Talk:Looksmaxxing

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2024

change ”incel” to sigma male 86.114.211.209 (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Not to start anything, but I don't see how they can be any more clear than this. Panini! • 🥪 04:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: I doubt many people take the whole sigma male stuff seriously, and certainly not enough to justify using this name for the whole incel subculture. Especially without reliable sources connecting the term to looksmaxxing in particular. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 05:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I probably should have specified that this was a ^[Humor]; this edit was mentioned in WP:DISCORD and I wanted to stop by and say hi. Hey there, Enby! Panini! • 🥪 05:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey! Probably missed it in the Discord, my bad! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Loose connections between the two. Maybe it'll come up in the future. Sigma male should be a standalone article!!!! (maybe) TLA (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2024

add Melvin Pehrs, notorious Looksmax.me user Arvid Gustavsson to the page and Vinnie Hacker, a user formerly active on the now defunct Lookism.net forum. Imustbedreaming (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello! Do you have any reliable sources talking about these individuals in the context of looksmaxxing? Forum activity alone isn't enough to justify inclusion. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 00:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

This is not the right place for this

I would like to see this article revised or even deleted. It currently reads like Urban Dictionary. I checked the address bar to make sure I wasn't on a Wikipedia parody website. I have read the entire article and talk section. Unless I am missing something, this article was made by group of friends to celebrate inside jokes and/or poke fun at each other. A sincere encyclopedia is not the place to do that. Haiku.Kireji (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

As silly as the topic is, it has been covered by reliable sources such as the BBC, The New York Times, The Daily Dot and The Guardian. The article definitely needs improvement and cleaning out the less reliable sources used, but well-covered neologisms and other recent concepts definitely have their place here, if sourced correctly. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing Arguments About STEM

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 January 2026 and 22 March 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Biologist223 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by User0116 (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Would be add something else

make you could add pepsimaxing on a looksmaxing ! He super viral on trending x on clavicular and delmo the pepsi ceo !! ~2026-17925-16 (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing in Digital Environments

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2026 and 1 May 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Arh0holden (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Arh0holden (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Article reads like an essay with a POV

The lede's second paragraph (Online looksmaxxing communities can be harmful, through rating individual's looksmaxxing attempts without much concern or care for their overall well-being. ...) should be rewritten to state that criticisms exist. In its current form, it looks as if Wikipedia is making those criticisms.

The Criticism section itself dips into the same kind of advocacy (Looksmaxxing demoralises and hurts the health of men and boys of all ages, but particularly young ones. ...)

Unfortunately, I am super-busy right now, and not very invested in the topic (despite agreeing with the criticisms). Can someone please fix this? Thanks. Peter Chastain (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Clarifying here that I was responsible for trying to write this article some two years ago now and still have the highest authorship . I don't know how much of this disputed text I wrote (if any of it), but have zero interest in continuing work on this article again due to the subject matter and its connotations. Furthermore, the creator of the article itself is blocked. Another editor, if they feel so inclined, will have to take the mantle themselves. λ NegativeMP1 03:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I think a big problem with the POV of this article is the fact that reliable sources are overwhelmingly negative when referring to the subject and the article uses their viewpoints verbatim. Nevertheless, I will try to make it more neutral. QuantumNihilist (talk) 10:03, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

You're correct - and that's the unfortunate nature of scholarship when it comes to anything Manosphere related, whether it be looksmaxxing, inceldom, blackpill ideology, or anything else. Because of factors like WP:UNDUE (part of WP:NPOV) and WP:BALANCE, this majority-view must be what is overwhelmingly represented on any given article page related to these subjects. I try my best in only taking neutrally-worded descriptive claims from these sources and adding them to the articles, in attempt to give a basic understandable view to readers, at least in the short descriptions. The rest of the articles, particularly where analysis is required, unfortunately requires usage of the scholarship analysis. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I've mostly managed to make the article neutral by rewriting a lot of it but I left the 'Criticism and 'Other concepts' untouched since i'm not sure how to tackle them, maybe you could take a look? QuantumNihilist (talk) 09:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I can take a look. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Very impressive work, you indeed made the article more neutral. I looked over your substantive edits, based on page history. You essentially did what I was describing, which consists of taking the existing scholarly material and presenting their descriptive claims of looksmaxxing (and associated topics) in a neutral, unbiased manner. It seems we're on the same page. I attempted to do this on associated pages like Incel but I was reverted. Technically the reversions were justifiable, given the nature of verifiability, a claim should reflect most accurately how the author is portraying them as. But still, what you have done is great and I support your inclusions. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 04:41, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree, awesome work by yourself and others here. To add, while WP:RS overwhelmingly (I think uniformly) assess looksmaxing as a net negative even to young men, and even more on society at large, many RS include elements of sympathy for participants, and concede that some individuals do sometimes derive benefits from the practice. I've added a couple of such +ve mentions both as NPOV is a good in itself, and as a more rounded treatment is more likely to help young men interested in the practice see the dangers in getting too deeply involved. As QN says, I guess a little more POV reduction for the second para of the 'Other concepts' could be done, but I'm thinking we've already done enough to remove the unsightly POV tag? FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. The neutrality has definitely improved since all of our edits. I agree we can take down the page's POV tag, if any future editor has issue with it they can just add the tag back. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Update: I've taken the liberty of removing the tag myself. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable @QuantumNihilist I'm not sure how familiar the two of you are with the history of looksmaxxing, but I have expanded the "History" section to give a more detailed and nuanced view of the origins of looksmaxxing (which was concomitant with the origins of blackpill/proto-blackpill ideology). I did my best to give an entirely neutral view, but per verifiability I had to include a little bit of the "critical" view that was embedded within the source. Please let me know your thoughts, and feel free to make adjustments as you think necessary. For now it's a wall of text. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I've made a small adjkustment but im quite drunk right noe so ill refrain from editing further. I think reliable sources for a indepth history section would be hard to find sp tje pvervoew ypi jave given is suitable and your work here is comendable. as i have said befo5re the "other concepts" and "criticism" sections are the main areas of issue and probably require entire rewrites considering sentences like "Young, impressionable children on social media using it to describe their appearance in relation to their friend's could be taken the wrong way and lead to insecurities down the road for a generation of children." is used QuantumNihilist (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I agree those sections need improvement. I was just adding more to the history out of interest. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Looksmax.org wasn't a successor to the PSL forums, it was an created as an alternative to the lookism forum which the creator of .org though was low quality. It's almost certainly impossible to include this per WP:NOR but the part about successor shouldn't be there since its misleading. QuantumNihilist (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

The source I cited for that literally claimed looksmax.org is a "spiritual successor" forum to PSL. It's not WP:OR, but I can still omit it anyway. I've removed it now. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

No I meant the thing I said would be OR so I wasn't going to include it, sorry for any confusion. QuantumNihilist (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. You're free to change it back to avoid WP:OR, although I don't have a problem with the text as-is. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the interesting info Quantum is saying we probably cant include due to OR, is the fact Sargent Incel created looksmax.org beacause he's a big believer in giving struggling men opportunities to self-help, and saw the existing lookism forum as too low quality for the job. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I was unaware of that detail, personally, but thanks for the information. Perhaps one day a reliable source in the future will explain this detail and it can be added into the article, under History. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation to share thoughts on the article HarvardJock! IMO your History addtion is a strong addition. Fluent coherent writing, accurate & relevant. I've reverted back to your spiritual successor wording, as describing Looksmax.org as the "main site" for looksmaxxing violate our OR rules (at least when the sentence is sourced to the Digital Diffusion study. Nothing in said source supports calling Looksmax.org a main site - in fact it describes it as the opposite - both as a "fringe" and "niche" site which nevertheless exerts significant influence on mainstream platforms like TikTok, which spread looksmaxing ideas to a far wider audience than .org does directly. @QuantumNihilist - I hear what youre saying about .org not being a successor to lookism, but when preceded by 'spiritual', the word 'successor' has a non literal meaning. You clearly know what you're talking about - like HJ I've no issue with your change as such - in certain senses .org is indeed the "main site". But to avoid the WP:OR violation we should either replace the Diffusion source with one that supports the change, or even just remove the source from the sentence entirely. (Others might not agree , but I'd be okay with a WP:BLUESKY exception. I just dont like to see a sentence saying the opposite to its source.)

@HJ You're long para looked fine to me but I split it per your wall of text concern. Your Bernstein sources for the opening sentence says looksmaxing has origins in the manosphere as well as incels, which I agree with so I added that. Lastly, the diffusion source says PSL diverges from the "conventional decile scale" , not from numerical scales plural, so I made a wording tweak there. (I've not heard of any other numerical attractiveness scales apart from 'out of 10' & PSL.) Other than that minor thing, seems to be unusually high source to text integrity in your new addition. Hopefully you see some value in my contribution, but no issues at all if you want to revert any or all of my change. Much as we've done some good work here, I'm probably not going to get further involved with improvements. As I hinted at a couple of days back, my reason for pitching in with the NPOV change was as I felt that would help the criticism land harder. But further improvement might actually start making the trend more interesting, the movements ideas already have way too much mainstream traction. Looksmaxing & blackpill are strong net -ve influences in my view. Would be happy to elaborate if asked, but would need a long post, as there's a lot both for and against the practice & associated beliefs. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the thorough explanation - great points. I'm glad you reverted back to the "spiritual successor" wording, as that is the proper verifiable phrasing and it fixed the WP:OR issue. I left it up in case Quantum wanted to change it back. Great tweeks to the PSL Scale details too and the paragraph breaks.

As things progress in scholarship in looksmaxxing specifically, we'll add more. There has already been lots of scholarship on incels, blackpill, redpill, manosphere-related topics since the mid or late 2010s until now, but looksmaxxing scholarship in particular has only emerged in the last couple of years. Things looks great here for now, if I find more information for the article among academics, though, I will add them. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Yeah you're spot on about the scholarship, but let me say a bit more on that as it may help future article improvement. Sadly, much academic work in the topic class is low quality. Louis Bachaud is one of the exceptions worth paying attention to, with impeccable research he always presents with great humanity. (Albeit may need a couple more years to gain seniority, before he'd be worth citing on wiki for controversial claims.) For example, typical scholarship often asserts the Manosphere arose in opposition to feminism. Whereas in reality (at least if understood in its broad sense) it arose in allyship with feminism. Early masculinists & feminists were united in opposition to traditional gender roles. Said Manosphere opposition has only hardened over the year, though only for the roles that make demands of men. Those who continue to find fulfilment in Providing & Protecting women are derided as cucks & white knights. Though sadly misogyny (on average, there are of course many manosphere individuals who dont hate women at all) has intensified so much they can no longer even consider making common cause with feminists. This Bachaud source touching on the distortion of mainstream science by the manosphere may also be of interest.

On looksmaxxing, there is a large subset of mainstream scholarship one could label as "progressive". These are often totally hostile to the manosphere, or at least dont concede their concerns have any validity. To the academically minded, this may create the impression that Blackpill & Lookism are fringe. In reality, most regular people aren't swayed by "progressive" scholarship in the slightest. On the whole, neither are even the most feminist UK policy makers. I was heavily involved in anti loneliness work around 2020-2024, including sitting on government committees where I saw the likes of Angela Rayner strongly support initiatives aiming to soley help men - who she and other feminists politicians recognise suffer similar & for some age groups slightly higher levels of loneliness compared to women. There's been no real success in tackling the loneliness problem, as per umbrella sources I added years back to the main loneliness article, folk find it challenging to address at any scale. This is the same all round the world. At the local level, if a socially inclusive couple or small set of friends with at least slightly above average charisma move into an area with ok social infrastructure, it can massively reduce loneliness in the neighbourhood. I've not known it help truecells get sex, but being socially included rather than shunned can massively increase their QoL and emotional wellbeing. But there doesnt seem to be a way to scale this. Even the large projects I've personally been involved in have failed to show a measurable loneliness reduction. I guess my point here is the lack of progress in addressing incel/looksmaxer concerns doesnt reflect indifference to male suffering by the mainstream, much less that we buy "progressive" scholarship. Anyway, the best available scholarship on lookism & related blackpill is by the substacker Nuance pill who unfortunately doesnt seem to publish in WP:RS. While he slightly understates the validity of blackpill concerns, his analyses is first class, showing how looksmaxers distort & cherry pick the available evidence to support all sorts of incorrect conclusions. E.g. , the number of sexless young men, while significant, is way lower than might be inferred by the famous 2018 survey (which was an outlier and not statically reliable, contradicted by allmost all later studies). While few if any Normies would totally agree with all lookism talking points, many of its specific ideas have conquered the mainstream, widely accepted by the public, discussed on CNN & many other top shows, and even taken as true by several decent mid career academics despite the low quality analyses behind their claims. This article may be a good place to start, but the whole of Nuance's substack if worth browsing by any especially interested in the topic. The reason I'm sharing this even though an anon substack can't be used as a RS, is that its easy to check Nuances primary sources & see his analyses is almost perfectly correct, and this sort of knowledge can then inform all what's worth spending time on. Hopefully Bachaud or someone of his calibre will soon publish similar analyse in quality journals, which will us make this article much more useful. This said, not asking you to refrain from adding more existing or future scholarship of course, just wanted to share this as the topic's long been close to my heart. Lastly, agree the sections you've worked on now look great in as far as they go.FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Interesting points! I had no idea about the deep history of the manosphere you described in your first paragraph. A lot of that information might be good to add to the Manosphere article, as history, although like you said, it might take a while for these entirely fresh and unknown perspectives to gain foothold in scholarship (for now, an objecting editor might revert and claim it's WP:UNDUE because it doesn't fit the mainstream narrative that Manosphere talking points are hostile to women and necessarily always misogynistic). Same thing with a lot of the info in your second paragraph, it's great info but users might object to discussing all that because it's not the scholarly consensus. In the future, I'd like to see scholarship that tackles the lesser-known perspectives of the manosphere, hopefully it can gain enough dominance so it's worth adding to these Wiki articles, at least as an alternative counterpoint (1:1). I totally concur that the present scholarly narratives don't help men at all and are simply hostile under a bourgeois academic cloak.

"I guess my point here is the lack of progress in addressing incel/looksmaxer concerns doesnt reflect indifference to male suffering by the mainstream, much less that we buy "progressive" scholarship."

Perfectly stated, I agree 100%. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Origins

I feel like this entry could benefit by improving the “History” section to include materials and sources that have become commonly referenced among the “lookmaxxing” communities. Its actually what i came here to find out. All of these websites, fourms and posts reference similar “ratios” and have similar facial maps. Im curious where these come from and why they are so widely accepted standards amongst these people. Obviously the alpha male stuff comes from a discredited study on wolfs. I wonder where they get these charts and measurements? Ive seen them reference the golden ratio often but i dont think almost any of these measurements compare in a meaningful way to the actual golden ratio. ~2026-21649-10 (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

That would be a useful addition, but would need someone to find WP:RS that talk about the origins of said materials. I've only found this study which briefly discusses the provenance of their widely used PSL looks ratings scale. In a nutshell, lookmaxers either self produce their materials based on their own experience & perception of what works out in the world, or they've derived them from selective reading of the scientific literature & relevent data, mainly psychology & sociology studies of dating, as well as various publicly released polls and statistics from dating service platform owners and the like.

As you allude to, lookmaxers dont treat their sources like an objective mainstream scientist would, yet this isn't to say their analyses is entirely wrong. Especially since the early 2010s where social life for the young increasingly moved to visually orientated tech platforms, the world really has became more lookist. Facebook itself started out as a looks rating app. Social media also contributed to the erosion of courtship customs, which together with various other social and demographic changes, really did make getting a girlfriend more difficult for many young men. Hence their libido pushed them into hyper-rational mode and the creation of looksmaxxing. The dismissive, platitude rich and plain one-sided nonsense of early mainstream reception ("Just take a shower bro", "Tee-Hee Inkwell, looks dont matter silly!") which used to be common in places like Reddit from about 2015-2020 polarised looksmaxers in the other direction, helping to lock-in their over emphases on the importance of looks. Hence all the cherry picking from the science.

I'd have added the origins of PSL only our policies wont allow us to include one of the famous images that make the scale legible (the one with face pics of increasing attractiveness for the scale's gradients) But let us know if you still feel it would be worth a mention, or if you know of any suitable RS for us to talk about other materials. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy to say this has officially been done! Me and the other two editors in the discussion thread above have added plenty on history. Hopefully, you find it to be a (relatively) informative and all-encompassing history. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Milan Agrawal attribution appears unsupported

The Criticism section says “Paediatrician Milan Agrawal...” but I do not see Milan Agrawal identified in the cited BBC/source links, and the cited “When Help Is Harm” paper appears to have different authors. Could someone verify this attribution or remove/rewrite the sentence? This seems like a failed verification issue. ~2026-25145-42 (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

done, thanks for flagging the issue FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE - Looksmax.org mention

I have removed the mention of Looksmax.org from the main article as it violates WP:UNDUE.

A single mention in one academic source does not merit inclusion when the mention is tangential to the article's main topic and disrupts the narrative flow.

The article can adequately explain looksmaxxing culture without cataloging every successor community mentioned in sources.

If editors believe this inclusion is justified despite WP:UNDUE concerns, please explain why this single mention warrants prominence in the main text.

Discussion welcome.

Auser18 (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for the messiness with my recent edits. I attempted to do a manual revert but wanted to do an undo but didn't include the reasoning. Auser18 (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

This is not how WP:UNDUE works. To argue for it, you need more sources that claim looksmax.org was not a spiritual successor to the PSL forums, therefore making the current "successor" claim at issue a minority opinion. You must provide multiple sources arguing to the contrary. If such an abundance in sources existed, then you would list them here, and this would mean the "successor" claim would be a significant minority opinion and could be disregarded. You have not proved this as of the present moment. As it stands right now, the phrase of The three PSL forums are now defunct, but the spiritual successor of these forums is the still active Looksmax.org is a verifiable positive claim coming from a reliable source, so this stays up on the page.

I will also caution you once more against edit warring here once again. You should not be continuously reverting edits you disagree with that were up on the page before your arrival. You need consensus from users on this discussion, per WP:ONUS (applies to content removals too). HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Would agree policy very much supports including .org. There's a WP:IAR case for us not to, but consensus very much remains in HarvardJocks favour. Boxing said case, as it won't be worth reading for most.FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

In response to your boxed case, I think that while policy undoubtedly supports including Looksmax.org in the article, you make a decent case for removing it. As a first point, I will say removing .org is not a WP:IAR issue, as WP:IAR overtly states the standard is interference with improving or maintaining the article. Adding Looksmax.org is technically an improvement because it adds a new piece of factual information from a reliable source previously not found on the article. Because of this, the issue of removing .org from the article comes down to our conscience as editors, and whether we truly believe the potential harmfulness of vulnerable readers discovering this site outweighs the policy-backed positive inclusion of this information in an encyclopedic sense. Note that the latter consideration is not in line with Wiki standards or policies, meaning a potential agreement to remove this information could easily be reinstated even if we do reach consensus here since our argument will be completely morally-oriented, subjective, and likely to breach original research standards.

Reading your well thought-out, long boxed post, you seems to provide a great history of the Manosphere as a whole, much of which I'm familiar with as I've been around in these niches for some time before. I agree with the general culmination of your prose that blackpill is the most radicalized, essentialist belief system out of all the "pills" and definitely the most radicalized, mechanistic worldview out of anything the manosphere has ever produced. Like you said: the most fundamental flaw in blackpill thinking is the conceit that women are best approached like some kind of logical puzzle to be solved, based on blackpill "truths" about human nature. With all of this being said, our job as editors is not to gatekeep information and it's not our responsibility if someone gets radicalized by us simply describing neutrally worded information. This could be dubbed as a form of "unofficial censorship" or an indirect form of it, at the very least.

Based on all this, I'll conclude on the matter of removing .org by stating: I have no objection if this content is removed from the article. Go ahead and remove it, if you like. If you, or another user, does end up removing it, please only remove that one short sentence describing it under History section - the "spiritual successor" sentence.

P.S. Again, I will say I love your knowledge on the matter of the blackpill, I myself am also familiar with Sargent and Master (I don't know them personally like you do, I just know of them and have heard of them) and I have a very deep historical understanding of manosphere development, especially the blackpill in particular, myself - going as far back as PUAHate.com and the early Youtube influencers like Steve Hoca and FACEandLMS. Just wanted to add this last paragraph - this last para is not relevant to the conversation. Props to you for your knowledge too, FeydHuxtable. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Auser18 — This discussion is all happening under your submission, you have expressed an interest in removing the Looksmax.org statement yourself for separate reasons. Feel free to comment on the conversation here and give your input on if you want it removed. It seems we're going in that direction. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, I have been on vacation, but I do agree with the decision made and haven't been able to catch up on the talk page. Auser18 (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

We're all in agreement then. Enjoy your vacation! HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks HJ. I've not had the honour of talking to Master, only the good Sargent. Im not sure if you mean the boxed case violates OR, but WP:OR specifically says This policy does not apply to talk pages. Otherwise fully agree, and accept your correction on IAR. I should maybe have called it a meta-IAR case. As Ausie already wanted to remove the .org mention, I went ahead and did that per your kind permission. As you say, any editor would have policy on their side if they wanted to add the mention back . FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Great decision. We're all in agreement more or less, Auser18 didn't want this detail included anyway, if memory serves me right. You're right that WP:OR doesn't apply to talk pages itself, but making decisions based on original research on talk pages to influence the page is in fact contrary to policy — feel free to clarify if you think I'm wrong in my interpretation here, but this seems to be the general understanding. In any case, I don't think we engaged in full-on OR, we just provided conscientious opinions on why we shouldn't include the site: I don't mind in this case because of the reasoning provided, I also agree with your perspective on the broader topic. It's best for young men not to be exposed to radicalizing content that could psychologically damage them, namely Looksmax.org. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I've been busy with exams, so I haven't been able to keep up with this article, and I don't think I'm qualified in the slightest to chime in. All I'll say is that it wouldn't make any difference to how many people get inducted into the manosphere whether the site was mentioned here or not. Readers of this article would either be people who support the concept of looksmaxxing or people who are against it. People who are curious about it would almost certainly find .org through other sources because of how mainstream it is in 2026, making the purposeful exclusion of it redundant.

A similar case could be made for the article on Electronic article surveillance, which includes many methods to bypass it that a shoplifter could use, but which remain included due to the encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia.

Nevertheless, the decision shouldn't be up to someone like me. QuantumNihilist (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

You're just as qualified to chime in as any of us in my view. As said before, you clearly know what you're talking about in this topic space, and your shoplifter analogy makes sense. 100% agree changes to this article are unlikely to make a difference to how many get into the manosphere. But would draw a distinction between Sargent Incel's .org, and the wider manosphere - which now extends to mainstream platform like tiktock, X & Insta. Wider manosphere content exists on a spectrum where some is relatively harmless, but parts of the .org content being quite extreme. Millions of lads will get their first exposure to manosphere ideas every year via talk on the playground, or via the big platforms, etc. But that wont necessarily lead them to .org. As per this 2025 BBC source, some young men havent even heard of the"incel" concept. The Sargents sites aren't esp well known even among Gen Z, at least in UK. Mainstream sources often present a relatively wholesome form of looksmaxing. Various young men are likely to arrive on this article after a search for what looksmaxing is all about, and then potentially move on to .org if they see it mentioned in our article. Much as some of us might agree the .org founder had good intentions, and that +ve discussions sometimes happen on the site, various aspects have far more potential for harm than most of the wider manosphere. But this is just an opinion which I think happens to be shared to some extent by editors HJ & Ausie. If you see things differently, please dont feel you cant overturn our current decision not to mention .org. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

The relatively harmless manosphere content usually pipelines into the blackpill because algorithms prioritize engagement, and looksmaxxing influencers have a financial incentive to draw more people into it. Since most young people nowadays get their information from social media, they will likely be signposted to .org with or without the article. As a result, removing the reference only serves to wash Wikipedia's hands of any harm that might befall young men by worsening the article's quality. However, this is only my opinion, and I'm not sure whether any other editors agree. QuantumNihilist (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Future editors who read this discussion and take issue with our decision to remove Looksmax.org will have policy on their side to restore the Looksmax.org mention, if they choose to believe that policy supersedes the conscientious-based rationale that FH and I agreed upon. In the meantime, if policy is not your concern, let's leave the article as-is, without the mention of .org under the relevant section. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

It isn't necessarily the case that most people who view this Looksmaxxing article will be either those who support the concept of looksmaxxing or people who are against it. Because of how mainstream it's becoming, with Clavicular clips reaching millions of views on the regular basis and news media covering the topic all the time, many so-called "normies" who have no opinion on the topic will likely be directed to the Wikipedia page as a first point of learning, and most who are disinterested or semi-interested will leave after understanding the concept here. Wikipedia is most people's launchpad for understanding a new topic in the modern age (as bad as this may be, as some would argue). I guarantee the majority of people who come to this page learning about this topic, or about the manosphere as a whole, will not in fact later discover Looksmax.org themselves. Based on my discussion above with @FeydHuxtable, it's best we remove it. As an additional point, don't ever doubt yourself, your opinion is valid as an editor here. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Deep dive into Looksmaxing history, .org, and its impact on society

TLDR: By mentioning looksmax.org in our articles, we risk funnelling thousands of young men to the site, who might otherwise not have visited. This could result in some of them picking up all sorts beliefs harmful to both themselves & others.

Looksmaxing.org was established by Sargent Incel back in 2018. I've long been against us referencing any of his sites on our articles, but it will take a long post to say why. It's not that he's a bad person. I've met him and look up to him in several ways - a man of great destiny, initiative and compassion. Here's part one of a two part interview where the good Sargent talks about his motivations for founding his forums, to the sensitive ear his character should come through. I've not interacted with his buddy Master who now runs the forums, but quite possibly he's similar, maybe a little more radicalised. So the trouble with the Sargent is he's a materialist atheist - not a bad thing in itself, but it blinded him to the spiritual forces working out their dark designs on his forums.

Seeing spiritual forces as key players in the unfolding of history has overwhelmingly been the mainstream view for most of human history - albeit the last 300 years or so have been an exception for most in the West. It could take over a decade, but a realistic view on such matters is inevitably returning to the occident, with Vance's assertion a few weeks back that demons are behind the UFO phenomena being an example. Let's go back to where it all began.

Legends tell that in Atlantean times, some two hundred angels descended to earth as they were enamoured by the beauty of human women, with whom they had congress that went against God's plan. As per our Azazel article, they corrupted humanity by teaching "men the art of warfare" and women cosmetics / "painting the face". (Something that wasn't advised for men with any prominence until the dawn of looksmaxing, and the source is the same, but we're get to that later.) Azazels legend was most prominently recorded in the book of Enoch which was quite mainstream at the time of Christ's incarnation, hence all sorts of hints in the Bible, such as St Paul saying in Corinthians that woman should cover their hair in church "because of the angels". Also around the time of Christ's birth, one of the most commonly read books in Rome was Ovid's The art of Love, which advised men to Gymmax, wear good but simple clothes, and take a shower (this last being sensible advise when not bracketed with 'Just' & 'bro' - every generation has a surprisingly large section of lads who benefit from a reminder of the link between good hygiene and good sex). Throughout the history of literature it's common to find this sort of advise for men to put some effort into their physical appearance, and to the extent lookmaxing encourages such wholesome self improvement methods, it's doing a good thing. But of course it encourages far more than this, now reaching millions of men due to its spread to mainstream platforms.

Before looksmaxing, there was pickup artistry (PUA). Like the early manosphere it arose in the 1970s, likely from purely secular causes, chiefly post WWII social change. While PUA was yielded good results for some, by the early naughties it got too popular for its own good. The golden age for PUA grifters to make small fortunes from male desperation coincided with women increasingly becoming on guard to its manipulations - partly on a collective unconcious level, though many did explicitly warn each other about it, both on & offline. With PUA's sharp decline, conflicting alternativs vied for young men's attention. It's a simplification, but they can be divided into three:

• The so called "bluepill". Once mainstream across the internet, it's now arguably only dominant in places like reddit. While easily the most wholesome of the three pills, excessive progressive influence had caused too much internal contradiction for it to reliably win the argument in the hearts & minds of GenZ men.
• The red pill. While less harmful than black pill, and in some respects more aligned with reality than bluepill, it has all sorts of distortons.
• The blackpill/lookism, the subject of this post.

Before getting into the details, one should mention that the most fundamental flaw in blackpill thinking is the conceit that women are best approached like some kind of logical puzzle to be solved, based on blackpill "truths" about human nature. While corrections to various incel tenets are presented below, one should keep in mind women instinctively dislike being approached with a hyper rational mindset - and this would be the case even if ones thinking were based on the best available mainstream science rather than incel half-truths. The increased number of approaches women receive from this sort of mindset (including the PUA/redpill variety, but the blackpill mindset most of all) contributes to rising aggregate female distrust in men. And so somewhat paradoxically is one of the many causes of the global sex recession.

The best approach is to be relational, dont have too many rational prejudices in mind. Each individual woman is essentially a mystery. A creature of unfathomable inner depth, who while not free of flaws, has interior stars which by the end of her souls final evolution, will coalesce into a being of indescribable glory. (The same is true of every man and non-binary person, though in slightly different ways).

The single most harmful blackpill tenet is its overemphasis on face. In fairness, a few do recognise having the super rare PSL 9 face is both a curse & a blessing. But they uniformly massively overstate how important it is to get to PSL 8 (chad) facial looks, frequently telling each other if you can't get to at least PSL 7 you may as well cease striving, instead devoting yourself to selfish copes. As the best you're going to get as a sub7, no matter how hard you try, is betabuxing a past it beckie who will at best give you passion free starfish sex.

The overwhelming repeated finding of scientific studies on the importance of looks is that while they do indeed help, they are far from an overriding factor even for a woman's success in finding a good mate, and even less important for a man. When you first look at the blackpill this can be quite perplexing, as they present themselves as being all about following the science. It's becomes more understandable when one considers the blackpills incel origins. As many of them would admit, many incels last significant close contact with women happens at high school & college. At that age, a lads face really is the most important quality to many young women - hence the fact so many are into "pretty boys" etc. What incels dont realise per their lack of experience, is that a womens psychological sexual maturity tends to happen later than the physical (perhaps later now than in previous ages due to the harmful sexualisation of young women in contemporary mainstream media.) Not all heterosexual woman follow this pattern of course, there are a few who strongly value face for most of their lifes. But generally, between the ages of about 18-22, a woman starts to be attracted chiefly to strength.

Not necessarily muscular strength like some red pillers seem to think. Every lad is well advised to put some effort into developing his physique, which has all sorts of benefits in addition to boosting attractiveness. But some lasses dont care about physical strength at all, and most find it a turn off is a fella takes it to body builder level. Women like all sorts of strength - mental, moral, financial, social, emotional, creative, etc. A PSL 4 whose developed some of these strengths is likely to do better with women than a PSL 7 who is weak across the board.

On the starfish thing, Looksmaxers are correct that passionate sex where the lass gets really into it is incomparably better. But while it would be a lie to claim looks dont matter at all, they are not even among the top five most important factors. A PSL 3 who has some knowledge of the below and the has the good fortune to click well with his woman (only needs a little luck) has a better chance of having passionate sex than a chad who does not.

• A woman's desire is partly a function of how intensely she feels her man desires her. (True for men too, but on average to a lesser extent)
• She generally has to be relaxed to get really into sex. (This wouldnt be common in the first few encounters, but once a relationship is underway, giving her a massage early in lovemaking can really help.)
• She has to feel cared for. There's all kinds of ways to romance a women, find other ways if you can, but an age old fall back for a man whos not especially emotionally aware is to spend money on her. Aforementioned massage useually helps too.
• While urgent desire can sometimes be a turn on, a woman generally like a slower tempo than a man - be aware of how her needs differ from yours and make sure what happens in the bedroom meets her needs as well as yours (It helps if you can be sensitive enough not to need to ask, but asking about her dos & donts is better than not knowing)
• Time in her lunar cycle is a big factor. Even a chad with a perfect way with woman is not likely get mutually passionate sex if her hormones dont align.

Almost equally harmful is the valorisation of darktriad.
Again there's a kernel of truth. Much to the chagrin of certain types of progressive, and the ~50% of men who would prefer to at least sometimes be sexually submissive, the vast majority of women prefer the man to take the lead in bed. But not in a hard-core way - thanks in part to the influence of porn, some women might go along with it, but find the experience traumatic. It's yet another reason why overall women are wanting less sex. Even from the selfish male perspective, acting too dominant in the first sexual encounter when little trust has been built up can come across as scary or creepy, causing the lass to leave thus loosing the lad the chance of sex & perhaps a lasting relationship.

On the Psychopathy / kindness dimension, Looksmaxers are correct that lasses can often sense "nice guy" manipulative kindness, which they despise. But genuine kindness is almost always appreciated, and raises a lads dating prospects. Granted, some studies suggest that on average women prefer a "looks after his own" kind of kindness rather than "care for all humanity". But even a "care for all sentience" type can be wildly attractive to women, esp if theyve partly integrated their dark side.

If anyones made it this far, we're now going to return to Azazel and the link to looksmaxxing. It gets pretty dark here, and while I could source this, Im going to relate how I first discovered these matters, which was via a RL friend who was close friends with a CIA asset called J. J was the first person to identify what's now called Militant accelerationism. Only she didn't claim that the far right were the driving force. Rather, she traced its roots to a satanist network with roots again in the 1970s, which spawned many offshoots. While they often infiltrate & sometimes fully coopt far right groups, they occasionally infiltrate even progressives too, all in the service of causing maximum chaos and trying to bring about eventual societal collapse. In the 21st century, while conducing some real world ops, most of their activity shifted to online. It was accelerationists who ceded various blackpill ideas onto early manosphere sites over a decade before Sargent Incel started his first forum. Once he did spin up his forums, several of them joined where they successfully guided the development of the blackpill in a darker direction than would have happened naturally. I dont know what's going on now in the private parts of the Sargent's sites, but researchers who made accounts and got access a few years back said it can get even darker there than on the public forums. Hence it being regrettable if even one person is guided to a site like looksmax.org via our articles.

To avoid ending on a sour note, blackpill isn't going to keep gaining in influence forever. We might even see the emergence quite soon of a rainbow pill, that would displace the other three, ending the sex and love recession. All it would take is the right person to ask the right question at the right time.

All the above said, as of 2026 it doesnt make much difference how we treat the blackpill in our articles. At best, we might prevent a couple of drops being added to a huge chalice of tears. Policy is policy, so no worries if any read all this but still want to mention .org in our articles.

No evidence whatsoever that looksmaxxing is derived from "white supremacy".

Looksmaxxing is just a practice where young men go to extreme and often harmful lengths to improve their looks, with the cause of this trend being an increased difficulty in recent years of men being able to find romantic partners, hence the desperate attempt to alter their appearance. It doesn't have any racist origins and that phrase should be promptly removed from the lead. MoAtWiki (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes it does, have, it is much unknown since it has been introduced into mainstream. In fact it has a wide history of racism and eugenics. You need to know more of its societal factors. White supremacy is part of looksmaxxings foundational ideologies and to say that its "just" a practice to improve someone's looks is a pretty hard turn because there is much more than "just a practice" behind it so there is no reason to remove it. And there would be major problems, 1.the sources stated clearly mention the conection between them and 2.To remove them despite their mentioning because of disagreement with the facts against wiki guidlines.Kosmge123 (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

provide a more sufficient source if you want to make this argument, it is the kind of criticism you can expect of any part of the manosphere as articles tend to associate that group with racial ideology without good backing or expectation of rebuttal. Subgroups exist on all sites associated with looksmaxxing that provide specific advice to black and asian men and these subgroups are generally accepted by the wider userbase.

The white supremacy claim might arise from an assumption that the PSL scale is based on a european standard of attractiveness. Surprisingly, this is not the case. Different ideal features for black and asian men are outlined, and I find it unlikely that a white supremacist space would accept this.

They accept that society inherently favors white people just as they believe society favors attractive people, and so being white and attractive will lead to better dating success. So, a white looksmaxxer will accept that they share the same plight as a looksmaxxer of any other race, in terms of their success in dating, but for different reasons. Blackpill ideology claims that an ideal world would not value people for their looks, race or any other factor other than the content of their character. But, since we don't live in an ideal world, looksmaxxers need to work to fit the standards imposed on them.

The only real important case for this discussion is that while any doubt exists as to whether looksmaxxing is rooted in white supremacy, it is irresponsible and petty to claim it as so. Jmanrip (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Incels generally have a racial hierarchy, that's why for example when it comes to attractiveness that's why many black incles blame their racial appearance, so it's not relevant. And yes it is based on white supremacy because they contain those racial ideologies, it's a melting pot of many ideologies including white supremacy. It actually has a wide recorded history of eugenics and white supremacy and racism, and my sources back it up, in one ofbthe sources the headline of the section literally says "Born from inceldom, white supremacy". There you have a line of empty claims standing there and I tell you they arent true. While it does usually do some inclusion of other but those POC are being in much closer proximity to white ideals, and actually the psl does promote white supremacy, and it DOES indeed promote white ideals other than which you claim, (ignoring the fact that the beauty industry is already eurocentric). The claim afterwards is correct I assume, that's where the "JBW" or "Just Be White" comes into play, because the industry and society is structured like this that european ideals are socially elevated, Poc automatically assume those to be superior, in a culture where the "Chad" being the essence of a masculine white male is seen as the ideal. That can lead eg to internalized racism, poc blaming their racial appearance as reason for their failiure of their success on the sexual market. It can be less apparent , because its true that since it has become more mainstream its less obvious for others, as the source from the "Forward" stated. The general concencus is that there is indeed a racial hierarchy and superiority and eugenics included in Looksmaxxing, also given that it came from incel which already contained those racial believes. I used these sources only since they mentioned white supremacy overtly. If you'd like I could present you more sources where it is mentioned less overtly but still pretty obvious, because while only those two were used, there is actually a wide documentation of their racial believes. Kosmge123 (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

before you present me with another source, actually tell me what articles you're referring to.

Incels think white people have an relatively easier time in society because society is still very racist. Up to that point, they are correct. If you deny that society is racist you are ignorant, and if you don't deny it, that doesn't make you a white supremacist. They would be white supremacists if they thought there was any reason as to why white people should logically be treated better than others, but that isn't an argument looksmaxxers would tend to make.

What distinguishes incels is their reaction to racism. Most people would prefer to fight against it for the good of society, incels look to work around it to their own benefit and no further. That may be racist in itself, but it isn't white supremacy.

White supremacist culture is more pervasive in wider America than it is in particular incel subcultures like looksmaxxing, which is too single mindedly focused on self improvement for any kind of radical political agenda to make sense. Jmanrip (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm refering to the articles you responded to, the forward and npr. Yes their reaction to racism is different, yes they believe that white people have an easier time, but what you're missing is that the reason they believe in it, is because they actually believe in that particular racial hierarchy, white on top dark on the bottom, white supremacy. Your argument that incels merely "recognize" societal racism and "work around it" without endorsing white supremacy relies on an incredibly narrow, outdated definition of the term. White supremacy isn't just a conscious political manifesto; it is the establishment and enforcement of a system where whiteness is the biological and aesthetic ideal. Because the very mechanics of this "self-improvement"—from the PSL scale's obsession with skull shapes and canthal tilts to the active practice of "whitemaxxing" to emulate the Eurocentric "Chad"—are directly lifted from 19th-century physiognomic race science, the movement isn't just passively observing a biased society, but actively replicating and enforcing a white supremacist hierarchy. They do not view this racial hierarchy as a social construct; they treat it as an immutable, biological reality. Now you said that white supremacy is less in focus for Looksmaxxing, that is exactly one of the points I made, as I said, white supremacy and eugenics is most often not obvious to others since it has been introduced to mainstream but it subconsciously promotes it. It is labled self improvement while behind the scenes this "self improvement" is actually the imposition and elevation of white eurocentric standards. As I said, incels have a wide history of racism and eugenics. If you like I am ready to present more to you.Kosmge123 (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

"whitemaxxing"? What? I won't entertain this because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about Jmanrip (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@MoAtWiki - this is a case where you're both right. Looksmaxxing doesnt originate from white supremacy. On the other hand, LM is technically based in part on white supremist ideas, and the two sources Kosmge123 added are evidence for it, even if one might argue (correctly IMO) that the sources are misleading. Let me break this down for you. As per our White supremacy article, there's essentially three meanings for the term: #1 The idea that white people should dominate over others. #2 White separatism. #3 the idea that the white race is superior over others. Unfortunately, even a qualified statement like African's tend to excel over whites in terms of power and acceleration - hence disproportionate amount of black elite football players - whereas whites tend to excel in raw strength, hence relative success in strongman competitions can be seen as white supremist due to meaning #3. A well established looksmaxxing /blackpill tenant is that being white tends to help with dating success. Even though looksmaxxers accept race can easily be compensated for by other factors, like differences in facial attractiveness, that doesnt negate the argument that in a sense they assert white superiority.

A couple of us long term editors were initially of a mind not to accept Kosmge123's edit, because while well supported by the sources (a very important thing to get your edit accepted on wikipedia) we didn't consider the sources high tier enough for such a misleading claim. However, after discussion it emerged Kosmge123 had a good reason to make the edit. They deplore the affect European beauty standards can have on the self-image of PoC. Back in the 20th century when advertising and other mainstream media promoted white beauty standards more directly than they have in recent decades, I recall several PoC expressing unhappiness at their ethnic features. I've not seen/heard such attitudes for about 30 years except when I've looked at blackpill forums. Kosmge123 very reasonably sees a risk that now looksmaxxing has gained mainstream popularity, it may cause a resurgence of those old harmful believes. So that, along with the good character Kosmge123 showed in related discussion is part of why their edit got accepted. As a relatively new editor, if youre still keen to get the mention of white supremacy removed, the most effective play would probably be to find a more reliable source that rebuts looksmaxxing being white supremacist (e.g. an article from a quality newspaper or an academic study.) I'm not sure such sources are out there right now TBF, but I'd expect one will come up eventually. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable, again thanks for your imput, its sumarizes the case pretty well. But I want to clarify that by no means I meant that Looksmaxxing completely stets from white supremacy, rather it's Part of its founding ideology just as you said, its a melting pot of many ideologies. But with the rest I completely agree. I don't think any article will say it since the general concensus agrees that its ideology involves racism and eugenics, even if they don't overtly mention it the way required for wikipedia they do in fact mention it in a less overt way.Kosmge123 (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Please remove "white supremacy" from lede.

The founder of looksmaxx is a black guy. How can looksmaxxing be white supremacy based if the founder of the foremost looksmaxxing platform is black? That makes no sense. Hence looksmaxxing is obviously not based on white supremacy. The source which mentions gigachad is using misrepresentation because the gigachad meme also has black variations such as Tyrone meme. Furthermore, the source uses the word "subtext". Something having a Subtext is much weaker claim than something being based on something. The term "based on" is a very strong claim and thus needs equally strong citations. A compromise could be to say something along the lines of "subsets of the looksmaxxing community has white supremacy undertones." The NPR source uses the term "extreme looksmaxxing"; therefore it makes more sense to say "white supremacy is a subtext within extreme looksmaxxing communities". But to broad-brush all looksmaxxing as white supremacy based has no sufficient evidence in the sources. If the term "white supremacy" stays, it needs rewording to characterise it as only a small subset having this perspective. ~2026-38974-94 (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

It is irrelevant that the founder of looksmaxx is a black guy since many black individuals are influenced by this ideology. Incels generally have a racial hierarchy, that's why for example when it comes to attractiveness that's why many black incles blame their racial appearance, so it's not relevant. And yes it is based on white supremacy because they contain those racial ideologies, it's a melting pot of many ideologies including white supremacy. It actually has a wide history of eugenics and white supremacy and racism. And pointing to the Tyrone meme, this title is founded in racist stereotype with it being used usually in a racist manner and it is as you said a >variation< of chad with it being in much closer proximity to white ideals, and by the way the black equivalent of "Gigachad" is "Giganigga", excuse my language. These terms actually reflect the racial hierarchy present among incles and in the source the headline of the section literally says "Born from inceldom, white supremacy". Talking about the source from The Forward, it does actually do the opposite of how you describe it. Subtext of something is when it is indeed there but not that apparent , because its true that since it has become more mainstream its less obvious for others and in no way would Looksmaxxing overtly say that they are racist. The general concencus is that there is indeed a racial hierarchy and superiority and eugenics included in Looksmaxxing. I used these sources only since they mentioned white supremacy overtly. If you'd like I could present you more sources where it is mentioned less overtly but still pretty obvious, because while only those two were used, there is actually a wide documentation of their racial believes. Kosmge123 (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I would have to agree, the term based on really jumped out to me as reaching, especially in the modern formulations of BP content which is extremely cosmopolitan. I mean, for the most part, they place a premium on white features as a subjective preference of the world, because the world has a social racialized beauty hierarchy. You could really compromise here and just speak about extremes, as you note. I think you would be hard pressed to find a popular looksmaxxer (not just a random forum user or extremist) who is willing to stake a claim about white supremacy to the degree that Kosmge123 is arguing. In many cases they overlap, but they are distinct, and this is clearly seen as it becomes more socially normalized within general self-improvement to an extent. Catechesis (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand your point, but while it is true that looksmaxxing has become more 'cosmopolitan' as it filters into mainstream self-improvement, we must distinguish between its sanitized modern iteration and its actual ideological foundations, looksmaxxing came from radical incel forums being, "PUAhate.com", "Sluthate.com" and "Lookism.net". The phrase 'based on' accurately reflects its origins; the core framework of the movement. As I already said, it's a melting pot of many ideologies, that's why it says "while based on white supremacy, it's most associated with...", as you said it overlaps but is distinct, because it's just one of multiple ideologies. I agree that no popular looksmaxxing figure would say that they are white supremacist, because it exists in the subtext since it has become more mainstream. But that does not erase its roots which do very well continue to exist subconsciously in individuals. Kosmge123 (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

"based on" does a lot of unintentional work. Looksmaxxing is a culturally the product of communities which had white supremacist ideas, yes, but there are many similar cultural objects today that have similar origins yet do not get an overt value judgement in the lede. European luxury fashion was based around colonial aesthetics, and many of those aesthetics have become mainstream and exist "subconsciously" yet we would not put based on white supremacy in the lede. You could perhaps say it was historically associated, and then refer to the cosmopolitan nature of its moderate formulations today. If modern looksmaxxers disavow explicit racism (insofar as they are talking about looksmaxxing and not content farming, etc) then I think its not substantiated that white supremacy is foundational ("based on"). ~2026-43345-14 (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I dont see how "based on" expresses anything else than that, since white supremacy is one of looksmaxxing founding ideologies. I understand the point you're trying to make, but the analogy to European luxury fashion is a false equivalence. Fashion incorporates broad historical aesthetics, whereas the very mechanics of looksmaxxing are actively practiced pseudoscientific eugenics. To say it is merely historically associated implies that white supremacy was just an incidental background element, but it is actually the literal architecture of the movements rating system. A modern influencer disavowing explicit racism while simultaneously ranking human biological value on a Eurocentric scale is a contradiction; the racial hierarchy is baked into the methodology itself, not just its history. While I am open to rephrase the exact semantics (such as 'rooted in' or 'built upon' if it clarifies the timeline for the lede), In my opinion watering it down to a mere 'historical association' ignores their actual roots that the core framework of the practice inherently relies on a white supremacist hierarchy, white supremacy is one of multiple founding ideologies but in no way the only one of course, (thats why I emphasized it on the phrase, "althought...most commonly associated with"). I therefore thought that "based on" was expressing it in an objective way, but I could rephrase it if it expresses something differentl than from what I have thought it would. Kosmge123 (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

It's about what "based on" asserts to a reader in Wikipedia's voice, per WP:ASSERT and WP:LEAD. It is your editorial synthesis, and clearly reads as such based on all of the disagreement about the wording. There are much fairer compromises if you want to include the historical angle, but as it stands the movement is fairly cosmopolitan and this is misleading readers who will read it as a definitional claim. If you would like to make such a claim, then attribute it, e.g. this critic or newspaper says it reproduces white supremacy or something. Catechesis (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

the accusation of WP:ASSERT is not true, this is not my own sinthesis, this is the standpoint of the journalistic and academic consensus, what is stated there is stated by the sources. The wording is actually not the main point of disagreement, "based on" is actually expressing everything in a correct manner but indeed pretty harsh sounding thats why I am ready to rephrase it, but what is actually disagreed upon is that white supremacy is indeed part of the founding ideologies of inceldom. And incels have a wide history of racism and eugenics. Its rather the lack of knowledge of the general population that leads to these disagreements, since when people hear looksmaxxing they don't think about racism but about ""just"" improving looks while in reality it's much more behind it which most are unaware of. The apparent tension between its modern 'cosmopolitan' demographic and its white supremacist foundations is easily reconciled: a movement can be demographically diverse while still inherently promoting a white supremacist framework. The inclusion of non-white participants doesn't neutralize the ideology, instead it can even reinforce it. The source stated in the text also says, that "it's subtext is white supremacy" I agree, from outside it's ideologies not apparent, but they very well exist in the background. There has to be another compromise because we can't change something but neglect the objective truth. Kosmge123 (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

"when people hear looksmaxxing they don't think about racism but about ""just"" improving looks while in reality it's much more behind it which most are unaware of"

Okay, but when the general public hears the words "luxury fashion" they're not picturing their entire catalogue as marketed to colonial sympathies of the era. We do not make the same inclusion of white supremacy in the lede. I don't see this as an "objective truth", clearly the solution is to quote the person the article mentions, Eugene Beresin, as stating it has "explicit and inherent ties to white supremacy". I don't think "based on" as a flat, unattributed claim is defensible, and additionally I don't think the current sources actually support it.

The Beresin quote in NPR is one line inside a section describing the ranking system in the article's own voice, it's not a sustained or nuanced argument, and it's specifically about the Chad ideal being white, not about looksmaxxings ideological origins. The Forward piece is similarly a passing mention in a piece primarily about a specific influencer, not a focused argument about looksmaxxing's foundations. Neither is strong sourcing. There are much stronger sources you could cite on this issue, but even then, you would need to qualify those claims by including:

...While its rating system has been described as rooted in white supremacist ideals...

...Though scholars have characterized it as drawing on white supremacist ideology...

And really, I would say looksmaxxing falls under 'black pill ideology' which could be viewed under such a white supremacist lens (at its extremes). Catechesis (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Again, The luxury fashion analogy continues to fail because fashion deals in aesthetic trends, whereas looksmaxxing actively utilizes pseudoscientific measurements and biological determinism, which is textbook eugenics. You claim the NPR piece only makes a passing mention and isn't about ideological origins, yet you are completely ignoring that the literal headline of that section explicitly states, 'Born from inceldom, white supremacy.' And beresins point was that the "chad" was the ideal figure of looksmaxxers, the rating system is pretty much the core figure of looksmaxxing, it bases the level of attractiveness on its scale. And the source from the forward does not mention it as you state, it uses a popular looksmaxxer to illustrate a point. In this scenario they used clavicular, the source states that while looksmaxxers haven't publicly outet themselves about their ideology, **the subtext of looksmaxxing white supremacy**. There are indeed other sources but most of them do not overtly mention it like those sources do. I can provide them to you if you wish. Kosmge123 (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

No, this is an editorial opinion, and goes against WP:ASSERT. It creates the illusion that there is no disagreement about this subject. I mean, even the history section of this article speaks about black pill ideology as foundational and does not mention white supremacy. There are much better sources you could cite, and if you can't find them, then clearly this is not an accepted fact as you are characterizing it to be.

Also I have no idea how you are denying the luxury fashion analogy. Looksmaxxing deals in aesthetics as well, in fact it borrows from the aesthetics of the world, which are socially constructed and racialized, and that is why it has undertones of white supremacy. Everything of a similar cultural origin, as other people have mentioned here, can and has been interpreted in that lens. Similarly, you can interpret luxury fashion through that lens but we wouldn't do so, because that would be essentially irrelevant in the lede beyond a discussion about its historical basis. Luxury fashion also has connections to eugenics and pseudoscience, that doesn't make looksmaxxing a special category. Catechesis (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

If your primary objection is strictly WP:ASSERT, then the Wikipedia-compliant solution is attribution, not erasure. Eg. a phrasing to explicitly attribute the consensus, such as: 'foundational ideologies as rooted in white supremacy and eugenics.' Which is true. Although I still dont understand how it goes against WP:ASSERT its not my opinion, its literally stated there. And many other sources.

​And continuing to rely on the luxury fashion analogy ignores the fundamental mechanics of this community, thats false equivalency. Luxury fashion sells clothing and lifestyle branding based on cultural trends, this is actually an example where it has historical connection only, as discussed earlier, but which is not the case in looksmaxxing. Looksmaxxing is the active, biological evaluation of human worth based on pseudoscientific measurements. This is not 'borrowing from aesthetics' its active phrenology and physiognomy directly lifted from 19th-century scientific racism and it continues to be part of it. It is biological determinism applied to the human body. It cannot be compared since it only encompasses the fact that in history it was founded by (...) which is also the case for looksmaxxing but encompasses more than that. If we argue that luxury fashion to this day continues to promote white supremacy, which I think it does not, then yes the analogy works. And there is no disagreement among scholars since its actually theconcensus. Incels have a wide recorded history about the racial believes and eugenics, its either sources mention it, those who dont do not disagree or even reinforce it. Regarding the history section,​ the fact that the article currently fails to detail the deeply racialized hierarchy inherent in blackpill ideology is an editorial oversight that should be expanded upon with reliable sources, not used as a justification to censor well-documented context from the lede.Kosmge123 (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

What? An opinion or analysis stated by another person or a scholar does not make it a fact. Presenting a sociopolitical interpretation as an unvarnished fact in Wikipedia's voice directly violates WP:ASSERT. If that source is used, we must attribute to Beresin or similar critics. Yes, incels have a history of racism/eugenics, and looksmaxxing originated in incel forums. Concluding that therefore all modern looksmaxxing is fundamentally "based on" white supremacy is textbook WP:SYNTH. You desire an extremely unqualified choice for some reason. The NPR article is not explicitly about those connections, and you're literally using a editorial subheading choice as evidence for what Beresin means to say, WP:SYNTH. If you need the synthesize what Beresin is actually saying you are synthesizing new details from the sources which are not present. As well, if something (especially as weakly sourced as it is) is not discussed further in detail in the rest of the body, it doesn't have a place in the lede.

You explicitly acknowledge white supremacy is "one of multiple" ideologies and exists in the "subtext." If something is one ingredient among many, or esoteric, it is not the overt, architectural foundation. "Contains elements of," "has historical ties to," or "can serve as a pipeline to" accurately describe the relationship. Based on does not!

You are also treating a bunch of different 20th century pseudosciences as synonymous with white supremacy, and then conflating them with looksmaxxing where its participants may or may not reject, transform, or otherwise repurpose in their own uses. That is again, your own synthesis.

You clearly agree that attribution is needed. It is consensus in perhaps a narrow sense, similarly you could say that many rightwing alternative health movements are "based on" qanon when they can be pipelines to it. The majority of scholars would claim it is blackpill ideology/lookism/biological determinism, which can be a pipeline to white supremacy, etc, rather than its foundations being explicitly white supremacist. Catechesis (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

You are misapplying WP:SYNTH. WP:SYNTH applies when a Wikipedia editor combines material from multiple sources to reach a new conclusion. Pointing out that an NPR section is literally titled 'Born from inceldom, white supremacy' is not synthesis; it is accurately citing the publication's own definitive conclusion. Furthermore, classifying this connection as merely a subjective 'opinion' fundamentally misunderstands the movement's mechanics, its not just an opinion, beresin just mentioned the concensus among scholars, if someone was interviewed and said "the earth is round" what youre doing is saying that its just an opinion although this "opinion" ist just a statement regarding a fact, there were multiple articles and papers published about this, its an objective fact, those same researchers also mention that it originates from incel and blackpill ideology which is also in the lede. When a rating system (the PSL scale) explicitly measures human worth by proximity to a Eurocentric ideal—incorporating biological determinism and practices literally termed 'whitemaxxing'—identifying that as a white supremacist framework is a descriptive fact of its methodology.

​This is heavily documented beyond the sources already provided. For example, researchers mapping the manosphere in academic journals like New Media & Society routinely analyze the 'Just Be White' (JBW) ideology not as an incidental byproduct, but as a foundational pillar of the blackpill and looksmaxxing framework. And the health analogy does not work either, looksmaxxing didn't just become a 'pipeline' to racism; the core metrics of its aesthetic scale were engineered within communities explicitly operating on a racial hierarchy. Regarding the body of the article: if the body currently lacks this depth, the standard Wikipedia procedure is to expand the body using these reliable sources, not to use an incomplete section as an excuse to scrub well-documented facts from the lede. Its not an opinion of someone, multiplepapers support that claim and if beresin utters that claim its more than just an opinion, yet you continue to reject it in favor of entirely watering down the movement's origins.Furthermore, your argument that white supremacy cannot be foundational because it operates as 'subtext' today fundamentally misunderstands what a foundation is. A foundation is literally what exists beneath the surface. The fact that a modern TikTok user might not overtly recognize the eugenic origins of the scale they are using does not change the racialized hierarchy that the scale was built to measure, instead that is exactly the dangerous part, something promoting white supremacy without knowledge of its user. Yes I agree its one of many ingredients, one of multiple ""foundational"" ingredients, the way youre phrasing it, it would appear as if I had only mentioned white supremacy as its singular source which I have not done, if you go to the article I have mentioned "While ""also"" based on...", its one of many ingredients, but it would be kind of incomplete if only blackpill ideology was present in the lede.Or should we say 'it promotes white supremacy' because at the end of the day its fundamentaly the same thing. And yes it is the concensus, you seem to underestimate the amount of articles and papers actually regarding to this topic. Kosmge123 (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I am not misapplying WP:SYNTH. If you would like it spelled out directly, you are pointing to an editorial subheading as its definitive conclusion. I should also mention this article is literally a parent watch-out guide rather than a serious analysis of the movement. Either way, it is not a factual assertion, and it is not an assertion of Beresin, it is an editorial choice. You are combining multiple distant claims, which are not sourced, to make the much stronger overarching claim of "based on" which does not appear verbatim in the sources. That is synthesis. Find a source which says it verbatim, and then report it, pointing to a summarization of what you interpret to be scholarly consensus is not good enough.

Additionally, I am not sure how you fail to understand this, but a sociopolitical interpretation is not in the same realm as empirical facts. Ex. We do not state "Donald Trump is a racist" on his page, but rather that "Trump has been accused of racism by numerous scholars and commentators", even if you can find a 99% scholarly consensus on this issue, it would need to be attributed because it is a contested analysis and not an objective fact. Wikipedia's job is not to determine which facts are objectively true but to report information. Many scholars study looksmaxxing through the lens of body dysmorphia, digital alienation, or economics and don't foreground white supremacy as you are trying to do. WP:DUE

Again, you continue to equivocate for whatever reason something derivative of white supremacy as the thing in itself or promotion of the thing itself. Attribution is clearly necessary here, I have no idea why you continue to contest this and desire the current wording.

The standard Wikipedia policy is to remove the unexpanded part of the lede and incorporate it into the body.

"Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article"

"Any changes to the lead should be based on the content in the body". There is no content in the body to support this. Catechesis (talk) 07:52, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Regarding WP:SYNTH, demanding a source use the exact verbatim phrase 'based on' is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. WP:PARAPHRASE explicitly instructs editors to summarize source material in their own words. According to WP:SYNTH formulating in own words is not original research. When reliable sources state the movement was 'born from' white supremacy and operates on racially exclusionary baseline metrics, reflecting that foundation in the text is accurate summarization, not synthesis.

Labeling Trumps personal beliefs is a subjective character judgment; describing a rating system would be a descriptive fact of its methodology.

​The lede currently explicitly mentions 'blackpill ideology.' You cannot separate looksmaxxing from blackpill, and as the academic sources show, the same would go for blackpill ideology,If you want to argue that categorizing the movement's ideological foundations is merely a 'sociopolitical interpretation' rather than an empirical fact, then by your own logic, we must completely remove 'blackpill ideology' from the lede as well. Blackpill is a sociological framework and a sociopolitical interpretation of dating dynamics, yet we state its connection in Wikipedia's voice because it is the objective, structural reality of the movement. Most Scholars studying body dysmorphia or digital alienation are analyzing the **psychological** effects of the movement; this does not erase or contradict the academic consensus regarding its **ideological** origins. Both belong in the article. Thats the reason I contest it, becsuse if one ideological aspect is already mentioned, it should show the bigger picture.

If your concern is that the body does not currently contain enough detail to support the summarizing sentence in the lede, the standard, constructive Wikipedia practice is to collaboratively expand the body section using the reliable sources we’ve discussed. We should not use the body's current incompleteness as a pretext to scrub well-documented historical context from the lede. I am ready to draft the addition to the body and apply our attributed compromise to the lede, but the standard editorial solution to a discrepancy between the lede and the body is to synchronize them, not delete well-sourced material. Kosmge123 (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

You continue to mischaracterize my arguments for the sake of this unnecessary addition to the lede. You are conflating the subject matter of the scale with its ideological characterization, that it promotes or is based on white supremacy. Descriptively, you can say that it ranks phenotypically white features higher, you cannot interpret that and then say therefore it is based on white supremacy as an objective fact, that is an interpretation. It requires a normative judgment that this aesthetic preference is not just a byproduct of global beauty standards, but is actively and inherently a system of white racial superiority.

If a future scholar writes a paper arguing that the PSL scale's Eurocentric bias is actually a reflection of globalized Western hegemony rather than intentional white supremacy, would your wording still be factually correct? It would not, because your wording asserts a specific ideological diagnosis as objective truth. Therefore, per WP:ASSERT and WP:DUE, we must attribute the label to the scholars who use it, rather than stating it in Wikipedia's voice.

The lede mentions black pill ideology, because it is expanded upon in the body and is sourced adequately. Again, you mischaracterize the lede. "The term has commonly been associated with the black pill ideology" is an attributive phrasing, and importantly, the body of the article extensively expands on black pill ideology with multiple sources. Until recently, the lede was as such:

"The term has commonly been associated with the black pill ideology, which espouses that female sexual selection is primarily based on external physical qualities such as height and attractiveness"

It is clearly an addition, rather than a summarization of the content of the body. Black pill ideology is mentioned in the body many times. I am perfectly open to you drafting well-sourced body content that discusses this interpretation, with proper attribution to scholars. Remove it until you build the body first, it doesn't have a place in the lede. Catechesis (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

You keep attacking the idea of stating it as an 'unvarnished fact,' again the reason why I included this was because the ideological aspect being "black pill" was already regarded.

​Your hypothetical scenario about a 'future scholar' is irrelevant to Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia reflects the current verifiable consensus (WP:WEIGHT), not imaginary future papers. And currently, the wide consensus of researchers and extremism watchdogs explicitly identifies the 'Just Be White' (JBW) ideology and the movement's eugenic rating scales as white supremacist. You are treating a widely accepted academic consensus as if it were a fringe, contested hypothesis. Youre wrong, the statement is not contested, its a fact, papers literally mention it as you stated and incels themselves agree, they literally use european 19th century pseudoscience which was invented to prove that Europeans were superior, the "chad" the idolized essence of white masculinity being on top superior over everything else, arguing otherwise is a denial of the movement's own baseline terminology. If papers talk about its ideologies then they almost or pretty much always mention how its racist. Furthermore, your claim that white supremacy requires 'intentional' racial superiority rather than a 'byproduct of global standards' is a profound misunderstanding of systemic racism. Enforcing a biological hierarchy where Eurocentric features are the apex of human genetic value is the active practice of white supremacy, regardless of whether a looksmaxxer writes a political manifesto about it. They are the ones holding these values, may it be a consequence of western hegemony or not, and the thing is youre actually also correct on this part, its because the beaty industry is eurocentric amd the incel forums turned it into eugenics, thats the point. A system where its white on top and black on bottom, I don't understand how you don't get it, that's textbook white supremacy. ​Your defense of the 'blackpill' phrasing is equally flawed. 'The term has commonly been associated with...' is not an attribution to a specific scholar per WP:ASSERT; it is a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice about the movement's ties. Applying one standard of evidence to 'blackpill' and an impossibly strict, verbatim-required standard to 'white supremacy'—when both are structurally intrinsic to the movement—is inconsistent editing. ​However, regarding WP:LEAD, I accept the procedural point. I will draft an expansion for the body's History and Ideology sections detailing the JBW framework, the movement's reliance on 19th-century physiognomy, and the academic/journalistic consensus linking these elements to white supremacy using the aforementioned sources. Once the body reflects this well-documented reality, the summary will rightfully remain in the lede.Kosmge123 (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

'Smellmaxxing' is not a noteworthy phenomenon and should be removed

"In the 2020s, the smellmaxxing trend became an offshoot of looksmaxxing."

This is somewhat misleading. In 2024, a few articles by the NYT/BI/etc spoke about the subject of teen boys engaging in fragrance culture. While it is in the thinnest sense apart of the broader scope of looksmaxxing, it was more apart of the general category of self improvement (gym, hair, fragrance, etc) content. As well, the fragrance culture among teens did not use "smellmaxxing" it's a term originating from said editorials. Arguably the term "pheromonemaxxing" is more popular or atleast recognizable, even if inherently jocular. As well, the term looksmaxxing completely eclipses "smellmaxxing", which has seen very little popularity as a term as compared to looksmaxxing just using Google trends. It doesn't deserve a mention, unless incorporated into a larger section about the trend of young men engaging in such self improvement activites as a whole (which is a worthwhile subject spoken about frequently in connection to looksmaxxing, not necessarily as looksmaxxing.) Catechesis (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2026 (UTC)