From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 5 May 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

"Incel" vs "Inceldom"[edit]

@Spud @Westnichefaise Talk it out. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there's a disagreement between us. Spud seemed to oppose the quote change. I dropped the quote change and merely changed it to a mass noun. I think its useful to discuss as a mass noun rather than countable noun since people seem to view it as a topic. @Westnichefaise Westnichefaise (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@Westnichefaise Yes. Just don't change quotes. That is all. Spud (talk)
That's great! I guess we agree. I won't change the quote. I will simply change the countable noun to a mass noun. Westnichefaise (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
oop didnt see this, keep it as incel makes the most sense to me instead of inceldom, cheers!Neiltyson1fan (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


Hello @Ariel31459 I see you are a good faith contributor, lets talk about your citation so we can add it in a way that is accurate. Typically re-introductions of terms arent particularly notable for a lede. Regardless, this is original research on your part as your citation does not say it was decades before the last use of the term. Only rationalwiki says that. Additions to this article should be based on sources. Alana is mentioned in the article, do you have something interesting and informative to add about her using a reliable source? If so, please include it in the relevant section. The lede is not for historical miscellania usally.Neiltyson1fan (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

OK. Not a big deal. I just thought it was interesting.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


With what proportion of incels is the 'involuntary' accurate? (ie they 'annoy or worse' women.) Anna Livia (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


How is anybody truly an incel in a world where there are people who will shove their ding dong in anything that has a hole, and vice versa? Now, if you wanted to argue that there's people in this world who can't find anybody attractive... I mean, that's called asexuality though. (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The incel's think the "vice versa" doesn't happen. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Those people just need to discover Las Vegas. (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
No. They don't. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
IP - do you include this?
To what extent is inceldom a negativie state of mind (and feeling 'everybody else' is having 'a right ding dong' but not them and #them women# are (insert sexist terms of choice)). Anna Livia (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie, you must be from Las Vegas, lol. (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm not. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
These people actually need to discover basically anywhere that isn't insular Internet communities. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Are all dating sites (as well as all social networks for that matter) "insular Internet communities"? Because for a lot of men it is like that: you can literally message every single woman there and get a 100% rejection rate, like literally from everyone, even from overweight grannies.
That statement above about "shoving ones ding dong in anything that has a hole" does stand true for men though, that's why some incels (as in, men who women won't have sex with) start having sex with men out of despair.— Unsigned, by: Asdjfo8a439 / talk / contribs
If you're the type of idiot that messages every single woman on an Internet site with some variation of "wanna fuck?", then, no, you won't get very far. Women are flooded with that shit on any message board that has a whiff of sex and relationships in it (at least, that's my wife's perspective, which is why she won't bother with those type of places.)
From my perspective, the incel community seems to have an often comical, ridiculous view of human sexuality and relationships. I mean, that Chad and Stacy shit is almost straight out of some 1980s teen sex comedy (the stupid kind with jock and cheerleader stereotypes).
Basically, from my perspective, the best way out of inceldom is to find a hobby other than bitching about not getting laid. (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hi, sorry to interrupt, but I'd like to ask a question of Mr. BoN (That'd be you, 72.184.): You seem to make a lot of helpful edits. Have you considered making an account? We'd love to have more helpful users. :) Twodots (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

inane ramblings[edit]

This is the most inane bullshit. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Bad "psychology"[edit]

This article says that about 28% of men and women between the ages of 15 and 24 "are sexless," which I presume means, in the case of the males, most of them are incels. That is to say, their celibacy is not by choice. The suggestion that this condition presents prima facie as a psychological disorder is dubious. The compilation of violent incidents attributed to incels reminds me of the fact that most serial killers are white men. This is true, but not really useful.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

You're right, there needs to be affirmative action for young white males who are unable to find a partner. — Unsigned, by: 2607:FB90:A889:4BE9:4061:A6D:A49B:A52D / talk
No. There doesn't. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
This is hilariously stupid. Well done, BoN. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 22:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)


Should I remove the link to r/braincels, now that it is banned? (And maybe add a link and mentions to r/shortcels) --Electros (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC) EDIT: If no feedback is received, I shall edit it tomorrow.

Seemed you forgot to, yea good idea.Neiltyson1fan (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
r/shortcels apparently is now private so you need an invite just to see anything there. --Logos (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
They are basically gone from Reddit nowNeiltyson1fan (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


Just came across the words Foid and its plural Foids. Apparently it's incels' term for Female Humanoid. Anyone else heard of it? Is it worthy of reference on this page? Scream!! (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like a shortening of "femoid", which I swear has been used, but can't find it in the manosphere glossary. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Linking or (online) blackpill related sites directly should be avoided imo[edit] threads frequently call for mass murder and other illegal stuff, who knows what else is on those sites, so don't think they should be directly linked, cleaned up previous writing of mine. The other sites they own was also removed as I'm not here to advertize them and they're dying anyway. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia also takes this stance and purposefully never links to them once. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC) IP editing this page to promote their sites[edit]

Will let someone else deal with this, don't have the energy Neiltyson1fan (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Only adding back what you removed JoesphR (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
After doing some research, it appears you, an admin of, or a proxy have made edits here, pretending to be someone else, trying to stir up confusion and drama to escalate your grievance, which includes direct contradictions to your writing above. No one fell for it. Please do not propagate misinfo because you felt I was censoring you by removing my own writing on here. The issue is finished and wish you all the best. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Neiltyson1fan promotes his own wiki and websites here while deleting competing websites[edit]

I have good reason to believe that Neiltyson1fan wants to suppress competing websites and promote his own websites and using this page. I believe that this person is the same person that used to admin our wiki, I go by Master there and I have no intent on hiding my identity unlike he has here.

I am happy to provide proof here of my claims, and I'm confident that I know that this is the former admin of our wiki. We had a dispute and he went on to create his own incel wiki @ while we continue to maintain the current one at His attempts at suppressing our websites while promoting his are clear to see with his edits attempting to remove from this page and the links to our wiki and our forum.

I have never attempted to suppress his wiki or forum while editing here, but he seems hellbent on trying to keep our wiki off the pages as evident in the Fossil Record. He wrote our wiki off as "inactive" or "no recent edits" as justification to removed our wiki from the page, but our wiki is just as relevant to this page as his.

As for our forum, it should have a link to it just as his forum is linked and listed prominently in this article. The Fossil Record clearly documents that he has been trying to "rewrite" and game this page for months now and he uses it as a promotional tool for his websites. So I propose 2 possible solutions to this problem:

[1] Remove all external links to mentioned websites or forums, including ours.

[2] Allow linkage of all external websites relevant to this article like it was before this person made edits to this page.JoesphR (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

JoesphR, you conveniently didn't mention the site you work with, which is You do tech work for them and act as their front guy. mentioned here:

"The registry says the domain [] was suspended over anti-abuse policy infractions based on the promotion of acts of violence and hate speech on the website. has been inaccessible since Oct. 15."
The way Wikipedia deals with your sites is by making a conscious effort to not link to them or to misspell them. Rather than misspell your sites, I made the decision not to link them anymore.
I wrote almost this entire article with no drama, added links to your sites, and then removed them. That isn't exactly suppressing imho.
According to someone in the CVE community, you don't pay for the sites you PR, some guy named 'serge' does, so not sure why you want an abridged version of Incel Wiki advertized that you do not seem to pay for, but rather do once-twice per year tech/theming work on. Also my RW identity isn't secret/hidden, it's just common wiki courtesy to edit on the merits of writing rather than resort to personal anecdotes. And on that, the domain is simply an abridged version of, and so there is no reason to mention it, considering it was hijacked and the main registered creators/admins/users moved to .com.Neiltyson1fan (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I'll not revert your recent additions only because I know you'll continue to edit war if I do, and dont have the energy for that. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Also, you acting like I'm a rogue disgruntled guy doesn't make any sense as their are plenty of places explaining that I co-created (before it was taken) as well as, regardless of which tech admins booted me from where. For example, this interview here Neiltyson1fan (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
We've given you the option to leave the radical guys and join us, but you prefer to hold an abridged wiki hostage as of today. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not holding anything hostage. I was forthcoming with my identity and only trying to add relevant information about our community, which is the biggest incel community on the internet. It simply doesn't make sense to scrub that from this page and not name it. The drama with the wikis aside doesn't automatically make our wiki irrelevant. I believe it's important to document and list all relevant communities in the incel sphere without removing X community for Y or ABC determined this community Y, therefore, it has to be removed. I'm not here to play those games. What you attempted to do here is an attempt to bury other communities to your own benefit.
You keep pushing this narrative about the wiki being stolen when we clearly came to an agreement on your departure. We let you fork our wiki and now you're trying to delete us from the internet in retaliation.
What merits are there for striking a competition community and wiki from a page about incels? Your personal vendetta obviously got in the way when a RationalWiki moderator had to revert the removal of our information from this page by you. It's obvious what you're trying to do.
You clearly own and, but you won't admit that. Your sites are just as relevant as ours. Why not just leave it at that? JoesphR (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
This is rehashing arguments over a simple fact that myself and thebreeze wrote the vast majority of it, did all the management sans checking backlinks, and recruited the users, who, as far as activity, almost exclusively did not come from any forums you help host.
I left this the RW message you are responding to before our nice talk today. I didn't leave your discord room because i was angry, I left on a good note over owning a cat, wishing everyone well, and wanted to leave it at that. We'll leave your sites up, but I do not, in the long term, want to advertise any wikis which are primarily using the work of people outside of blackpill boards against our wishes (Thebreeze from incelswithouthate and me from leftyincel/yourenotalone/incelsupport/love-shy etc). A lot of people are leaving the blackpill boards because it is a toxic mindset and the foundations of it are mostly false (eg 80/20 rule etc). And yes, the forums you are associated with are popular and you and serge personally have a lot of strengths. If the blackpill is your and serge's main concern, a blackpill wiki would be more appropiate than an incel wiki as both this page and the wikis consider consider 'incel' more clinically than as blackpillers and media consider it more a culture. If .wiki were an open wiki, or if I wasn't told in PMs that I owned the wiki multiple times (not "managed", you used the terms like "owned"), this conversation wouldn't be happening. For now though, I have no reason to continue this drama as everything is ok Neiltyson1fan (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to implement Joseph's option "[1] Remove all external links to mentioned websites or forums, including ours." Wikipedia doesn't link to any of your websites. I'm possibly OK linking to the wikis but both of your forums are just toxic cesspools. Kauri0.o (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit: I'd like to implement option [1], but maybe someone more senior than myself can review that idea.

Missionality - Conflict of interest, promoting inceldom[edit]

On further looking into the fossil record, it seems this article has been for the most part, authored by a handful of incels, with a far too sympathetic tone and viewpoint. Even wikipedia's lede is snarkier and more critical than ours. It seems the main editors have been using this article as a way to promote inceldom. For example, the heading "Modern, gender inclusive communities" contains two forums which are toxic cesspools, and one that has been discontinued. The main author seems to have an issue with black-pilled incels, who he does criticize somewhat.

I don't think all the information is necessarily useless- but we certainly don't want to be promoting the world of inceldom, and a far more critical viewpoint is needed in order to bring this in line with RW standards. Kauri0.o (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I wrote the article, which has been here for years and read by thousands of people as it's #3-5 on google for 'incel wiki'. It's a singular person who wrote the article. Please talk to me about it or address the article itself rather than fear-mongering. Also the article is critical and just made a more critical article here. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
how does ths article promote incels? it seems to cover similar ground to the wikipedia page, notes some sites, its origins, and murders. the other goes into way more detail of the murders and is the biggest obvious difference, barring presentation. the is no snark in the wikipedia page, dunno where that is coming from. not a fan of it here usually anyhow
ths article apears neutral in tone - good thing - and it doesnt gloss over the sexual violence misogyny or the mass murders or the general reinforcing negativity of the sites what is absent here as far citicism goes? where is the promotion for that matter?
one issue that i spot is with the noted suicides and homicides section. it seems a little unfair lumping the wilkes mcdermid fella with the rest of listed. he seemingly killed himself with no attempt at harming anyone else in the process. everyone else was a mass murder or was thwarted in an attempt to kill multiple people. mcdermid may be notable but hes not like the others in this one significant way - he wasnt a violent murderer. just seems a little guilt by association when his inclusion could be swapped out with someone more egregious or just removed, without effecting things too much. there is, after all, a whole lot of mass murder from a surprising many people in a relatively short space of time. just seems a bit unfair is all. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Are we reading the same wikipedia articleWikipedia? The lede states, for example,
Discussions in incel forums are often characterized by resentment, misogyny, misanthropy, self-pity and self-loathing, racism, a sense of entitlement to sex, and the endorsement of violence against sexually active people.[14] The American nonprofit Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) described the subculture as "part of the online male supremacist ecosystem" that is included in their list of hate groups.[15][16] Incels are mostly male and heterosexual,[10][12][17] and many sources report that incels are predominantly white.
To contrast, there are only two real criticisms of inceldom in our lede: 1) killings and suicides committed by incels, which conveniently follows the 2) heavy criticism of "blackpilled" incels.
Sidenote, Wikipedia has a decent discussion on Red pill & black pillWikipedia. So-called red-pilled incels still hold gross sexist beliefs, and there seems to be a large grey area between red and black pill ideology.
My summary of the article as it is is along the lines of: "Oh, did you know there's people who can't get laid? There's lots of us - you could be one of us! But some of them go down a dark path and become shitty rapist murderers. Don't be one of them. Be one of us! Here's some history, and academic context - yeah we're legit. Hey, here's some wholesome websites where you can learn more about our lovely inclusive ideology! But not those bad black-pilled websites. See, they murdered lots of people. Click these links."
Would be nice to get further comment. This would be a fun article to revamp if someone wants to trash on a shitty sexist ideology. Kauri0.o (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
what is it you think snark is if you think that lead is 'snarkier' than our article. theres not much snark in either article. i'd rather no snark than shit snark tbh. snark is just sarcy piss taking comments.
if this article is the work of mainly person, then it is small wonder it is not as all encompassing. thats not the same as a whitewash. thats not the same promotion. if you feel information is lacking add it. your summary though is dogshit that does not accurately reflect the articles content nor is supported by the only points you've made that actually references anything solid in the article. you still havent explained how its promoting incels at all.
its missing some important areas of discussion is the extent of your useful criticism. easily remedied by adding it yourself or detailing whats missing so someone else might. no revamps required, no case made for one. you've not made any case really, just insisted there is one. AMassiveGay (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
and you have not made any case concerning missonality, which is odd since you are directing people to the talk page, and its clear you think the subject is missional you just dont like the implementation. thats not an issue of missionality AMassiveGay (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Clearly missional. I agree with AMGs conclusion about Wilkes being lumped in with the "murderers" segment being a little unfair, given he appears to be the only one who commited suicide rather than a homicide. I also wonder the reason for including the "Modern, gender inclusive communities" tab. That does not seem missional to me and reads like a fluff piece based on some sites the author isn't opposed to, but you could convince me otherwise. The incel wikis part also reads like bloat to me (I say this, having reverted it back in the article at one point, but on re-examination, it doesn't serve much purpose). A mixed bag, it's clearly not good enough for Bronze but it's not unmissional either. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 11:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Kauri0.o I support Kauri0's points regarding the tone of the article and the author 'Neiltysonfan'. Neiltysonfan's edits to this article and the 'Nathan Larsson' article, border on incel-apologia. He may have left the cult, but it appears to be still warping his mind. Furthermore, as AMG pointed out on the 'Nathan Larsson' article, he seems to have a dubious understanding of our standards of evidence i.e. he makes several crank claims regarding antidepressants. Leucippus 12:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The very first paragraph (Or like I like to call the header) is already pointing out all the wrongs with incels such as their evident misogyny, this was already addressed once. Additionally, there is a list of terrorist attacks perpetrated by incels down the line. A little bit of impartiality throughout the article does not hurt. The apologia can be removed, but otherwise, the article is good the way it is IMO. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I think it is no problem describing a movement that originally was an inclusive community for people lacking social skills in the 2000s as a originally inclusive movement for people lacking social skills. It is not apologia to report what is beyond the media impression of the term. That being said, probably some expansion can be done on the 4Chanization of the incel term (which is now the popular definition). Largely this was what happened when "incel" met the manosphere / "MGTOW" / anti-feminist / MRA crowd, and there probably is some room for expansion on how the original intent got bastardized and weaponized by this lot. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Further to a point that I have already made, and some people seem to be ignoring when they say the article is critical of inceldom: The author draws a major distinction between "[normal] incels" and "blackpilled incels", and for the most part, criticisms are directed only to the latter (notably in the lede). As PGGB above says, the incel "movement" as a whole, and not just those who are blackpilled, is toxic AF.
I keep going back to Wikipedia because it does the article so much better. No mention of redpill/blackpill incels outside of one section; definite criticism of inceldom elsewhere throughout. No-one really knows how many incels are red-pilled vs black-pilled, and there is certainly grey area between those ideologies.
AMG, don't get so hung up on the word 'snark'. Wikipedia's article may be equally un-snarky, but certainly more critical than ours.
Regarding missionality - the wording of the statement implies it relates to the content, not the subject. In this case we should be criticising the entire ideology of inceldom, as opposed to having an "apologia" piece. Kauri0.o (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Then remove all mentions of the black pill. One does not have to ask twice to realize that incels are pretty pitiful individuals and I don't think that making the article more critical will change any of that. On another note, inceldom by itself is not an ideology, virgins who can't find a woman aren't ideologues, but if you deem that appropriate you can add the fact that alt-righters like to interact with those guys (Alongside the MGTOW and MRAs) because they are very easily manipulable. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Half-agree. People who can’t get laid are no more notable than those, for example, who can’t make friends, or those who can’t kick a football. What makes inceldom notable is those that sign up to some sort of ideology associated with inceldom (edit:, vast majority of which is toxic, to varying degrees.). Thus the latter should be the main focus of our article.Kauri0.o (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
"it does the article so much better". If you write an entire article stuffing it with only 2018-2020 "news" pieces I will revert that forever. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

To resolve disputes[edit]

If there's any need to resolve any disputes still, I mean this article went three years with no objections... As a way to make everyone happy who contributes in good faith with valid sources, we can make a separate incel movement and pages (no shortage of sources, trust me, some digital journo outlets got obsessed in 2018) and then everyone will be happy, the people that want to dunk on those who think/thought of it as a movement, and the people who want to dunk on (a relatively recent forum)) and their associated offshoot forums. and this article can stick to the current broad array of, relatively neutral sources as others discussed :) Neiltyson1fan (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Incel vs involuntary celibate[edit]

Been doing more reading. Lede tries to pass off “incel” as the same as “involuntary celibate”; ie, all involuntary celibates are incels. This conflation has influence throughout the article. (What sort of fallacy is this?) Every reliable source I’ve seen, including academic ones, describes incels as relating to the online subculture that consists mainly of involuntary celibates. [1] [2][3] Involuntary celibacy’s definition is pretty self-explanatory.

Another attempt is made by the author in “Colloquial Definition Controversy”, where its made to seem as if even academics define incels as simply involuntary celibates and that the evil mainstream media is trying to label incels as naughty. It’s more like a manufactroversy- the ones who disagree are those of the incel community. [4]

TLDR; incel ≠ involuntary celibate, and should not be treated as such. Another blatant example of the author’s bias. Kauri0.o (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I do plan on making a lot of these changes when I have time. Happy to hear other opinions before I sink a bunch of time into overhauling this page. Kauri0.o (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I also intend to split this into two articles; "Involuntary Celibacy" and "Incel". There is a lot of useful information regarding the former that I would not want to outright delete. Kauri0.o (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Second article rn is blackpill, which I created a week ago for the purpose you are discussing. I highly advise contributing to that article for continuation on 'incel as subculture' as the blackpill/4chan is virtually the only subcultural element and not necessary or universal to incel spaces. (rather than splitting the article)Neiltyson1fan (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Reason people use the word incel is cuz it takes too long to spell involuntary celibacy. Split this particular article into 'involuntary celibacy' and then everything you and I and Mario etc like about the article will get deleted in the long run. I guarantee it. See what happened on Wikipedia with their 'incel' and 'involuntary celibacy pages'. Someone split their 'incel' article back in the early 2010s or so to 'involuntary celibacy' in hopes of continuing on a page on sociological research on involuntary celibacy, it got deleted and memory-holed. It was an enormous shitfest on Wikipedia that took up weeks of debates, as the research was used for almost a decade on Wikipedia before deletion, and those against the deletion seemed to have the better arguments on citations. . Then 2 incel wikis were created as a result that get 30x more page views a day than the pages they were trying to suppress. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
As far as how the term 'incel' is used, type the word in Twitter or Reddit, and you'll find the word used approximately every 2 minutes, and almost never to refer to a subculture, (that idea is mostly just journalists trying to force all incel communities into the blackpill) but rather used as a broad and not particularly specific misandrist slur. The word is almost always used as a generic insult implying low status, ugliness, or inability to attract a mate. Might add that to this article.Neiltyson1fan (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Also I noticed you going on Wikipedia trashtalking me, rather than trashtalking me, how about speaking peacefully with me directly? You can add me on Willwill25#3138 on Discord or find me in the RationalWiki Support chat. As far as the German AB communities, they were mentioned, and written by the main admin on the Wikipedia article itself, but deleted by the same admin who wrote it (I think) after a commentator made one of the admins angry. Injecting yourself into a 3 year old debate on Wikipedia itself is needless drama for a wiki that is not Wikipedia.
All in all, the admin of (a violently misogynist site that can't keep up domain extensions), who goes by User:JosephR on Rationalwiki, came to this page in hopes of sparking drama to get the article deleted or moved cuz he doesn't like it. Not gonna let it happen just cuz shares the same goals as some feminists, which is to make incel, a generic insult, about alt-right extremism, something that gives sociopathic extremists power. Cuz then everyone labeled with the generic insult starts thinking they might be apart of an alt-right subculture. It's a bad pipeline and not a good idea to promote. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't call the typical use of "incel" today as misandrist. As an insult, it seems more gender social stereotype oriented, often used in the same way "virgin" (or more modern shenanigans like "neckbeard") is a substitute for "loser" for men. It's also used when addressing alleged creepy and cringe-y MRA behavior. The problem here is that the original definition has been co-opted, which honestly I don't see a problem with. "Incel"'s 2000s use kind of is more reflected in terms (shyness and loneliness) that already exist. (And to be honest, from my perspective, these older terms actually are better, because a romantic relationship is much more than about just getting laid.) So you will find plenty of modern sociological research that focuses on "shyness" and "loneliness". In the meantime, a group like r/ForeverAlone which from my perspective covers much the same ground as the original incel intention, now has a rule: "no incel speak or references". And a group like r/IncelsWithoutHate can't help but retread tired Chad and Stacy bullshit and wallow within their own warped gender stereotypes (in other words, the "without hate" part is pretty questionable). We really can't over-bias the 2021 common definition with the 2000 term, although we shouldn't wipe out the 2000 story either (I don't think the article needs to be split in two, keeping a "involuntary celibate" section for the early original intention is fine). But in 2021, "incel" pretty much refers to the "blackpill" side, which is more media notable and also more mission oriented (there is nothing sexist, pseudoscience, or cranky about loneliness support forums; there is plenty of that in current incel culture). PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
"The problem here is that the original definition has been co-opted, which honestly I don't see a problem with." Yea, well I do so not gonna let more people do it, particularly when it helps the extremist incel forums. As far as non-blackpill forums there is incelswithouthate as you brought up,,, and multiple facebook groups. Do I need to purchase or some other short named domain, so people stop trying to make everything about It costs like $1400, which I actually have money for now, but would rather not do that. I already made and wrote the incel wikis.Neiltyson1fan (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Then stole to make everything about the blackpill, now they're tryna do it with this page by bringing up something that has been known about me for years and not gonna let it happen Neiltyson1fan (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
"Incel" doesn't have a positive history to recover. It started out as a nothing term used by almost no one, then almost immediately became a self-identification term of virulent misogynists, then a mocking term derived from that. There's no "counter-movement" to "blackpills" to represent the true or good incel movement that got buried by unfair or unreasonable representation.
Love-shy was notorious for years as a hive of the exact same kind of horrible misogyny before the term "incel" took off on reddit. Be it "ladder theory" or early pick up artistry or whatever else, it was exactly the same kind of shit. You're going through a common kind of rationalization that excuses so many shitty movements. "People call incels bad, I'm an incel, I'm not bad, thus incels aren't bad." They are, and if you care about not stewing in toxicity, you'll drop the movement. It isn't your friend. It doesn't represent some positive force in the world. It definitely isn't a support group. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
"Incels have had forums of toxic people therefore the colloquial and academic usages of the terms should be hidden away and conflate everyone using an acronym with the alt-right." Ok good luck with whatever that is trying to achieve, this article is descriptive, not prescriptive, almost over half of it is critical already.Neiltyson1fan (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm telling you your description is an insane delusion derived from trying to justify the unjustifiable. I can't fathom the distortions your addled mind went through to generate the strawman quote version of what I'm saying. Do you not see the connection between places you list as "one of the good ones" having a well known history of being awful hive of misogyny, and "good ones" not existing, or are you purposefully dodging that?
Which are you, wrong or a flagrantly dishonest piece of human trash? I will not be accepting other answers at this time. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Uncivil, should be barred from this article Neiltyson1fan (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Hate to jump in this ongoing tragedy, but that is a Tone argument my friend.-Flandres (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Nah, someone is rewriting it dramatically in a sandbox to fit all their particular perspectives, despite the fact this version of the page written mostly by me has been here since 2018 and reviewed, tweaked by at least some mods, with 123 citations and really good google search ranking. People opposed to the article should rise above personal insults and flailing around.. I don't know if there's been change in modship here or what, but no one had an issue with this page for years, and many reviewed it/read itNeiltyson1fan (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
You're just sort of gesturing vaguely and trying to say "not all incels". Well then, demonstrate it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Demonstrate it???? My forum was featured for 20 minutes in a BBC documentary as a healthy place for people that 10s of millions of people watched in Europe. What else am I supposed to do??? I spent 2 years leading people out of the blackpill, people got married in various forums of mine, and Wikipedia reverted everything or ignored it, choosing to help build sites like from 1000 users to 23000 users. every other incel search term comes down to a wiki page I made somewhere. I did nonstop 24/7 work to show the true history of this word for 2 years. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@Neiltyson1fan This discussion is going nowhere, you would be better off if you calmed down IMO. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
If people want to do's bidding here, as seems to be the case for perhaps 60% of people commenting here, just make an article or I will, calling them out and moving stuff from here to there. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I'll logout, wait for someone to capitulate to the worst incel forum, then I'll move it all to in a month or so, ( doesn't exist anymore, nor does braincels) along with many other things the public should probably be aware of of that awful site, which are detailed already on my sites, but could also be detailed here Neiltyson1fan (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I really feel like I shouldn't have to mention the low value of anecdotal evidence, especially from someone with stakes invested in the subject matter. While it's possible you are correct, it's also possible that you are in fact incorrect. Without corroborating data and solid secondary sourcing we would be derelict in our duty just taking your word for something that contradicts existing data. Good fucking grief... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
123 citations in the current RW article. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
If you want "direct evidence" for personal assertions, watch the BBC doc, or I can give you the password for my email so you can see the thousands of emails back and forth from news agencies on this topic Neiltyson1fan (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Neiltyson1fan (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Take the URLs of the forums, videos, or whatever, copy them, and then paste them into wikilinks. If you have to use an online archive, do so. Why is this so fucking hard? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Believe it or not all of that is in the article currently. URLs and citations for each statement. It's a good article. If you want direct evidence on everything related to my life and incel forums, just to let others personally insult me more, while telling me i'm the one overreacting, sorry but that's not happening, but this is a good start if you wanted to see other forums,and they mention me by name and my forums in a mostly positive light. Second place to go would be the BBC doc. Third place, the RW article itself and associated citations if you haven't read the citations.Neiltyson1fan (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
"[Bunch of complaints of beliefs of incel forums] But these beliefs don’t paint the entire picture of incels. William Lupinacci runs the forum and Facebook page Incelistan, [now yourenotalone and Incel Support] which is trying to recapture the spirit of that original incel community. SuicideFuel is banned. Instead, they focus on ‘looksmaxxing’ (making themselves as attractive as possible) and helping others on their journey to find a sexual partner.

Also, it is one of the only boards on the internet where LGBTI incels are allowed to find a community.

‘Ever since I joined the community I’ve been trying to make them more gender inclusive and non-violent,’ Lupinacci told me.

‘The most popular [forums] right now are genuinely horrible, just in every way possible.’

Lupinacci has a more radical way of looking at the incel community. He feels like society is the reason why they exist in the first place. Unlike others, he doesn’t fall into misogynistic tropes of believing in forced partnerships and placing the blame on individual women. He also draws parallels between the LGBTI and incel communities." "An example of people helping others ‘looksmax’ on Incelistan [shows picture of woman giving helpful advice to incels, with good reception]

—Tom Capon
And here is me saying hi rationalwiki, with regrards to the legitimacy of the above comment Neiltyson1fan (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Are you trying to piss me off? I don't give a fuck about insulting you. I don't give a fuck about your personal info outside of its relationship to the subject matter. I DO NOT FUCKING CARE. If it's in the article, tell me which section and which citations. GODS AND GODDESSES FUCKING ORALLY AND ANALLY ABOVE AND BELOW!!!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
You asked for proof of personal assertions about myself and non-toxic forums existing.(which is irrelevant to most of the article but whatever) There it is. With regards to the article itself the citations are in the article. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
You can complain all you want in every direction, but that's now the 124th citation I've given on this talk page or the main page Neiltyson1fan (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Fuck this shit I'm going to go cut my arm open again, it's more fucking productive than banging my head against your dense fucking skull. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @GrammarCommie Dude, you alright? Just, calm down, watch some cat videos or something else that calms you down. Remember that idiots gotta idiot, just think to yourself "gee, that explains why you are an incel", and don't let it get to you. CorruptUser 20:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I have no ill will towards Grammar and hope he's doing ok. Its mildly amusing 1-2 people said I was overreacting, but I think myself and mario and two other people have been the most civil so far. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
What I'm getting at is pretty much summed up in an comment by ikanreed earlier: 'People call incels bad, I'm an incel, I'm not bad, thus incels aren't bad.' They are, and if you care about not stewing in toxicity, you'll drop the movement. It isn't your friend. It doesn't represent some positive force in the world. It definitely isn't a support group."
I'm getting a "I support Gamergate but not the hatred of women aspect of it" vibe from it. I wouldn't try to reclaim the name back. Also the existence of your group, even if popular, nowhere near calls for a rewrite of reexamination of the the incel term. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 20:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree 100% that my personal situation and forum(s) should not warrant a rewrite of this article. Even though most search terms in google for something incel related pull up my wikis or former wikis. For info on other forums, those are also in the article, or I or someone else can put in more about the Facebook groups in the article Neiltyson1fan (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Look! Why don't we 'cool' this thread down, its becoming way too emotionally charged. Lets allow each user time to assemble their evidence, and then present their cases. We ought to interpret others charitably, so lets stop jumping to hasty conclusions. This immature behaviour is tedious. Neiltyson1fan has conducted himself in a manner more fitting of this website, he has not stooped to insults or tantrums. Leucippus 21:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
An over-reliance on civility over substance is idiotic. The tone argument is fallacious for a reason. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Is this debate on the internet something you are going to be upset about next year? Life is too short to spend it being upset about things that don't matter. CorruptUser 21:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I probably won't even remember this shit by next year, due to having larger priorities than someone more obsessed with defending their character rather than demonstrating that certain Incel communities aren't toxic cesspools. However, at the moment I'm pretty irked that a couple of dipshits are getting worked up over fucking tone over fucking substance. That irks me, because this is a fucking skeptic site, and they're engaging in a textbook example of the fucking tone argument fallacy. Whether I'm nice or not is irrelevant to the substance of my requests and arguments. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Threatening to slice yourself isn't an issue of being "uncivil" though. CorruptUser 21:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Please do not engage in self-harm. RW is not worth hurting yourself over. Furthermore, I'll just be really informally quick and say that glorification of self-harm in any form on RW is to be highly discouraged, even if it's not in the CS (discussion is okay in limited quantity or if concretely related to the subject, but seriously this is not a subject worth bringing it up over).
Putting that aside, what Ikanreed is saying isn't wrong, but in accordance with how Ikanreed usually delivers his arguments it's about as blunt as a brick to the face. Practically speaking, nobody who uses incels concretely to refer to a group of people is using the academic term unless they're deliberately trying to force a difference. Our article at the moment overfocuses on the academic usage of the term, which is not what it should be about. It's fine to quickly cover how it's academic origins and initial status as a low popularity early internet mailing list weren't malicious, but it's frankly intellectually dishonest to say that once the term received any sort of notability after the internet at large began taking notice that it wasn't immediately used by the worst extremes of MRA types and became defined by that far more than the literal meaning of involuntary celibacy. At the moment our article is not reflecting that status.
Furthermore, @Neiltyson1fan you're get bent out of shape over someone's announcement to work on the article in a personal sandbox of all things. I wouldn't normally get this annoyed with it, but this isn't the first article you're getting noted for showing behavior violating WP:OWNWikipedia (which isn't site policy but is considered basic courtesy to not do). I strongly encourage you to read that page because a large amount of it (specifically that anyone can edit our articles and that you don't have ownership rights to them) and improve your behavior because if this keeps up I may have to recommend the mob to look into your behavior more specifically. (Consider this to be a verbal warning for now.) Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 22:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Most of your comments (but not all) contain "substance". However some of your comments e.g. "Fuck this shit I'm going to go cut my arm open again" sic., are not substantially relevant to the dialogue, comments like this are too-extreme. I was trying to express the importance of charitable interpretation, since that way, we argue against the best and most plausible positions of our opponents. I think its worth being pedantic about the vagueness of natural language: for instance when you say "An over-reliance on civility over substance is idiotic", we need to clarify what you mean by 'over-reliance' what you mean by 'civility', etc, before the soundness of your sentence can be assessed i.e. whether my "over-reliance on civility over substance" satisfies the predicate 'idiotic'-this is the kind of attitude you ought to adopt with anyone your in dialogue with; otherwise your statement is 'much a-do about nothing'. I think you intended to caution me about being overly civil, at the expense of the semantic content of mine or someone else's argument; my response to this - is that obviously I agree. The point of the 'principle of charity' is to optimise our opponents arguments' plausibility, so if anything, we can argue against the best forms of their argument, and in the process conclusively rebuke it. Furthermore by being charitable we increase the chance for communication and empathy. On the other hand, it is more likely that people will respond to fire with fire: discourse requires dispassion. I've already aimed criticism at Neiltysonfan1, It was me who labelled his edits on this article and the 'Nathan Larsson' article as being some "bizzare form of apologia" and his tinfoil-hat musings on antidepresents. I have no doubts about it being a toxic cesspool that needs to be cleared! Leucippus 22:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I'm going to have to reiterate: appeal to tone is bad, but there's overstepping boundaries of incivility where the conversation goes away from being productive to.. this. If someone told me he was going to slit his wrists over an argument like this (and that I've done self-injury before), there's no way I'm going to respond to this really thinking about my positions and instead focus on the emotional anxiety I'd get over reading that. So, don't.
"Even though most search terms in google for something incel related pull up my wikis or former wikis. For info on other forums, those are also in the article, or I or someone else can put in more about the Facebook groups in the article"
My searches bring up articles related to the consequences of inceldom. What search terms are you putting in, and can you replicate search results in a place such as DuckDuckGo that doesn't remember search history? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 23:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@Leucippus But if you haven't seen the forums in question, you do not know whether they're toxic or not. That's my main point! I keep asking for info on the damn forums and I get a bunch of tone policing and weird "I'm not a bad person" shit. I don't give a rat's ass, I want to know whether the data on the disputed forums is accurate or not. That's it!! As fur cutting my arm (not my wrists, my arm) I know what the fuck I'm doing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I haven't read much on them, but I know from what I've read, that their ideology is toxic and misogynistic. I didn't intend to imply that Neiltyson's arguments had more substance than yours, just because his tone was calmer...instead, I wanted to imply that your emotions were compromising your judgment. One can be snarky and yet still retain decorum in their actions. I don't deny that the burden of proof was on Neiltyson, rather, I was trying my best to be charitable towards him (regardless of my prejudices) i.e. instead of assuming that he was deliberately not giving you the evidence you sought, I wanted to assume that he may just be misunderstanding you, maybe he actualy thought what he provided you was sufficient. I've re-read the thread now, and even under a charitable interpretation, its impossible to not draw the conclusion that Neiltyson is deliberately avoiding providing evidence via links to the forums in question. One can surmise that this is due to his awareness of their toxicity. Thus, he has used denial, rationalisation, and the tonal fallacy as strategies, to avoid responsibility and culpability. Furthermore, he has demonstrated dubious behaviour - encroaching on the standards of this website, and he has done so knowingly! He appears to have personal motive for altering articles to further his own goals. He must come to terms with these accusations, not resort to the delusions of a cult, which at the end of the day, can try and embellish itself under the label of 'inceldom', but really, is just plain old misogyny. Leucippus 00:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
@Leucippus It's entirely possible they fear "being misunderstood", which fits with their previous statements. Overall, despite my frustration I'm still maintaining a view of good faith, though again, I am frustrated. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Sirius, any third person looking at this talk page would not consider my comments or action on this talk page against wiki standards relative to most people commenting here. As far as WP:OWN, its a rule no one abides by even on Wikipedia. To selectively threaten an attempt at group ostrasization using friends on the wiki, on unrelated matters when Ive been 400% more civil and upfront than others here is sort of silly. Filed an arbcom case over WP:OWN behaviours about an admin on Wikipedia, and no one cared about the rule Neiltyson1fan (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
But since a mod has decided to mostly look past legal but clearly mildly abusive behaviour from multiple people towards myself and hasn't issued a meaningful warning to others for those behaviours, and foisting most of the blame on the recipient of the mild abuse, there's no reason to continue improving pages on RW. Wish you all a good time here. Will leave here for the most part (LANCB), given some things I was told in PMs about the state of modship here. Anyway I'm sure people here are fine interpersonally, but gonna leave the wiki for the most part.Neiltyson1fan (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Look, I'm not sure what part of "I don't give a fuck about your moral character, I just want to know if the info is accurate" you don't get, but it's getting pretty old. I literally do not give a fuck if you're a immoral monster or an effing saint at this time. All I fucking want is to know whether the the forums are toxic cesspools or not. I'm not sure why the fuck that's so hard to understand, but that's all there fucking is to it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

A guy wanted the article rewritten to be more snark, less accuracy, and to have less good citations[edit]

Not sure if I understood this entire shitstorm[edit]

As far as I understand, no one's saying that you if can't get laid, you're worse than Hitler, right? People are saying that the word "incel" despite its etymology (involuntary celibacy), refers to those people we see on the news once in a while. Am I correct? GeeJayK (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@GeeJayK Basically one group maintains that Incels are a toxic subculture as a whole, and they do indeed give rise to mass shooters every now and again. Another group contends that such a view is not representative of the Incel demographic as a whole. And a third group (mainly just me) is stressed out trying to manage this crap. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 05:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Yeah, but is there anyone here saying that in order to be a good person you need to have sex? Because as far as I understand (I admit I didn't read everything), Neil's main argument here is that, because he and people on his site are good guys you can be a good person without having sex. This discussion seems totally semantic to me, and I don't think anyone here believes that Adam Smith, Locke, Newton, Kant, Tesla among others were evil just because they couldn't get laid. The point is, good guys that can't get laid should just find another word IMO, even if "incel" is etymologically correct. GeeJayK (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
This entire thing reminds me of the skinhead culture. They were mostly good guys - at first. Maybe Neil and his folk could create the SHARP version of the incel subculture, dunno. But the idea that many, probably most of the guys that can't have sex aren't evil is so fucking obvious that you don't need an entire article to rant about it. GeeJayK (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, for all Neiltyson1fan talks about the early movement, a visit to his forum reveals some pretty warped shit. Threads like ""what are the cuckiest countries", "can monogamy survive the Biden presidency", and flirtations with bullshit like "soy boys", whining about the "sausage party" nature of certain corners of the Internet (step away from those corners, you nitwits), "Incel/chad analysis" featuring "statistics" pulled out of their ass, and more. It may not be a "blackpill" forum, but it is a forum awash in the sad stereotypes that dominate the incel movement, which in their worst case scenarios *are* "blackpill". It is perhaps unsurprising someone knee deep in the movement doesn't see himself as part of the problem because he's not "blackpill" or "violent" or something, but this forum is part of the problem. It clearly promotes the same tired negative gender stereotypes that over-focus on sex and tropes straight out of a bad Hollywood film. This is not the obscure 2000s incel movement, nor does this compare to "Nazi skinheads vs Oi!" to be honest; this is pretty much the same 4Chan bullshit with just a slight reduction of the vitriol. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
@PanGalacticGargleBlaster Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. I think we can all agree that being a Neo-nazi (an actual Neo-nazi, not your edgy teenage cousin or your aunt that voted for Trump) means you're a bad person, right? Is it also truth to incels? If by incel you mean only those Blackpill idiots and a "mild" hateful 4chan dude, maybe. But if incel also means a guy that can't get laid I don't think they are all vile wicked Alt-right enablers. What do you think? GeeJayK (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
No, and to be honest this is true of the alt-right or any opposing viewpoint; to me "vile" and "wicked" in my opinion apply in strongest form when the anger crosses over into violence. Just having an opinion isn't necessarily "wicked" (even though it may be something I consider "vile" or "stupid", they probably think the same of some of my opinions, that's life.). I would actually say the vast majority of incel culture (including blackpill) is more of a self defeating prophecy than "wicked"; if they woke up to the fact that women are also human beings (and thus complex and multifaceted, just like men are), maybe they'd have a better chance of finding a companion instead of wallowing in self-pity by posting stereotype and junk memes as justification. However, there is a much thinner line between incel culture and wicked violence then there is in, say, "stamp collecting" culture (or even a more geeky one like, say, the culture of anime fans). It is easier for someone to justify violence when viewed through the lens of a negative stereotype lump, and indeed there have been some studies linking inequitable gender attitudes to violence perpetration. There certainly are issues when one looks at a disgusting shithole of a human like Elliot Rodger as an inspiration instead of a warning sign, and incel culture has been notorious for having several people cross that line. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
On Various complaints from PanGal
The Facebook groups are more active and less toxic, no reason for people to leave facebook unless to evade facebook ToS, therefore using only forums outside facebook nowadays will always be a source of the most toxic content. Here's one example of a facebook group out of many Neiltyson1fan Also the word soyboy is word filtered on yourenotalone nowadays so that is extreme cherrypicking with regards to that. (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── sorry uncollapsed. I thought this was not going in a productive direction. I think any group that positively represents the condition of involuntary celibacy needs to distance itself from the term "incel" in order to retain any credibility. For ex, this community tried to move away from it. describe themselves as love-shy. I'm not even sure they belong in the "incel" article. Kauri0.o (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think that's a bit odd since I think we have similar doubts here.
I'll put in another way. What does "incel" mean? Maybe it means a guy that for some reason (as far as I know, usually because of some mental and/or physical disability) can't get laid very often. But it can also mean a part of this very group that became notorious for its crankery and hate. Which one are we going for? I believe both are missional and, despite my inital thoughts when I entered on this page for the first time last night, I believe it's ok to say "hey, there are some good guys that can't get laid", since it's apparently a strong myth that every involuntary celibate is either a borderline neo-nazi or an imbecile, sometimes both. GeeJayK (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Please see the section below. I strongly believe we should split the incel subculture from the involuntarily celibate, and that would prevent us from implying involuntarily celibate people are imbeciles etc. I have not seen any good reason from you why we couldn't do both articles. Kauri0.o (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Of course you didn't, I agree that we should have two different articles. Both both phenomena are different enough for that in my opinion, even if theoretically speaking every incel is also a involuntarily celibate. GeeJayK (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Questions regarding the future of this article[edit]

Thanks everyone for participating in the discussion thus far, but I do believe it has gotten off track. As tempting as it is to stir the pot, I hope we can have a civil discussion and reach some consensus regarding the future of this article(s).

I believe there is one key question that should help us determine the structure this article will take.

Still seeking further comment. Kauri0.o (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

1. Should our article Incel relate only to the online subculture, to the exclusion of the condition of involuntary celibacy?

Some relevant follow-up questions:

2a. Do we consider involuntary celibacy to be a notable subject worthy of an article?
2b. Do we consider involuntary celibacy to be a NeologismWikipedia or a CoatrackWikipedia unworthy of an article? (See Abstinence or sexual frustrationWikipedia)
2c. Do we consider involuntary celibacy to be a fringe theory worthy of an article?

3. Should the low-hanging fruit be picked?

Please feel free to add questions if you think they are relevant to the broader picture. We could turn this into a vote format if there is no clear consensus. -Kauri0.o (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Going to say Involuntary Celibacy is soooorta real... but less of a deal than people claim. I've been "incel" for several years at a time, it's called "being a guy". Even the cutest, most outgoing guy, the one that was the "cool kid" in high school? Still has "dry spells" that can last months. But the truth was, at any time I could've hit on a 55 year old woman and gotten laid. Heck, I turned down a few older women that were clearly hitting on me. I was "celibate" because I had standards, and that's the reality. Most of these "incels" could get laid if they really wanted to, but they seem to think they are entitled to an attractive young woman in spite of, well, attractive young women have more options and why should they be forced to choose someone whose life is a wreck over someone whose life is together? CorruptUser 22:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Should our article Incel relate only to the online subculture?[edit]

I have read a lot of the discussion relating to inceldom over on Wikipedia and I believe they have come to some very reasonable conclusions. WP's main incelWikipedia page relates only to the subculture. 1 This was done with strong consensus.

Of course, at RW we don’t have to follow what Wikipedia does. But I do think it provides a reasonable starting point for discussion, and I think their decisions are well-sourced and based on a vast amount of discussion that we don’t necessarily have the luxury or manpower of having. I think we can, at least, take note of their conclusions, rather than having to go to the same depth of painful discussions here.

It is my strong opinion that Incel should relate only to the subculture. The subculture and the condition of involuntary celibacy are so clearly two different things. Given the notoriety of the subculture and the absense of notability and innocence of the condition, to intertwine them within a single article gives the subculture a wholly undeserved air of legitimacy and harmlessness. -Kauri0.o (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Do we consider involuntary celibacy to be a notable subject worthy of an article?[edit]

WP previously had a page for "involuntary celibacy", however it was nominated for deletion four times: 2345 (the last one is most notable). It was probably merged with other articles such as "sexual frustration" and "sexual abstinence". The last AFD was quite split, with a lot of votes to keep. The main argument for yay was a lot of sourcing, and enough information to warrant it notable. Main arguments for nay include NeologismWikipedia, CoatrackWikipedia, fringe theory, poor sourcing.

Undecided. -Kauri0.o (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

It is unclear to me how the innocent incel is missional. That is, people who are not able to attract a romantic partner. The online culture of whingers I understand is noteworthy, perhaps as a group of crackpots, though they appear to be a pathetic bunch. I suppose many younger people are proud of their attractiveness to their idealized sexual partners, but if they ridicule incels for an inability to do likewise, they are the ones being assholes. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Should the low-hanging fruit be picked?[edit]

Incel subculture is, by and large, delusional and toxic AF. If the subculture is split from the condition, I expect the article on incel subculture will naturally become more critical - but it will also become a dirty canvas for the insulting mind. I reckon it's just about ripe. -Kauri0.o (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Gonna vote on keeping article as is, with people editing on merits of existing writing, rather than starting from scratch, see four sections above for other proposals[edit]

Also Kauri0 I don't own the article but can you DM on on Discord on willwill25#3138 thx Neiltyson1fan (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I agree with you. GeeJayK (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
No-one is suggesting we should start from scratch.Kauri0.o (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
You aren't planning on editing on the merits of the writing, rather some political campaign. How could this article possibly have any more citations or broad focus, or diversity of sources. Miles of talk page comments and not a single citation given by you, or contestation of existing citations, or a good faith attempt to reach out to the original authors. only trying to recruit people to give uninformed, uncited personal opinions . might as well just create the incel movement page now Neiltyson1fan (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
The lede contains very good citations, mess it up with worse citations because you went on or it's accidental cheerleader, /r/inceltears, a few times and it'll be a worse article Neiltyson1fan (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Only reason teh wikipedia page is the way it is now despite being different is WP:OWN from Gorillawarfare and Jorm, since 2018 (although maybe at this point other peopple picked up their job). Wikipedia article waws MORE sympathetic to incels than this current RW article for every year prior to 2018. News events dont change a generic life condition unforuntately, if you and jorm and gorillawarfare wanna slander incels using blog-tier news pieces in 2018, and indirectly capitulate and give life to the worst incel forums, go do it more at wikipedia. RW isn't Wikipedia, nor is it Incel Wiki, this page is different than both. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Again, please just start an page before I make one and move all your future writing here to there, don't make this entire page about one forum, without writing about the actual topic on it's own page Neiltyson1fan (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Reason I'm not making an page despite me thinking it's the solution to the problem, is that then i'll have User:JosephR, the admin and his buddies trolling me all day here, starting more arguments like this one. (and they did purposefully start this argument knowing it would do this). and don't have teh energy for that, but others would be more suitable for this task if people are so hellbent on writing about everything tangential to Neiltyson1fan (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Also look up Splitting (psychology)Wikipedia, not everything is black and white. Not everything stays in the same place all the time. The incel forums were majority feminist for over two decades and became less so after 2013. Things ebb and flow. Right now there's feminist incel forums, non-feminist ones, ones that let on women, ones taht let on trans people, blackpill ones, bluepill ones, no pill ones etc. If you want more examples of diversity in the article I can add them Neiltyson1fan (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Vast vast vast vast vast majority of people use facebook groups and forums nowadays, (not mentioning twitter clans/groups/threads). this concept is like... foreign to every journalist on incels, except for a few, but theres no reason for people to leave facebook incel forums for non-facebook ones unless they want to break facebook's ToS and so of course they willl be more toxic outside facebook Neiltyson1fan (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Who said we needed an page? Kauri0.o (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Of course the existing article has its merits. But as it is, the article is about two separate topics, and thus should be split. Kauri0.o (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
It already got split to blackpill and, with multiple contributors to each already, for the purposes of covering more information, including 52 additional citations of new information, in a missional fashion. Nothing else to cover. Splitting this (long-existing) article further would be for political reasons as you haven't shown an interest in contributing new information, which then ends up taking the form of drama. Additional framing exclusive to owned or predecessor forums they owned will be moved into their article, wherever it is, because that is what that article is only about, this article cover more with appropriate citations. Making another, likely inferior, article about them would be redundant. But your writing skills are probably good and could be used to contribute to the article if you think there is more to add about them or other forms they own or used to own. Like, they are just two guys. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


Bumping this trainwreck. I am still adamant that this page must relate only to the online subculture, and not the state of being unable to have sex. As per every quality reference described within talk above and even within the article itself. Kauri0.o (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to edit, now that a major belligerent in this dispute has since left.-Flandres (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Probably not the best time to bump something, but I agree the article should focus on the subculture. Christopher (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Why is this not the best time to bump? Anyway, as per above- where do we want to put all the information that relates to the state of being unable to have sex? Kauri0.o (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Kill the whitewashing and apologia. Frag it! Kill it with fire! Its blood makes the grass grow! Take no prisoners! --Goatspeed. Watch meCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I'm planning 21:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Incel /= involuntary celibate.[edit]

And edited the article accordingly. Removed some apologia, more needs to go. As per above, we shall nuke this page! Kauri0.o (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh and moved information to Draft:Involuntary Celibacy as a temporary measure. Please discuss over there where that information should be located.Kauri0.o (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

NYTimes front page article[edit]

NYTimes front page article and follow-up reports were major news. Reverting it seems sketchy 2A00:1838:36:42D:0:0:0:C2BA (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

sources which bongolian reverted, unreverted, then reverted again

It might partially have to do with you making a ton of edits and Bongolian not really wanting to take time patrolling each one. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Will just add a paragraph a day I guess, rather than all at once, as it's the only super reputable news source right now on the largest incel forum, and it's an enormous story 2A00:1838:36:42D:0:0:0:C2BA (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, you can make multiple edits, you just need to try to make as few as possible. Using "show preview" can help. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
reverting bongolians 5k revert will be a single diff, will I get reverted again if it's a single diff? 2A00:1838:36:42D:0:0:0:C2BA (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, I think you should hash it out with Bongolian. Hope he'll respond soon, but in the meantime, just be patient. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Maybe he has an issue with Megan Twohey stories? Did we revert the metoo story?2A00:1838:36:42D:0:0:0:C2BA (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) It might partially have to do with you making a ton of edits and Bongolian not really wanting to take time patrolling each one. Powerfully toxic attitude and completely against the concept of a wiki, let alone RationalWiki-Hastur! (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Putting a megan twohey story in the article is toxic if it's a lot of diffs? 2A00:1838:36:42D:0:0:0:C2BA (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Hastur's just spitting like usual. That's a giant leap of bad faith assumption he's making on Bongolian? All I'm saying in short that Bongolian wanted to mark those edits as patrolled without having to go through every individual edit. We didn't need Hastur's shit-stirring. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Well given it's an international story by pulitzer prize winning journalists, people let me know which part wasn't great. Maybe people want to split the article to make room for it? I'm open to anything. Right now it just has the names part, but without context 2A00:1838:36:42D:0:0:0:C2BA (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I think Bongolian is vetting your edits, and I'm not entirely sure his thought processes are, so that's why I suggest to wait until he's ready for a response. Anyhow, looking through the edits, your recent readdition involved personal information published by New York Times on some individuals. I can't check immediately what's in the link you provided due to a paywall, but should we be going around sharing information like this, even if it was republished in several news outlets? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
If you get reported on in the New York Times front page and that gets republished, that not illegal doxxing, that's journalism, and then you're a public figure. Why Congresswoman Trahan had no issue publishing the names either 2A00:1838:36:42D:0:0:0:C2BA (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I see. Is there a reason RationalWiki needs to have the names in the articles? Just curious. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Because the process of collecting the names and reporting on them was half of an international news story by pulitzer prize winning journaists previously famous for the metoo and edward snowden stories? The names were deemed front page newsworthy -shrug-, if ppl want context they shouldn't delete the context and then ask for context. The article detailed their connection with the incel site as well as the Tres Genco story. 2A00:1838:36:42D:0:0:0:C2BA (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
"I can't get past a paywall" is not a good excuse for censoring this story and follow-ups tbh but will be amused to hear if ppl come up with more reasons. At the very least it'd make an entertaining talk page, even if the story is censored from rationalwiki entirely. 2A00:1838:36:42D:0:0:0:C2BA (talk)
I know, but exactly why do we, as a wiki, need the names of these people? I want to know if it's relevant to keep the names or just summarize that "the press released full names of these blog founders, and it has been republished in other sites". What would adding full names to these add to our articles? And so on. Also, we aren't "censoring" the story; neither is Bongolian; no one is "censoring" much things in the wiki beyond doxxing as revisions are easily accessed, information can be easily readded and shared, and even revdel edits can be viewed by sysops. I simply cannot immediately read the story, check the context, find more relevant information in the story to see if it matches up with the words you added, and check the sources before finally keeping it in the article. Notice I've made no edits to the page, only stating that I can't check your source. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 02:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm more curious why any wiki wouldn't want the names, given the background life history of them was also reported on. It's really more of a question of how much of their life history is worthy for a section on the site, given their background was deemed front page newsworthy as well. 2A00:1838:36:42D:0:0:0:C2BA (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
It's worth mentioning the names and background were in the main story, and half the point of the main story it seems as the journalists keep saying "uncovering the shadowy figures behind the site" over and over in TV interviews. And the full names were in the follow-up reports, republishings, and the Congressional briefings. It wasn't like the Capitol riots where the names are just dumped for historical records. The process of uncovering their full identities and the full details of that seems to have been deemed in the public interest to know by pulitzer prize winning journalists and also half the point of the story according to how the journalists presented their names in the piece and in TV interviews. 2A00:1838:36:42D:0:0:0:C2BA (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


As one of your edits indicated I think, the site that the New York Times was reporting on is called 'Sanctioned Suicide'. It is true that the same people that run the crapola also ran this site, and it might be worth mentioning as an aside (this news also was reported on a couple years ago by Buzzfeed News). However, this site is not directly related to the incel forum, though, so if it shall be included (I am neutral personally) I think the preference would be to keep it short n' sweet more as a demonstration of the type of shitheads that run this sort of thing. Incidentally, it looks like Yahoo published a copy of the NYT article outside the paywall. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
They specifically mentioned /r/incels,, Tres Genco and many details about their affilaition with the incel site, hence adding it here, otherwise I wouldn't even know to add it here.2A00:1838:36:42D:0:0:0:C2BA (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
The Yahoo news republishing is condensed and randomly cuts off mid-story, although it does contain the names and the background2A00:1838:36:42D:0:0:0:C2BA (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
As suggested above, my reversions were only to expedite patrolling of the edits. Bongolian (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
(EC)(EC) Wait, someone making dozens of edits without using the preview buttom on the incel page/talk page? I think we've seen this before. If you already have an account and want to be unblocked just ask, BoN. GeeJayK (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Actually, this is probably a bad idea. GeeJayK (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Anyhow since I saw the article on another browser, I did manage to add a few bits of information to the page. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 03:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Here's the follow up story that also lists their names and the first congressional briefing on them
And here's the public letter with the full names that Congress sent to Attourney General Merrick Garlandm, asking how they can be prosecuted (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Yea I think those were good additions you made leftymario 2A00:1838:36:42D:0:0:0:C2BA (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
As far as the connection between the incel site and the sanctionedsuicide site, it appears as if the users of the incel site themselves are terrified and still taking responsibility for the sanctionedsuicide site, collectively writing their own letter to Merrick Garland, NYT, and 7 congresspeople. They entitled their letter "re:Sanctionedsuicide". In it, they mention large user overlap and "familiarity with many of the [(likely suicidal)] members" of the suicide promotion site (presumably over years?). 2A00:1838:36:42D:0:0:0:C2BA (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Just added the recent congressional briefings and Tres Genco parts into the section. 2A00:1838:36:42D:0:0:0:C2BA (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

What was the point of deleting all mentions of the first self-described incel community?[edit]

like, it was the first. it's documented on other sites, including the Wikipedia article, so not a huge deal, but it makes it seem like the first community was not Alana's, when it was 2600:8806:0:C2:C902:AF26:485B:9E39 (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

well at least you banned that guy calling incels subhumans 2600:8806:0:C2:C902:AF26:485B:9E39 (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
also, neiltyson1fan wrote that the toxicity of the listserv drove Alana away, but there actually is no source for that, but the "toxicity" word was kept, and there is no evidence she left because of that, at that time. However, she did over two decades later *enter* the subject again *because* of the toxicity probably. (to reform the space or something) 2600:8806:0:C2:C902:AF26:485B:9E39 (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to rewrite Alana section[edit]

I just propose entirely rewriting the Alana section based off sources rather than just taking re-arranging the unsourced and dubious parts of Neil's writing. 2600:8806:0:C2:C902:AF26:485B:9E39 (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Happy. You are correct, I removed that stuff because it was unsourced and doesn't really add any value to the article.
I am generally too lazy to rewrite things so I'm happy for you to crack at it. Kauri0.o (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Ref dump[edit]

Dumping a bunch of references that were in the article where there were an unnecessary number of references. These may or may not be useful for anyone wanting to add to the article in the future. Possibly will add more as I remove them. Kauri0.o (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10][11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

[17] [18]

[19] [20]

  1. Donnelly, Denise; Burgess, Elisabeth; Anderson, Sally; Davis, Regina; Dillard, Joy (2001). "Involuntary Celibacy: A life course analysis". The Journal of Sex Research 38: 159–169. 
  2. Shehan, Constance L., ed (February 29, 2016). "Celibacy". The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Family Studies. 1. John Wiley & Sons. p. 238. ISBN 9780470658451. 
  3. Carpenter, Laura M. (2010). "Gendered Sexuality Over the Life Course: A Conceptual Framework". Sociological Perspectives. University of California Press. 53 (2): 155–178. doi:10.1525/sop.2010.53.2.155. JSTOR 10.1525/sop.2010.53.2.155
  4. Harvey, John H.; Wenzel, Amy; Sprecher, Susan, eds. (2004). The Handbook of Sexuality in Close Relationships. Mahwah, New Jersey: Taylor & Francis. p. 900. ISBN 9781135624699. Retrieved 2015-12-30.
  5. Strong, Bryan; Cohen, Theodore (2013). The Marriage and Family Experience: Intimate Relationships in a Changing Society. Belmont, California: Cengage Learning. p. 50. ISBN 1133597467. Retrieved 2015-12-30.
  6. Donnelly, Denise; Burgess, Elisabeth; Anderson, Sally; Davis, Regina; Dillard, Joy (2001). "Involuntary Celibacy: A life course analysis". The Journal of Sex Research 38: 159–169. 
  7. Shehan, Constance L., ed (February 29, 2016). "Celibacy". The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Family Studies. 1. John Wiley & Sons. p. 238. ISBN 9780470658451. 
  8. Carpenter, Laura M. (2010). "Gendered Sexuality Over the Life Course: A Conceptual Framework". Sociological Perspectives. University of California Press. 53 (2): 155–178. doi:10.1525/sop.2010.53.2.155. JSTOR 10.1525/sop.2010.53.2.155
  9. Harvey, John H.; Wenzel, Amy; Sprecher, Susan, eds. (2004). The Handbook of Sexuality in Close Relationships. Mahwah, New Jersey: Taylor & Francis. p. 900. ISBN 9781135624699. Retrieved 2015-12-30.
  10. Strong, Bryan; Cohen, Theodore (2013). The Marriage and Family Experience: Intimate Relationships in a Changing Society. Belmont, California: Cengage Learning. p. 50. ISBN 1133597467. Retrieved 2015-12-30.
  19. Louie, Sam (June 21, 2017). "Involuntary Celibacy" (in en). 
  20. Baker, Peter (February 29, 2016). "What Happens to Men Who Can't Have Sex" (in en-US). Elle. 

Some more references that I have removed, but may still be useful.
Williams, Zoe (2018-04-25). "‘Raw hatred’: why the 'incel' movement targets and terrorises women" (in en). </ref>
Tacopino, Joe (April 24, 2018). "Police investigating Facebook posts allegedly made by suspected Toronto driver" (in en-US). New York Post. </ref></ref>

Kauri0.o (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC) recent draft research which has a lot of useful info. Kauri0.o (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Inside the Secret World of Incels - apparently quotes "Yourenotalone was portrayed as non-violent and gender-inclusive"