Talk:Incel

Bias

This is not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have noticed that in order to see how biased a Wikipedia article is, you usually only need to read its lede. Biased editors really love to shove all of their narrative into the lede (probably to make sure that anybody who just skims through articles gets the "correct" picture). Ledes of deeply biased articles are often full of minute details that really don't belong there. But hey, we don't need to follow good encyclopedic writing standards when we have a narrative to push, isn't that right? The lede of this article is a full-on no-holds barrage. It is, for example, really important to note, in the lede, that most incels are "white heterosexual males", because that's such an important detail. It definitely belongs to the lede. We want to make absolutely sure that this crucial information is given to the casual reader. He or she might otherwise not become aware of this extremely crucial detail of great importance. Also, of course, make absolutely sure that the reader becomes aware of mass murders. It's very important! Someone recently shortened the lede, making it more succinct and less biased. This was, of course, quickly reverted! We can't have such unbiased ledes on this kind of article! Heaven forbid some casual reader doesn't get the full picture of incels being the unholy trinity of white heterosexual males, and mass murderers! Good thing this vandalism was quickly reverted! I wish this were the only Wikipedia article that's so incredibly biased. Unfortunately it isn't. Wopr (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Well said, Wopr. Also, I looked over the sources for the "white heterosexual males": The Current, The Washington Post, The Guardian, CityNews, NBC News, Houston Press, CTV News and The Atlantic. These are all secondary journalistic sources, all from press outlets on the political left and of varying repute. Not a single primary academic source is given for this. This has all the hallmarks of bias and agenda-pushing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.95.244.228 (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Do you have an academic source discussing the race and sexual orientation of incels? This article relies heavily on news sourcing because there is limited research of "involuntary celibacy" (at least as it is defined by these communities; there is more research on things like sexual frustration, but "involuntary celibacy" is not widely used in that context). GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Guardian, Washington Post, Atlantic? Most folks call that mainstream journalism of the type that was around to write about the assassination of Lincoln and the impeachment of Johnson. GMGtalk 15:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC) @Wopr: admit it, you've heard of incels because of the mass shootings. wumbolo ^^^ 08:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC) As with all Wikipedia articles, this lead summarizes the article content, and the article represents what is available in reliable sources. If you feel the lead does not summarize the article properly, please be more specific. If you think the article body is not accurate, please provide reliable sources to correct. Otherwise, this is just soapboxing with no suggested changes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC) This page kind of seems like hate speech. Like it just seems characteristically sweeping, lacking in nuance, full of clear implication, and loaded with non-empirical subjectivity resting only on fluffy third party assertions. Such as that most incels are white (source? Survey? Anything? Nope) There's little mention of actual incel ideas, like appearance based discrimination and priviledge, which is in some ways similar to intersectionality, the drastic rise in millenials in virginity at a late age (150 percent increase btw), the lowered amount of sex millenials on aggregate are having, the historical record low levels of marriage or long term relationships, or related science like the known psychological effects of a lack of affection. It's like you took an excellent opportunity to offer real insight into this admittedly frequently toxic online community as a social phenomena, and just used it for painting them as terrorists in waiting. In fact, it smacks of political propaganda, like something out of a communist autocracy. I get that this will likely be deleted, but it's this sort of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Oh I see someone talking about real demographics. I believe there's an incel dating website, and they have done a survey. From recollection Asians and some other groups are more disproportionately represented than Europeans per population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4402:14C2:8200:E1A8:9659:334E:18E0 (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Citation overkill

I find it really ironic that discussion on the amount of bias and unneeded detail and minutia in the lede of the article (which quite clearly is there for a certain purpose) isn't allowed even on the talk page of the article, even though the discussion is explicitly talking about the article, how it has been written, and what it ought to contain (even though Wikipedia's own rules explicitly allow and guide discussion about articles to be done in their talk pages).

If you want more concrete expressions of what the problems are, then here: The lede is way too long considering the length of the article itself, it contains way too much minutia and mostly irrelevant detail that does not belong to a brief summary of a subject, and quite clearly the lede is pushing an agenda, leading the reader to a certain direction, which badly breaks the bias rules of wikipedia. Also, in the talk pages of some other articles editors have pointed out that ledes generally shouldn't contain references, because that's not their purpose. The fact that this lede is stock full of references just goes to show how much content it has that should be in the main text of the article, not the lede (even if we accepted that every single point made in the lede ought to be in the article, which is another discussion).

This is a bad habit certain editors engage in Wikipedia, especially those who are pushing a certain political agenda (and this is by far not the only article that has this same fault). I'm not asking to push a different agenda, or even to add alternative points of view to the lede, or even to the article itself. I'm just asking to follow proper encyclopedic principles, and the principles of Wikipedia, and make at the very least the lede of the article shorter, more succinct, and more neutral. Remove the minutia and the bias from it. Preferably the bias should be removed from the entire article, but the lede is a good start.

If this kind of discussion isn't allowed on the talk page of this article, then where? Wopr (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wopr: wrong and wrong. The lead is not a good start to remove bias, it is the body, since the lead summarizes the body. Also, the lead shouldn't be shorter, it should be longer, read MOS:LEAD. wumbolo ^^^ 17:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Well...not totally wrong. The citation bombing in the lead is pretty gruesome. The body isn't much better though. If you count mid-sentence citations, the number of times that four or more are used for a single sentence is...something special. I mean...in the first sentence under demographics, there are almost as many citations as there are words. GMG^talk 18:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Is anyone is familiar with ways to combine multiple references in footnotes? Seems it must have come up before on other articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

<ref><br/>
* ref 1<br/>
* ref 2<br/>
* ref 3</ref>
But it screws up ref naming if the references are repeated. The most elegant solution is to ask why we really need 15 or 17 references for a single sentence. GMG^talk 18:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The nine references for "Self-identified incels are mostly white, male and heterosexual" stands out as the most excessive citation overkill in the lead. It's clear from discussions on this talk page that it needs to retain some citations, but even if we kept the best two citations for the statement that they're white, two for the statement that they're male and two for the statement that they're straight, and none of them happened to be the same citations, we could still drop three citations. The Ohlheiser/WaPo citation attests all three characteristics, saying "'these are primarily heterosexual white men [...]' said Ross Haenfler", as does the Rouner/Houston Press article, which says "angry, mostly white, straight and cis men"; what do you think of dropping it down to just those two? -sche (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that the number of cites in the lead is pretty brutal. I toyed with removing all citations from the lead entirely, leaving the citation duties up to the body article, but given how often various parts of the lead are challenged on this talk page I thought that might not be wise. It could make sense to just leave a few of the strongest sources in place, and save the rest for the body. The huge number of cites has largely been in response to people repeatedly posting on this talk page to try to refute the white/heterosexual/male thing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree this is a case where leaving some citations in the lead is wise. But I've dropped the sentence in question down from nine citations to "just" five, including the two mentioned above. -sche (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The amount of citations is not the main problem in the lede, or the entire article. It's just a symptom of a bias problem. Why does an editor feel the need to specify, specifically, that these people are mostly "white, male and heterosexual"? Why is, for instance, race so important to be mentioned here? Can you think of any other, non-politically charged subject, where somebody feels the need to mention race in the lede, or even the entire article? It is quite clear that whoever felt the need to mention those three characteristics, including race, had an agenda and biased narrative in mind, and the excessive amount of citations is quite clearly a symptom of this person feeling the need to justify that characterization. The message is quite clear: "Most of these people are white, male and heterosexual. See? All these numerous sources confirm it!" The sheer number of citations is not the core problem; it's a symptom of the underlying bias problem. Reducing the number of citations isn't going to remove the bias. Wopr (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Is your argument, saying what sources say is bias? Perhaps, but it's not bias as how it is usually defined, which is saying what sources don't say, or ignoring what sources do say because you don't like it. As for your claim that using those words is bias -- they are words, which you seem to have a bias against but that does not mean we would not use them, as the sources do, and not according to your anti-word bias. As for who added them, you can check the history, but that seems irrelevant ad hominem, and you will likely find multiple editors have edited. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you're right about race. It's very stupid to say that incels are mostly white, given that they are an online subculture (it's beyond me how you find out an online person's race – they have to show you their ID at least, since any expansive survey will be riddled with trolling), the only poll I found on the first two pages of Google shows 31/89 incels being white, and finally, the article's lead completely disregards the fact that the article mentions currycels by name (they are "Indian incels"). We never talk about race in the lead of biographies, and race is controversial even in subjects that are "defined" by race e.g. the Congressional Black Caucus. wumbolo ^^^ 11:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I assume you know that a poll on an internet forum is not a reliable source? I don't agree that it's biased to include a point that is frequently mentioned in many reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, so the lede is still as biased and politically charged as always, without change. I suppose it's completely hopeless to wish for any change. I also suppose that if I or anybody else were to edit the article to be a bit more neutral and remove the unneeded references to things like race, those edits would be quickly reverted, probably more out of principle than anything else. I would probably also be quickly banned from editing further, or even using this talk page. I'm guessing this discussion has probably only strengthened the resolve of the main author of the article to keep it the way it is, no matter what. If one protests this political bias too much, one gets banned. That's just how it works. Wikipedia remains the mouthpiece of partisan politically biased people, who are free to push their political agenda as long as they format it in a certain way, and there's nothing that can be done about it. Any protests will be dismissed with excuses. I could suggest a more neutral lede for the article, but it would probably just be a waste of time. I suppose being banned is my only prospect for even voicing my opinion. Wopr (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Listen, there's nothing wrong with arguing an unpopular position. I often argue unpopular positions I don't even myself agree with, just for the sake of a balanced discussion. But you are arguing wrong. If you wan't to substantively change the content of an article, you need to come bearing sources, high quality sources, and you need to demonstrate that the current state of the article does not reflect the consensus among the preponderance of those sources. That's the only metric that really matters, because if the sources are biased, and Wikipedia is exactly as biased as the sources, than we've done our jobs, because Wikipedia does not judge neutrality according to how well we represent reality; we judge neutrality according to how well we represent the sources. GMG^talk 12:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you in all honesty saying that you do not think there is any sort of agenda or ulterior motive in writing, for example, that "white heterosexual male" in the lede of the article, and that it was a completely innocent and innocuous observation without even a shred of bias or sociopolitical motivation from the part of whoever put it there? I think that both you and me, and whoever put it there, know perfectly well that it was added there deliberately in order to give a certain picture. (I would, once again, point out that the fact that the statement was "backed up" by a flood of a whopping nine references is quite clearly a sign that the person who put it there felt the need to over-justify his or her actions. Normally such statements are backed up by one or at most two citations, not nine. I think we would both agree that whoever put it there felt the need to justify putting it there, because it's a rather controversial thing to point out, especially on this modern politically charged climate.) If you are being completely honest, I believe that you would agree that yes, perhaps there was some kind of "message" that the editor wanted to convey by putting it there. And if that's true, then it shows a bias. And it's not even the only such problem in that lede. And that's my major problem. Race, among other characteristics, has nothing to do with anything here, and its inclusion in the lede (and even the article at all) is superfluous, inflammatory, leading, and pushing a certain political agenda. This is not what a neutral encyclopedia ought to be doing. Do you agree with any of this, even slightly? Wopr (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that I am agnostic to the personal bias of editors, because arguing from personal bias accomplishes nothing. If you want to argue and accomplish nothing, Wikipedia is not a forum for that. If you want to argue and accomplish something, you need to bring sources. GMG^talk 16:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources for what, exactly? Sources that say that this article is biased? Or that saying "white heterosexual male" in this context is needlessly inflammatory and provocative? Sources that say that an encyclopedia shouldn't contain this kind of political bias and political message? I honestly cannot understand what kind of sources you are asking for, or what those sources should say. I'm asking for this article, especially its lede, to be made a bit more neutral and less politically inflammatory. What "sources" do you want me to cite for that, exactly? What is it that you are asking? Wopr (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

In this case, if the preponderance of reliable sources feel that demographic information is relevant to an understanding of the subject, and so report demographic information, then we should do so also. Compare something like Rodney King, where demographic information is obviously central to the subject's notability. If only a small minority of sources feel the need to cover demographic information, then that helps to advance the argument that the prominent inclusion of the information here is lending WP:UNDUE weight. So if you want to demonstrate that it's biased, you need to survey the sources, and demonstrate that it is, not simply say that it is. Compare the survey of sources I posted a couple of days ago here looking at the characterization of holding facilities for immigrant children. GMG^talk 19:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

That's the genius of it, isn't it? Most news sources copy other news sources. Quite often there are only very few original sources from which the snippet originates from, sometimes even only one. Dozens of news organizations repeating the same factoid over and over gives the false impression of likewise numerous sources for the same information, when in fact they are all just copying each other, or the few or lone original source. But this is just the perfect excuse to use Wikipedia as a political mouthpiece: "Look at these tens of 'reliable' news sources stating the same thing. That gives credibility and weight to it. You can't prove otherwise!" As long as one isn't able to do the extensive research to prove that the media is just copying one single original source and/or is being overly biased over the subject matter, it's the perfect excuse to write biased politically charged Wikipedia articles that push an agenda. An objections will just be dismissed with "my sources are bigger than yours". You know perfectly well that this article is highly biased, and extremely politically charged, but you can't even bring yourself to admit it. That's a problem with Wikipedia in general. Wopr (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

That gives credibility and weight to it. Yes, it does. That's how this works. It's not a bug; it's a feature. And saying you don't have the time to do the research falls a little flat, seeing as how you've, from what I can tell, mostly spent the last week aimlessly complaining, which, as I have told you, has accomplished nothing. GMG^talk 12:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

If I am the "main author of the article" you mention, I have no objection to the lead being edited to remove the white/heterosexual/male bit—iff you can show that either it is inaccurate by producing reliable sources, or achieve consensus on this talk page (or some other appropriate venue, like WP:NPOVN) that it is being given undue weight. So far you have made no attempt at doing either, and have rather just been railing that it is biased and politically charged, and accusing folks of bias and agenda-pushing. You won't be banned for having a civil, policy-based discussion about the content of the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

If that bit was such an innocuous thing and there was no agenda behind including it, why did you feel the need to flood it with so many citations? I think we both know perfectly well that you know how inflammatory, provocative and controversial it is, especially on this day and age, to put something like that in an article like this, and that's why you felt the need to justify yourself by flooding it with citations. Wopr (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're repeating a question I've already answered, but I'll repeat the relevant portion of my answer here for convenience:

The claim was repeatedly challenged on the incel talk page by folks such as yourself, who tended to fall into one of three categories: those who said it was incorrect, those who said it was given undue weight in proportion to how often it was mentioned in reliable sourcing, and those who didn't like that it was mentioned. I don't believe the folks in the first group were ever able to provide any reliable sources that discussed the demographics of incel communities as anything other than primarily white/heterosexual/male. Some sources were produced that discuss the existence of non-white/non-heterosexual/non-male incels, but the folks offering up those sources seemed to misunderstand the statement as implying that all incels are straight white men, not that they make up the majority of the communities. As for those in the second group who argued it was not widely mentioned in reliable sourcing, the impetus was less on them to produce evidence, since one can't really prove that negative. Hence why myself and other editors added additional sourcing to show that it is mentioned quite often. As for the third group, well, Wikipedia:I just don't like it.

I understand that you disagree with its inclusion in the lead, but it seems you might be unfamiliar with how these subjects are handled on Wikipedia. The fact that more citations were used for that claim was an artifact of resolving conversations about whether it should be included in the lead—though I do agree with those on the talk page who felt the list of inline notes had grown too long and decided to pare it down.

I see that you replied there that you didn't believe me, but that does not change my answer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The demographics of Incels

There is no data or evidence cited or provided to support the statement that self-identified incels are “mostly white, male, and heterosexual.”

There probably are intuitive reasons to suspect that most incels are male and heterosexual. The listing of them as “white,” however, does not have such intuition unless you are racist against white people. Period.

If that statement is going to stand, then evidence supporting that statement should be provided. If that evidence is not available, then it is imperative to the integrity of Wikipedia that that statement be edited, revised, or simply removed.

Incels are a popular topic in our modern times and Wikipedia is a common resource for many people. Any false or unsupported statement smearing an entire race should not be tolerated by those with administrative control of Wikipedia pages.

Thank you and I will check back next week to see that this issue has been addressed to reflect the objective truth. Lanebriand37 (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless you (or someone else) can provide reliable sources that state the contrary to what the article does, you'll be disappointed when you "check back next week". --Jorm (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jorm: Thank you for the advice. Here's the first link I can offer from a closed Facebook group that I am a member of:

From the article: "A lot of common knowledge on incels, especially in articles surfacing now, is incorrect. Incels are often mistaken for being alt-right but they are remarkably different and detest the label. Incels prefer to be NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training) and live off the welfare state (‘neetbux’)or their parents in order to LDAR (Lay Down and Rot). This is directly in contrast to the small government/individualism behind the alt-right. While the alt-right is often seen as a group for white men, many incels are of ethnic or non-white descent. Incels have been described to have come from the pick up artist community. That’s ridiculous.

Many incels believe that whites cannot be incels, as they are ‘naturally more attractive’ (not my words, calm down!). This runs opposite to the media narrative that is desperate for incels to be white men, in order to maximise public outrage towards a privileged, racist and misogynistic class. Incels are actually a racially diverse group. If someone were to highlight that a lot of the rage from the incel community comes their experiences with racism (girls don’t look at me because I am Indian/Asian/Ethnic etc.) they may inspire some kind of sympathy.

Incels tend to put whites on a pedestal, which appears to be why they are often said to be white supremacists. Racism in the incel community is rife, but this includes a lot of racism directed toward their own identity (often as a form of self hatred). This is as bizarre as it sounds. This was never going to be easy. The incels are a genuinely bizarre community."

There is your first piece of evidence to the contrary to what the article states about the quantitative demographics of incels.Lanebriand37 (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Medium is not a reliable source; it's a blog service. I appreciate you attempting to actually provide a source - no one else has - but it's not good (it's effectively self-published), and cannot be used. --Jorm (talk) 02:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lanebriand37: Please also read the conversations above and in the archives of this talk page where this has been discussed repeatedly. I'm not sure why you're claiming that that statement is uncited; there is a list of inline citations directly following. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: At the time I had a paywall blocking the WaPo article cited here, which is really the only citation supporting the claim that most self-identified incels are white, in particular. I read the other four citations and could find no evidence of the majority race of incels. Since then, I have managed to access the WaPo article, which as far I can tell is the only citation offering the quantitative evidence to support the claim that most "self-identified incels" are "white."

The two pieces of evidence offered by the WaPo article are (1) a quote from an sociologist: “ 'Frustration with relationships and lack thereof are pretty common human experiences. What makes the incel culture different is that these are primarily heterosexual white men who are directing their anger in a misogynistic way towards women,' ” said Ross Haenfler, an associate professor of sociology at Grinnell College who studies subcultures and masculinity" and

(2) a link to a 2001 Georgia Southern study of 82 respondents (a very small sample) who self-identified as involuntarily celibate, 22 of which are women. The racial characteristics of the population of the 2001 Georgia Southern campus are not considered in the WaPo article--it's a small school in the Deep South, where most of the students on campus were white anyways , which would likely further bias this lonely sample of a much larger population (i.e. incels across the inter-connected globe). It's not clear to me if the racial composition of the Georgia Southern campus was even considered by the person conducting the original 2001 study. Furthermore, neither Reddit nor 4chan even existed at the time of this very isolated, very narrow study from 2001. This is literally the only empirical quantitative evidence offered in the article on Incels I can find for the quantitative claim in the lede that "Self-identified incels are mostly white," in particular.

If better research and evidence for that quantitative claim can be offered, then please provide it. Otherwise, it's a racial inaccuracy about whites and incels with no evidence to back it up.

Additionally, given the contrarian opinions of possible experts on the subject of "incels" and (from what I can tell) incredibly weak quantitative evidence to support the claim of the demographics of self-identified incels as "mostly white, male, and heterosexual," it definitely seems like a statement that is, at a minimum, too controversial and on ground too shaky to belong in the lede to this article.

I sincerely hope this talk leads to a better Wikipedia page about "Incels."

Thank you, for welcoming me with kindness to the Wikipedia community. I hope I have not disappointed you with my initial contributions, GorillaWarfare Lanebriand37 (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lanebriand37: What about the HoustonPress article? wumbolo ^^^ 15:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Talbot, Michael (April 24, 2018). "'Incel Rebellion has already begun': Expert explains van suspect's cryptic Facebook post". CityNews. Retrieved May 28, 2018., which was trimmed out of the article as excessive citation overkill, also says incel has been "appropriated by groups of disaffected, young white males" and quotes University of Toronto sociology professor Judith Taylor as saying “It is mostly young white men between the ages of 19 and 30 [...] a population that is anticipating a particular kind of social standing that real life isn’t offering them and they are looking for things to blame.” Btw, I notice that most of the citations for that sentence in the article aren't used to cite anything else, so perhaps those could be combined into one ref tag, at which point the City News link could be readded without resulting in overmany blue superscript numbers. -sche (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I've now done that. -sche (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Also, at least to my mind, the bit about the...could we call it..."burden of expected privilege" of being white, straight, and male is the more interesting part of that. That a bit to think about. It's like...not toxic masculinity...but toxic emascul-inity. Meaning maybe if you're brown or gay or female or what have you, you're coached for some measure of marginalization and so maybe you're better prepared for it when you find it? GMG^talk 21:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

If you're coached to expect things, you will be disappointed/unhappy/angry and won't try to be better yourself. This goes for both men and women, and everyone. Asking for help is very welcome, as you already know, but one has to be careful not to tell people to behave like robots. wumbolo ^^^ 21:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, specifically, I was thinking about a discussion I had with one of my friends. He's black and his son is four, and he was talking about having to have "the talk" with him. And I was like "dude, your son is four. He's not having sex yet." But he was referring to "the talk" where you say "You're about to go to school for the first time, and you're black. So some people might treat you differently." I had never considered that that was "a talk" that...well...was so ingrained in the modern experience that for a father talking about his son, it was just "the talk". Whereas part of the shock of these guys was growing up with the expectation of privilege, and then kindof...assuming a social bias...probably because they've never met one. GMG^talk 22:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Got it and I agree with you. Expectations aren't bad; people should aim high and reasonably expect things from others and especially themselves. This way they get to know where the limits are and learn to stay below them. However, impossible expectations and thinking that the society owes one something can only set for disappointment. People are subjective so they can't know exactly when they are doing enough good, and instead of doing the best each time (but not too much; expectations are necessary), they stop attempting to have a balance and give up. We're not talking about people who have been attempting something for a long time, and failing every time. This is a small number of people. We're talking about people who believe they deserve something from the get-go, and are disappointed at the first stop – at young adulthood, when they should be getting their act together. As you said, people are very much shaped by what they have been told since they were young. I'm not saying you want people to be taught to be incapable; we agree that there should be a reasonable middle ground. If you paint one side of the fence and not the other, staying at the painted side of the fence forever will not help you. I assure you, very basic rules will help people. wumbolo ^^^ 23:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good solution! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo:I have read the Houston Press article. Again, that article offered ZERO quantitative evidence for the statement: "Self-identified incels are mostly white." Look guys, I think you guys are probably operating from the best of intentions, but that statement, without serious quantitative evidence to support it, is a blatantly racist smear against white people. I'm not going to question, in this talk, what was in the heart of the person who wrote that statement (with incredibly weak evidence) initially. But the issue has been raised, now. Please do the right thing and revise the article to reflect the truth of the knowledge/information regarding the demographics of incels (most of whom nobody ever sees in person due to the fact that they seem to be observed, mostly, in faceless online forums).Lanebriand37 (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Ping to Wopr, Lanebriand37, and for anyone else who doesn't yet have much experience editing Wikipedia:

Wikipedia deals with just about every controversial subject that exists. We have editors from across the planet, who hold almost every imaginable viewpoint on each issue. In order to make Wikipedia work we needed to create a set of policies (rules) so everyone can work together constructively. One of the main purposes of those rules is to shut down arguments which are unproductive, arguments which often lead to unending internet-debate. To oversimplify down to a single sentence, Wikipedia summarizes what Reliable Sources say. If your concern is that the article is not accurately summarizing what Reliable Sources say, then there is generally some Policy or Guideline which will back you up in getting the article fixed. On the other hand if your concern is that the Reliable Sources are wrong or biased, your arguments will not work here. We do not debate Truth. Articles do not contain Truth. Articles are a summary of what Reliable Sources say. To the extent that articles often resemble truth, that is only because a summary of Reliable Sources is (usually) a good approximation of truth.

Lanebriand37, demanding "quantitative evidence" is a waste of time. We do not debate whether evolution is true, we do not debate whether global warming is true, and we will not debate whether "self-identified incels are mostly white". If many sources on the subject do make that statement, we accurately report that sources say it.

Wopr, accusing editors of being biased or pushing a "political agenda" also will not work. If an editor sees Reliable Sources repeatedly presenting that point as significant, a responsible editor will accurately summarize it into the article regardless of their personal views.

When disputes arise, you'll find that experienced editors can be rather singleminded about Wikipedia accurately summarizing what Reliable Sources say, as defined in various policies and guidelines. Experienced editors can be almost brutal in ignoring and shutting down any arguments which are out out-of-scope of that narrow task. That approach may seem weird or radical, but if you work on a variety of articles you will discover that is is a valuable and necessary means of resolving other disputes. There don't seem to be any relevant facts in dispute here. Many Reliable Sources do make this statement. As other editors have already mentioned, about the only plausible argument you might have would be whether it is Undue Weight to include it in the Lead section. Even if you "won" that argument, the statement would still appear in some other section. Alsee (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a beautifully written response. While I have "thanked" Alsee with the thanks tool, I want to do so again in public so that my support for this is fully known. So, thanks!--Jorm (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

And of course my response was removed. And I got accused of racism at the same time. Apparently opposing the idea of inserting race-baiting into wikipedia articles is racism, somehow. Really classy. Others are free to write responses to me and tag me, and that isn't removed as "not a forum", but I am not allowed to respond to them. Of course. My responses are removed, and I'm pretty much unilaterally being censored here, and it already has gone into the racism accusations. And then you all still keep denying bias. I suppose the ban is just around the corner. Wopr (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jorm: I hope you don't mind I've re-added this—parts of it are definitely forum-y but some parts I think do merit a reply. @Wopr: Just letting you know I've restored your comment. Sorry for the weird placement; putting it somewhere else seemed equally confusing... GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

And who exactly decides which sources are "reliable" and which aren't? For example, the article uses the Southern Poverty Law Center as a source, even though it's infamously and obnoxiously politically biased. Nobody except the extreme left takes it seriously. And that's the problem: Just because an entity may have a nice official-sounding name and some recognition in the media, that somehow makes it "reliable", and any bias that the entity in question might have is happily ignored. The same problem happens with quite many big-name newspapers and news organizations, which are heavily politically biased (CNN and MSNBC being, perhaps, the most famous examples), and do not shy away from spinning, fabricating and distorting stories. But just because these organizations are huge, and have a lot of money and reach, they are conveniently considered "reliable". A "reliable source" seems to me any organization that's famous, and any political bias that organization may have is happily ignored.

Either way, I really can't understand why you refuse to acknowledge that saying "self-identified incels are mostly white" isn't a politically charged and provocative statement that seems to push a narrative. Do you think it would be proper to, for example, say something like "the majority of gun violence is perpetrated by black people" to the lede of the "Gun violence in the United States" article, no matter how factually accurate that sentence might be? Adding such a sentence there would be politically provocative, and one could justly question the motivation behind adding it there. Here, the race of so-called "incels" is even less relevant, and there's even less reason to explicitly state it in the article (much less in its lede). Explicitly stating it there only serves to push a certain political view to the reader. Wikipedia is being used as a political mouthpiece. There is a clear lack of neutrality. (And this isn't by far the only such article. There are outright character assassination articles of certain people in Wikipedia, where "undue weight" is used to the absolute maximum to destroy the reputation of certain people and movements. But that's not really something for this talk page in particular.)

And now I have to wonder: Will I be allowed to respond, or will also this response be quickly reverted using the "not a forum" excuse (even though the "not a forum" page explicitly states that discussion is allowed in the talk page of an article)? Wopr (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wopr: The SPLC's reliability as a source has been discussed several times at the reliable source noticeboard (see this and this or peruse the archives yourself. There is disagreement, but as far as I'm aware it has not been deemed unreliable. You are of course welcome to begin another discussion there if you wish.

As for the gun violence example, I would point out that picking other articles around which to base your points is not a particularly broadly accepted tactic on Wikipedia (see WP:OTHERCONTENT and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists). I'm not particularly interested in starting a discussion here about the content of Gun violence in the United States because this is not the venue for it, but to avoid seeming like I'm brushing it off: the gun violence article you mention does include demographic information in the lead (young, male, living in poor areas, members of gangs). I imagine that race is not included because it is both complex enough and controversial enough (among reliable sources, not just folks on talk pages) that it has an entire ~6,000-word article devoted to it: Race and crime in the United States. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Credit where credit is due: Thank you for restoring my response. (I know this isn't relevant to this discussion nor this article, but just wanted to acknowledge your action.) Wopr (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Be aggrieved or be constructive; if you're constructive, it stays, if you're aggrieved, it goes. Capische?--Jorm (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

So, which source do you think is more reliable, the SPLC, or The Washington Post? According to the latter, the SPLC has lost all credibility, as you can read here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html If even the mainstream media considers the SPLC a non-credible source, why does this Wikipedia article consider it reliable? Would it hurt this article quite a lot if controversial sources were left out? Or is there an agenda being pushed here, and the SPLC is just the perfect "reliable source" for that? (This is exactly the kind of "faux neutrality" in Wikipedia I wrote about elsewhere.) Wopr (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

That is an opinion of the author, Marc Thiessen, not of the Washington Post. --GRuban (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wopr: If you feel that the SPLC on the whole is an unreliable source, that's a discussion better had at WP:RSN. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alsee:Two questions:

(1) If Reliable Sources state conflicting information what is the policy for addressing the conflicting information? (2) Is this article[1] as much of a Reliable Source as those quoting supposedly expert opinion on the demographics of incels?

It sounds to me that Wikipedia, and I didn't know this so thank you for educating me, is not a reliable source of truth. Moreover, it seems that reliance on an ever-dwindling set of Reliable Sources as political tribalism infects the publications which have traditionally been considered Reliable Sources may have had a downstream effect on Wikipedia. That's unfortunate and I apologize if addressing this has caused undue hard feelings. For what it's worth, I think GorillaWarfare was very courteous to me as a newcomer to this setting. It seems to me that the Wikipedia editor responsible for that statement may have been an innocent victim of a deeper problem with reliability in sources as misinformation has arisen just as much, and sometimes more so, in the Information Age. The poor editor may not be the only one who's been mislead by such phenomena of misinformation.

I was asked when questioning the accuracy/legitimacy of that particular sentence in a separate forum if I changed the Wikipedia article because when you raise an issue where you can clearly do something about it, then you are expected to do so. To do otherwise is to identify a problem and not attempt a solution when some path to a solution clearly exists. And that's not really helpful to anyone.

I'm interested in Truth, not content generated by institutionally-defined Reliable Sources. Therefore, I'll show myself out as this is not the place for me. Thank you again, however, for the education and the courteous treatment of me in what is likely to be my one and only foray into the world of Wikipedia editing. Crossing it off the bucket list.Lanebriand37 (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. You may, however, want to address the two questions for others who are confused about the validity or definition of a Reliable Source. After reading that sectionReliable Sources, it is very difficult for me to ascertain whether any of the sources claiming "Self-identified incels are mostly white" are reliable, with the exception of the Georgia Southern study linked within the WaPo article[2]Lanebriand37 (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lanebriand37: 1) Typically when reliable sources are in conflict, that conflict is discussed in the article (for example "Some [reporters|researchers|sociologists] such as foo and bar say a, b, c; others such as baz say x, y, z.") 2) No, Medium articles are not reliable sources (see WP:SPS for the relevant portion of policy explaining why). As for the sources currently used, they are reliable because they are "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Overview). Thanks for joining us on Wikipedia, albeit briefly! GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

(I wrote this before GorillaWarfare's post above, and it basically expands on the same points.) Lanebriand37, we attempt to report all significant views in rough proportion to their presence and weight in the sources (Neutral Point of View) and Due weight). An even split should be covered approximately evenly. When there is an uneven split the predominate view should be covered as the predominate view, with roughly proportional coverage of significant other viewpoints. An alternate view with minimal-or-zero weight in Reliable Sources is considered Fringe, fringe viewpoints generally warrant little or no coverage. For example the Earth article has a single sentence mentioning Flat Earth. Flat Earth is only mentioned for the noteworthy historical significance. It doesn't even mention fringe modern-day proponents.

Regarding Medium.com: As I understand it, Medium.com is basically a high-class blogging platform. Virtually anyone could write virtually anything there, with little or no responsible oversight. That falls under Self Published Source. Self published content is (usually) not considered Reliable.

Regarding what we do consider to be Reliable: In general, newspapers are almost the defining example of a Reliable Source. Newspapers generally apply professional standards in who they hire to write articles, those articles are generally subject to professional editorial review before being published, they generally have lawyers or legal expertise guiding their publishing practice, in many cases they issue corrections for significant factual errors, they generally have a reputation for responsible fact checking. Newspapers aren't perfect, but they have a reputation for being a generally reliable source for information. Note that newspapers generally don't apply the same standards of oversight on opinion pieces. There are tighter rules on where and how opinion pieces can be cited. They are usually not considered Reliable for factual claims.

Regarding your plan to leave Wikipedia: I invite you to give it a second thought. I think you'll find that our approach works really well in general, even if you are unhappy with the exact case here. I also think you might do well here. We don't expect new editors to know how Wikipedia works. New editors often bump into unusual or surprising aspects of how Wikipedia's works. You raised reasonable concerns in a constructive manner. You took a positive interest in understanding our policys&guidelines. You appear to understand the logic behind it, and you appear to respect the result - even if you are unhappy with this exact case. And guess what? Those are exactly the qualities of a successful new editor! What we do is important, and overall it works amazingly well. Most topics aren't controversial. Where controversy does arise we (mostly) manage the near-impossible task of bringing opposing viewpoints together on a result which is acceptable (or at least tolerable) to both sides. Alsee (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

"Self-identified incels are mostly white, male, and heterosexual."

The "white" part is incorrect. It should be "Self-identified incels are mostly male and heterosexual." or delete that sentence entirely if we can't find any accurate, logical sources without anti-white smearing. I don't care what the sources say, because the sources are wrong. One only needs to take one look at an incel community on Reddit to see the racial diversity. Lots of them claim to be incel because of being non-white. 70.119.115.82 (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you find a source disproving the mentioned sentence? The Optimistic One (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Given they've said they don't care what the sources say, I doubt it. I will point out, though, that I don't believe {{ping}} works for IP editors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

This NPR article (reputable news source) specifically says that incels are of all ethnicitys, not just white. "However ... when it comes to incels specifically, they're not just limited to young white men — there are men of all ethnicities who are involved in this subculture." That directly contradict the other sources claiming that incels are just a movement of just white males, like the article is claiming right now. Which is incorrect. https://www.npr.org/2018/04/29/606773813/whats-an-incel-the-online-community-behind-the-toronto-van-attack 68.34.237.103 (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

You precisely omitted the subsequent sentence: But at least for a good number of them, these more misogynistic movements can often be an entry point into the more racialized or anti-Semitic branches of the alt-right. "good number of them" seems to imply a majority. wumbolo ^^^ 13:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

This article does not claim that incels are "just white males", it says they are mostly white. No one is trying to say that there aren't incels of all ethnicities. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

70.119.115.82: Alsee made a wonderfully-written point just above this section that you might do well to read. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you should start caring what the sources say. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"In total, forty-five people have been killed in five events since 2014 by people who may be considered incels."

@Amin and Jorm: Preemptively starting a discussion here even though I wasn't involved in the reverting. Amin is right that uncited content is not usually a candidate for reinstatement based on BRD, but the statement is supported by sources in the Incel#Mass murders section. The cites could be moved up, but I will say I've been somewhat concerned about it being in the lead to begin with. It doesn't really strike me as a lead-worthy statement (which I mentioned in a previous discussion), and since the number seems to have been determined by summing the deaths from the mass murders section, I'm worried about WP:SYNTH. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Also pinging Vranak who I believe made the addition. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I appreciate your reasonable assessment of the situation. Thanks for weighing in.

If the bit is both referenced, and is not 'original research', than obviously it can be included in the article. I too have concerns about the death number being that high up in the lead. What if incels are on average much less violent compared to the general population? It would then be misleading (undue weight) to put that frightening number so high up in the intro. Amin (Talk) 23:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems fairly obvious to me that the only reason the general public care one whit about incels lately is that they've been committing so many mass murders. I thought it would be relevant just to summate the collective results of their rage. And I think that fright is an appropriate response to this figure. I mean that's the whole point of lashing out like this, to show to the world how serious they are. And is doing simple addition really synthesis? Is it reaching a conclusion that is not in the source? No, it's just basic math. It's stating the facts as we know them. Vranak (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

>the only reason the general public care one whit about incels lately is that they've been committing so many mass murders

@Vranak: They do? Compared to who exactly? And which method did you use to calculate the percentage of involuntary celibate men? Amin (Talk) 01:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amin: In fairness, I think Vranak is correct that the mass murders committed by incels since ~2014 is the primary reason they've received so much news coverage—just look at how many of the sources in this article mention the killings, or do your own survey of reliable sources and see how many do. Given that, it is not at all undue to mention incels and murders in the lead. There is no statement being made that incels commit more mass murders than some other population of people, which seems to be what you're trying to have Vranak prove with your questioning here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: What about African Americans? In some areas, the news coverage on them is often related to violence and shootings. By your logic, perhaps we should add their total number of deaths in their article's intro as well? Amin (Talk) 02:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This is such an incredibly poor (and mildly racist) straw-man argument that you should be embarrassed for yourself.--Jorm (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Weird, that's now two people in two weeks arguing that incels don't kill people, black people do... Feel free to read my reply in that conversation—saves some bytes in me copying it verbatim here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that black people kill. I'm just using your logic and applying it elsewhere, to show that your logic is flawed. I find it interesting that no counter-argument is presented, and that I am instead attacked ("mildly racist", "you should be embarrassed for yourself") and given homework ("Feel free to read my reply in that conversation"). Why not summarize your counter-argument? Amin (Talk) 07:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully reading it here isn't too much "homework"...: As for the gun violence example, I would point out that picking other articles around which to base your points is not a particularly broadly accepted tactic on Wikipedia (see WP:OTHERCONTENT and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists). I'm not particularly interested in starting a discussion here about the content of Gun violence in the United States because this is not the venue for it, but to avoid seeming like I'm brushing it off: the gun violence article you mention does include demographic information in the lead (young, male, living in poor areas, members of gangs). I imagine that race is not included because it is both complex enough and controversial enough (among reliable sources, not just folks on talk pages) that it has an entire ~6,000-word article devoted to it: Race and crime in the United States. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I read your (largely copy/pasted) reply, and I still don't see any arguments to include the total death-count of people who "may" have been incels in this article. I also did not find an argument for why such a death-count should be included here, while excluded elsewhere like in the African-American article. It comes across as if you're maintaining a double-standard. Maybe I am missing something here? I'm open to be enlightened. Amin (Talk) 03:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Entirely copy/pasted, not largely copy/pasted. Since you didn't want to scroll up and read the reply when I mentioned it, I pasted it here for your convenience. You also evidently haven't read the rest of this discussion, where I have expressed concerns with the death count being included in the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Would you like to summarize your argument for this double-standard? Since, you favour inclusion of death-count when it comes to incels, but go by a different standard for African-Americans.. Thank you. Amin (Talk) 07:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Amin: I am really trying to not make you out to be a fool, but good god please just read this section even if you're unwilling to read the others on this talk page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: There are loads of texts on this page. How would I know where exactly to begin, and where to end? In the time it takes to craft a 280 character tweet, you could have summarized your main counter-argument, and saved us both some time. That would be the more reasonable thing to do, instead of outsourcing the work to me.

"I am really trying to not make you out to be a fool, but.."... Then why bring it up? You're insulting me by dy denial. That's unnecessary.

Amin (Talk) 08:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I linked you to the section, all you had to do was scroll (or ctrl-f if needed). As for why I brought up the "fool" thing, it's because it appears you're replying but have not even read the post I made beginning this section of conversation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I did read it, and I just read your link as well. It did not contain justification for your double-standard to include death-count here, while excluding it elsewhere. I'm getting the feeling that you're happy to reply with anything, except for your actual justification to maintain this double-standard. Amin (Talk) 14:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I've asked you to actually read my comments because I am not arguing for the death count to be included. In the first post in this section you'll see I have expressed concerns with it being included. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I acknowledge that, but I think your reasoning is nonetheless wrong. Your own words: "it is not at all undue to mention incels and murders in the lead." and your basis for this was media coverage on violence and shootings. So your double-standard remains unexplained. It's important to hold users accountable for their words in order to keep them sharpAmin (Talk) 04:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Vranak: My concern is more that providing that number implies that it's a fairly accurate estimation. A third-party reliable source making that estimate would presumably try to find all instances of mass killings that have been committed by people who may be considered incels, and create an estimate from there. Your number is just summing the instances that have been mentioned in this article, which is not a particularly complete listing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• (came here through Teahouse notification by Amin) I also doubt that sentence is lead-worthy. It may be lead-worthy to mention mass murders, because that's what drives news coverage, but not in this manner; for instance incels have been involved in a number of highly publicized mass murder cases or any variation of that would be fine with me (and leave it to article body to describe said cases).

While the current sentence seems NPOV on its face, I would argue it is not when placed in the lead, because it will trigger an emotional response in the reader. I would say the same about any sentence of the form Group X has been involved in Y crimes of type Z in the last year (because any number Y and choice of Z among serious offenses would elicit the emotional response "group X is dangerous", regardless of whether that particular criminality rate is actually higher or lower than that of the general population, whether other sociological factors offer a better correlation, etc.). I would argue the same about the lead of any article "Group X", be it Afro-American gun violence in the US, Romani theft in Europe, French expat rape in Sweden or whatever.

I am not that much worried about SYNTH though, since the body count is quite simple arithmetic. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Revised sentence in lede to remove the "may be considered", as the Mass murders section provides support for the connections. Also took out the "45" but agree that the number is factually correct and also supported by the cited literature. David notMD (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)