, and their coverage are dictated not by naive interpretations of words, but by what's represented in reliable sources. Reliable sources consistently use "incel" to refer exclusively to the subculture without qualification, so Wikipedia does too (much in the same way that antifa does, which is why I bring it up). If you want to change that, you'll need to provide reliable sources to indicated that "incel" means something else, which is something that the many many people who have made similar complaints in the past have failed to do. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:41, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Naive? Okay bud.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incel

Boy, THAT was real hard to find. I mean, WOW!

Ohhhh nooooo not an appeal to historicismmmmmmm AnonAJ (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Uh...did you even read your own link? a person (usually a man) who is or identifies as involuntarily celibate and typically expresses extreme resentment and hostility toward those who are sexually active. What about that supports your position that incels are broadly not part of the subculture? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I did. You seem confused. This might help:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/typically AnonAJ (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

You'll need to do better than that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:55, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Review the tone of the article and the lead section layout

I opened a discussion to discuss the phrasing of the article. Currently the article has 15 emotionally charged words that are said at the start of the second paragraph, adding them together like this creates an article that functions as aggressive which arguably violates WP:TONE.

Also the article says 'criticism' of the entire subculture in most of the article and the people in it, that frames the group as inherently violent and misogynistic. In fact in one of the studies used by a citation in the article it says that 79% of them do not condone violence (in the article section of "Promotion of violence") which acts as cherry-picking by taking the first 10 lines of a study and ignoring the rest.

These violate the balance requirements of WP:NPOV and WP:TONE. Marcusvince (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Properly reflecting the mainstream sources is not a violation of WP:TONE. When they have mostly negative things to say, the Wikipedia is going to reflect that, because that is what WP:NPOV actually requires us to do. Neutrality specifically does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your response MrOllie. I agree that wikipedia must avoid WP:FALSEBALANCE and mirror the tone of the mainstream sources. However my point about WP:TONE is about the layout and attribution, saying fifteen pejorative labels crosses over from a detached summery into a loaded adversarial narrative tone. The studies cited and mainstream sources do not use this language latter into the articles and media sources, as i said people can use nuance without there being a WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Moreover, you didn't address my points about the data of violence the subculture breeds from reviewed studies. Marcusvince (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Correct, I did not and will not address that point. I'm not going to debate whether the sources are correct in their characterizations or not with you on this talk page, since that would place me in violation of WP:NOTFORUM. MrOllie (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I pointed out that the studies do not say what the article says, this is not a forum discussion and I am not debating on whether the sources are correct or not, the studies do not say all of the characterizations said in the article. Correcting what the article says compared to the studies is standard policy. The studies do not contain some of the words used in the article which means this is a matter of WP:V not a forum discussion. Marcusvince (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Everything in the second paragraph is properly covered by the existing citations, this has been checked (and rechecked) and covered at length on this talk page. If there is something somewhere else you are concerned about, be specific, but kindly be very sure that it is actually missing a citation first. MrOllie (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, My concern is not about lack of citations but the studies linking to those citations are being misrepresented, the current article says "A 2022 study found that most self-identified incels surveyed (79%) rejected violence." By fully omitting this fact from the lead section summery, the article violates WP:LEAD which requires a balanced section summery with the nuances found in the body text.

By leaving out a peer reviewed statistic that applies to 79% of a group while focusing on the intergroup minority crosses a line from a neutral summary into a misrepresentation of the article's own data. Marcusvince (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

requires a balanced section summery Not really, no.

That people will say they are nonviolent is different from actually being nonviolent - these sources are talking about two different things. I can see why you have gotten confused, though. But there is no misrepresentation and I see no reason to change the article lead. MrOllie (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully deciding that the respondents lied in a peer reviewed study is a personal interpretation, and is considered WP:OR (Original Research). As editors, we should focus and report what the reliable studies say, rather than applying our own belief system about whether a group or subculture is violent.

Furthermore, WP:LEAD strictly states that "should summarize the most important points... and give due weight to the document's subjects", considering that it says absolute terms rather than what the citations show. I am not arguing on my bias on what groups, I think are violent. When editing we shouldn't let the idea of the studies lying decide how the article looks. Marcusvince (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about 'lied', that's your own spin. People's honestly held self-image is often at odds with their actions. Very few racists self-identify as such, to cite another example.

At any rate, these two parts of the article are talking about different things. Even if they weren't - one primary source does not undercut every other source that we have - and the rest of the sources are very, very clear about the sort of support for violence that is in the discourse this group engages in. MrOllie (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I am not talking about racists, I am talking about a subculture, being a "Incel" is an identity group so lying about being one would make them not one, you can be racist and say you aren't racist. This is the definition of WP:OR.

I am not here to argue about the sources, this is not a forum like you have stated yourself. I am talking about how the wikipedia community stated that the sources are valid but only part of them are used and important sections of the articles aren't in the WP:LEAD.

Marcusvince (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

The 2022 study is a primary source for its own data. Primary sources are easy to misinterpret and should not be cited for significant claims. Instead, the article should cite reliable, secondary and tertiary sources, which it largely does. Straying into WP:FORUM territory here, but any claimed rejection of violence from a subculture that venerates misogynist terrorists such as Elliot Rodger should be viewed extremely suspiciously. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, if you believe that "should be viewed extremely suspiciously" you are in violation of WP:NPOV. I do not wish to argue on what you personally believe, i talked about the studies saying that most people apart of the subculture aren't violent. If you believe that the sources are easy to misinterpret than you are falsifying every other study about the words they use to describe the subculture, Denying one part of the studies while saying another part is true, is not verified.

The wikipedia community already said that the studies in the 'Promotion of violence' section are reliable secondary sources. Marcusvince (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

That's news to me, and since literally anyone can edit Wikipedia, I sincerely doubt it. The article never claims that most incels are violent. Nevertheless, several peer-reviewed secondary sources confirm that incels often perpetuate and encourage violent rhetoric, e.g. Gheorghe (2024) and Preston, Halpin, & Maguire (2021). ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

If the article truly means "The article never claims that most incels are violent" then why is terrorism, misogynism, pedophila, sexism, mass murder and racism mentioned at the start of the article, and you said yourself that you view any rejection of violence by people of the "Incel" subculture as extremely suspiciously then you admitted that you view the subculture as a breeding ground for terrorism and violence.

Furthermore when the first thing that comes to your mind is violence when hearing rejection of violence by a group than you are being proud of your own bias. We shouldn't be doing a forum debate on a wikipedia page. You are in violation of WP:NPOV again.

Do you think "social rejection, social isolation,[9] resentment, hostile sexism, anti-feminism, sexual objectification and dehumanization of women, misogyny, misanthropy, self-pity and self-loathing, racism, a sense of entitlement to sex, nihilism, rape culture, and the endorsement of sexual and non-sexual violence against women and the sexually active." in the lead is in no way biased? Marcusvince (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Bias does not mean "something I don't like", and neutral point of view does not mean "no point of view". All the above terms are thoroughly supported by reliable sources, including mainstream, peer-reviewed scholarship. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I am not asking for anything to be removed just to have the entire studies mentioned in full rather than cherry-picked, inferring not saying that an entire group of people engage in violence is not the current mainstream conscious which is why i mentioned it. The own studies mentioned in the article don't support what it says. I am not talking about the sources but how the information is shown in lead, hyper-focusing on half of the study while ignoring the other half is misrepresentation, I am not trying to prove the sources wrong, the sources clearly state that the subculture is not fully violent but the lead presents it as such. I am not debating you, the sources are correct but the article is misleading.

Rather than deflecting to Wikipedia:NOTFORUM read the article because the lead isn't supported by the rest of it.

Marcusvince (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Also i am not trying to say bias means something i do not agree with. I am saying bias means pretending part of a study isn't real because it fits my beliefs. Marcusvince (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Nowhere does the lead present the incel subculture as fully violent, but rather as endorsing and encouraging violence. A majority of scholarly sources present it this way, so we do as well, following Due and undue weight. See also Hart & Huber (2023), Solea & Sugiura (2023), Halpin (2022), Lindsay (2022), Sparks, Zidenberg, & Olver (2022), and Zimmerman (2022). ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Focusing on the phrase 'fully violent' is semantic pedantry to ignore the fact that it clearly says it is violent, it didn't say fully violent but it said violent with no nuance to the rest, framing it as entirely violent. As a analogy If you say 'your apple isn't fully brown' as a counter to 'my apple has a brown spot' it is boiling down the argument. I am not trying to be rude but saying something is slightly off to dismiss a argument is not the correct way to have a argument.

If we are having a misunderstanding with each other, than please state so. 20:56, 3 September 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcusvince (talk • contribs)

Please quote the exact wording that frames the incel subculture as violent with no nuance and/or entirely violent. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

There is no 'exact wording' because it is 70% of the article, but in the lead it said "with the banning of controversial subreddit r/incels and a series of mass murders committed by men who either identified as incels or held similar ideologies, including Elliot Rodger and Alek Minassian.[8]" as the second sentence of the article. In the second paragraph it said "The incel subculture's online discourse is characterized by social rejection, social isolation,[9] resentment, hostile sexism, anti-feminism, sexual objectification and dehumanization of women, misogyny, misanthropy, self-pity and self-loathing, racism, a sense of entitlement to sex, nihilism, rape culture".

It also included a murderer who predated incels in "Mass murders and violence" and the text says "Mass murders and other violent attacks have been committed or are suspected to have been committed by men who have self-identified as involuntarily celibate, or whose statements align with incel ideologies. Other intended attacks by such individuals have been thwarted by police before being carried out.", you can't 'align' with a "ideology" that you predate and died before it existing.

In "On August 4, 2009, George Sodini opened fire at an LA Fitness health club in Collier Township, a suburb of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Three women were murdered and nine other people were injured before Sodini killed himself.[212][213] He purportedly expressed sexual frustration and complained of constant rejections by women on a website registered in his name.[214] Sodini and his actions have been embraced and glorified by some members of incel communities, who sometimes refer to incel violence as "going Sodini".[137][215]" it talks about a murderer was died before incels were a identity group. If there was a racist that predated hitler that means by definition they can't align with hitler.

Incels aren't related to 4chan either, "love-shy.com's userbase was overwhelmingly male. Over the next decade, the membership of love-shy.com and online fringe right-wing communities like 4chan increasingly overlapped", none of the sources say that they came from 4chan, it's widely known the incel community came from a site made by a woman called love-shy.com which evolved into the modern 'incel' communities. 21:23, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Marcusvince (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

If it is true that 70% of the article frames incels as violent, then it would be a violation of NPOV to not include it in the lead section as well.

The incel subculture came to wider public attention in the 2010s with the banning of controversial subreddit r/incels and a series of mass murders committed by men who either identified as incels or held similar ideologies is entirely in line with coverage in reliable sources.

The incel subculture's online discourse is characterized by social rejection, social isolation, resentment, hostile sexism, anti-feminism, sexual objectification and dehumanization of women, misogyny, misanthropy, self-pity and self-loathing, racism, a sense of entitlement to sex, nihilism, rape culture [...] What does this have to do with violence?

It also included a murderer who predated incels [...] it's widely known the incel community came from a site made by a woman called love-shy.com – Love-shy.com was founded in 2003. The word "incel" was coined in 1997. George Sodini committed his crimes in 2009. Therefore the shooting did not predate incels. (Sodini is also not mentioned anywhere in the lead section.) This is all beside the point, however, because Wikipedia just summarizes published sources. If published, reliable sources discuss the Sodini murders in the context of the incel subculture, then so do we. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Most of the article is correct but they state the 'morally bad' at the top when there is a Criticism section.

"The incel subculture came to wider public attention in the 2010s with the banning of controversial subreddit r/incels and a series of mass murders committed by men who either identified as incels or held similar ideologies" is true but yet again it's at the lead without context and is inferring that the everyone who is a incel is a child murdering rapist, like if i put crimes against humanity at the top of a page about communism i would get flagged for bias.

George Sodini didn't predate the term coined of "incel" but he didn't use the word incel or browse loveshy, just because something is at the same time as some other thing doesn't make them that.

Also very funny because i didn't talk about mentioning how'"70% of the article" frames incels as violent, then it would be a violation of NPOV to not include it in the lead section as well" in fact, i was talking about mentioning statistics in the lead but not about mentioning that the article is biased in it.

I am talking about making the article less biased not biased to my opinion, it is not crazy to ask for information to be moved to the lead. I requested nothing to be removed but for clarification so readers don't think that a subculture is purely about murdering people. 02:00, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Marcusvince (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Most of the article is correct but they state the 'morally bad' at the top – the lead section is meant to summarize the main points of the article. Segregating the unpleasant stuff into a "Criticism" section would violate NPOV.

It's at the lead without context and is inferring that the everyone who is a incel is a child murdering rapist – I think most readers are smart enough to know the difference between a few criminals and an entire subculture. What additional context would you like to see added?

George Sodini didn't predate the term coined of "incel" but he didn't use the word incel – once again, we just summarize published sources. Numerous scholarly sources refer to Sodini as an incel and/or mention that incels have glorified him and his crimes.

I was talking about mentioning statistics in the lead – then provide sufficient sourcing to satisfy due weight. A single primary source isn't enough to include something in the lead section.

I am talking about making the article less biased not biased to my opinion – no, you are cherry-picking a statistic (79% of incels claim to reject violence) from a single study and ignoring all the other sources explicitly saying incels promote violence.

I requested nothing to be removed but for clarification – it sounds like you are asking for the lead section to say something like While most incels reject violence, the subculture came to wider public attention after a series of mass murders [...]. That sort of comparison would be improper synthesis unless there are published, reliable sources (preferably more than one) that make such a connection explicitly. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I'll add that 21% is a heck of a high percentage when you think of it. One in 5 incels condone the use of violence? That is incredibly disturbing and worrying. No wonder the lede mentions it. Slp1 (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah but 1 in 4 Black people have a felony conviction or 1 in 3 Black men, dose that mean the page on african americans should have a 'why they are bad' I do not believe so. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5996985/. Also 8% of the general population has a felony, 4% to 10% of men have done something that meets the definition of sexual assault. Yet there isn't a 'HUMANS ARE MISOGYNISTIC RAPISTS, NIHILISTS, RACISTS, FAR RIGHT' even though they are. Marcusvince (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Admin here: that's enough of that. This isn't a forum, and you're confusing felonies, many or most for drug-related offenses, with violence. In any case, please read WP:BLUDGEON, WP:TE, WP:SPA, and WP:CONSENSUS. Acroterion (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Actually there is, look up "are most incels pro violence" and everything says they aren't and the sources from google are used in the article so, 1 2 Marcusvince (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Sources used in the article are not from google, they are independent journals, book publishers, news outlets, etc. The Commission for Countering Extremism report is another primary source regarding its own "key findings", which shouldn't be relied upon for significant claims. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

*Do* all incels believe in a mythical golden age when any man could get a woman?

This feels like something we'd need very strong evidence for. Eldomtom2 (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if all incels believe in a mythical golden age, but that's not what the article says: Incel rhetoric invokes an idealized patriarchal society in which couples adhered to these traditional roles, married early, and were strictly monogamous. During this mythologized 'golden age', incels imagine that all men had nearly unencumbered access to women as romantic partners, thereby reducing the competition for sex (emphasis added). The first sentence strongly implies that this is a description of rhetoric, not what incels may or may not believe deep down in their hearts. "Mythologized" is not the same as "mythical", and "golden age" is a metaphor for something like the "good old days". ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I think you're drawing more of a line between "incel rhetoric" and "incels" that most people will take, nor am I sure what point you are making by contrasting "mythologized" and "mythical". Either way, it feels like a very broad statement that's inappropriate for the second sentence of the ideology subsection.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

It is well supported by reliable sources, and that is as strong as we ever get in terms of evidence on Wikipedia. 'feels like a very broad statement' isn't really a policy-based argument to change it, we would need sources just as good to undercut what we've currently got. MrOllie (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that a) we should probably qualify it a bit more, and b) it's placed too high in the subsection. I don't think it's appropriate to place it as the first paragraph and implicitly present it as the fundamental building block. See, for example, the relatively little space Baele 2019 gives it compared to other aspects. Baele 2019 also explicitly states that many incels do not believe there was a golden age where any man could get a woman and believe that there have always been incels, but that the sexual revolution et al made the problem worse.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Baele et al. (Baele, Brace, & Coan 2021) actually state: The Incel worldview rests on the evocation of a past golden age [...] This golden age is that of a patriarchal society where monogamy is the rule, traditional gender roles are accepted and followed, women and men marry early, and adultery is prohibited. All men have thus 'access' to women and their 'entitlement' to sex is never 'denied' by women [Wikipedia Library link] (emphasis added). This is in the second paragraph of their narrative analysis section. According to these authors, the imagined golden age is a fundamental building block of incel ideology. ~Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2026 (UTC)