Talk:Incel

White

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

Credible sources say mostly white. Your WP:OR is irrelevant. 24.126.13.54 (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Debunking black pill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the 'mostly white' descriptor in the lead section

I am writing to discuss the phrase in the lead section that describes the incel subculture as "racially diverse, but mostly white,". I believe this descriptor might be inaccurate based on the very first source cited for that claim (https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/news/incels-are-not-particularly-right-wing-or-white-but-they-are-extremely-depressed-anxious-and-lonely-according-to-new-research). The article from liberalarts.utexas.edu explicitly states in its title, "'Incels' are not particularly right-wing or white, but they are extremely depressed, anxious, and lonely, according to new research"

Further research, such as an online poll conducted by the Anti-Defamation League in 2020, found that while roughly 55% of respondents identified as white or Caucasian, the remaining 45% were from various other racial and ethnic groups (https://www.adl.org/resources/article/online-poll-results-provide-new-insights-incel-community). Additionally, a 2024 report by the UK government on predicting harm among incels found that in their US and UK sample, while the majority were white (58.1%), 42% self-identified as a person of colour (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/predicting-harm-among-incels-involuntary-celibates/predicting-harm-among-incels-involuntary-celibates-the-roles-of-mental-health-ideological-belief-and-social-networking-accessible).

Given that the first cited source directly contradicts the "mostly white" claim and other reliable sources indicate significant racial diversity within the incel subculture, I propose revising this sentence in the lead section to more accurately reflect the available evidence. Perhaps something like: "Incel... is a term associated with a mostly online subculture of people (racially diverse and mostly male and heterosexual)..." or a more nuanced description that reflects the findings of the cited research.

Phykings (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

This...is...actually extremely well argued. GMG^talk 00:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Since there was a lot of discussion on this topic and it seemed somewhat controversial on this page, I wanted to look into it. (I'm the same user now writing from another account.).

I've now completed a review of the sources cited specifically for the claim that the incel subculture is "mostly white" in the lead section. I have found that the findings from these sources do not consistently support this descriptor:

• The first source (liberalarts.utexas.edu), as previously noted, appears directly contradictory to the claim it is cited for.
• The Washington Post and NBC News (2018) sources seem to provide anecdotal quotes rather than comprehensive data-driven conclusions about the subculture. The Washington Post also references a 2001 study of a small sample (82 individuals), which provides old and limited data.
• The ADL (2020) poll, as previously discussed, indicates significant racial diversity, with 45% identifying as non-white, a finding the ADL itself describes as adding "nuance" rather than strongly confirming "mostly white."
• The Guardian, The Atlantic, and CBC.ca (2018) sources, based on what i have seen, do not appear to even mention demographic data regarding the overall racial composition of the subculture.

Additionally, other research I found, such as "Characteristics of Incel Forum Users: Social Network Analysis and Chronological Posting Patterns" by Stijelja & Mishara (Tandfonline, 2023) (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1057610X.2023.2208892#abstract), notes that survey-based studies "suggest that Incels... who do not differ demographically from the broader population based on geographical, ethnic, or religious identification data."

Based on this review of the cited sources and additional research, it seems the evidence does not strongly support the current "mostly white" characterization.

Thanks again for your time. DomitorVesti (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I'm good to change this and will do so if nobody takes exception. GMG^talk 21:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the body, specifically Incel#Demographics. I can see a case for removing this from the lead. If they 'do not differ demographically' than mentioning racial diversity at all seems more confusing than helpful, and the body is a better place to add nuance. Grayfell (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Taking on the points identified in the order they were presented:

1. My assumption is that the University of Texas source was cited because it showed that 63% of incels are white. At a nearly 2:1 ratio, that is indeed "mostly". Moreover, headlines are not a reliable source.
2. The Washington Post and NBC News provide quotes from "an associate professor of sociology at Grinnell College who studies subcultures and masculinity" and "the director of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project", who are topic experts and probably shouldn't be contextualized as "anecdotal".
3. We could quibble over a preferred wording, but 55% is a majority and the definition of "mostly".
4. To the final three sources used in the article, I'm assuming that they have been accidentally mixed between citations 2 and 3 over time (I can see the latter in the source code but the reference doesn't seem to work in the article).
5. You gave a great quote from that study, but I see in the US Census that the US is 58.4% "White alone, not Hispanic or Latino". Again, while we could quibble over the exact word to use, that's the definition of mostly.

Also, DomitorVesti, you're going to need to stick to one account in the future. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I understand that percentages like 55% or 63% are a majority. However, i fell that in this context the term "mostly" can imply a more overwhelming predominance. As you noted with the US Census data (58.4% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino), the general population in Western countries like the US and UK is already "mostly white." If the incel subculture's racial composition is roughly similar to the surrounding population (around 55-63% white compared to ~58% in the US and 64.3% white compared to 83.0% in the UK), is "mostly white" a particularly distinguishing characteristic of the subculture in the same way that being overwhelmingly male (studies consistently show 95%+) or predominantly heterosexual (though exact numbers might vary, certainly the subculture's focus is on heterosexual relationships) are? These latter characteristics describe a far greater deviation from general population demographics than the racial composition appears to.

The ADL itself frames their own results as adding "nuance" to the common presumption of incels being largely white. Similarly, the University of Texas source mentions "A smaller proportion than would be expected by chance identified as white. (...)" These specific qualifications from the sources cited in the article suggest that "mostly white" might be too simplistic a descriptor without acknowledging the significant racial diversity present.

On the point about the expert quotes from The Washington Post and NBC News: I agree that the individuals quoted are experts in relevant fields, and their insights are valuable. My point is simply that these appear in the articles as expert characterizations or observations (made in 2018 in the context of specific events) rather than as conclusions derived from comprehensive, broad-based demographic studies of the entire subculture's racial makeup. The survey and poll data provide a different type of evidence regarding the actual composition of communities studied more broadly. DomitorVesti (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I am also in favor of removing "mostly white". As I stated in a discussion above, "mostly white" is easily misunderstood to mean "disproportionately white", which is the opposite of what the sources say. Race isn't a distinguishing characteristic of incels, so we have no business pretending that it is. The lead sentence especially should not be misrepresenting the cited sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

It's been a month after this discussion was started and over a week since my reply above. I have removed "mostly white" from the lead. I wouldn't mind changing "racially diverse" to something like "racially in proportion to demographics" or something better. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I would support leaving any mention of race out of the lead. GnocchiFan (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. The sources did not strongly support "racially diverse" as a defining trait, nor is it clear what this precisely means, nor would the lead be the place to explain in detail. I've removed this from the lead. Grayfell (talk) 07:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Portrayals in Fiction

The 2025 British crime drama Adolescence revolves around the killing of a young girl by a 13-year-old boy, whom she bullied for being an incel. The third episode shows the boy expressing incel views, including his belief that he is ugly. AmericanPharaoh10 (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Unless there is a source referring to that episode using the word "incel", or unless the episode explicitly refers to it, we can't include it. Doing so would violate WP:SYNTHESIS. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The second and third episodes explicitly use the word "incel," and reference other parts of this article like the 80-20 rule. AmericanPharaoh10 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Here's a link to the clip of them using the word incel in episode 2

https://clip.cafe/adolescence-2025/incel-katie-called-jamie-an-incel-what-does-mean/ AmericanPharaoh10 (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

A few articles discussing this.

[1]

[2]

[3] interesting take from a teenager.

[4]

There is more but some of these might be suitable? Knitsey (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Those last three are suitable, coming from actual journalists. The first one isn't. Go ahead and summarize the gist of those sources in a sentence or two, and put it in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Lead image

I request that the graphic/image at the top of the page dedicated to "Incel" be removed or changed. The current image intentionally depicts the incel as noticeably short (not only shorter than the man, but shorter than the woman as well). Short men are routinely marginalized and negatively stereotyped in media. The current image would be better placed in your page about "Height Discrimination". Please consider changing or removing this harmful stereotype. Thank you for reading. 216.80.58.254 (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with the reasons provided, but I do think we should remove the image. I don't see it as an informative representation of the subject, which is not primarily about anger toward couples, and it's a particularly odd pairing with the current caption. Pinging SSCreader, who added the image. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I think if you changed the caption, it would be okay? The image itself seems relevant, otherwise its just text. SSCreader (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Not all topics can be easily illustrated, and this image is not doing that effectively. I've removed it per WP:BRD, but this discussion may conclude with a consensus to re-add it.Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Habla del Temach

Mi compa, habla tambien del Temach por pasar estas ideas incel DuxPepe (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Necesitariamos fuentes fiables sobre el y su relevancia.--MattMauler (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Tambien vea es.wikpedia.org y https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel si quieres contribuir en espanol--MattMauler (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Restoration of outdated, inadvertently pro-misogynist & WP:OR violating lede

There's so much that's problematic with the just restored lede it would take thousands of words to fully explain. I'll focus mainly on the 66 word sentence starting. The subculture's attitude can be characterized by... It's unattractive writing & has been described as "arguably the most expansive demonising sentence in the history of humanity." Those judgments are admittedly subjective, but its an objective fact that the sentence violate our WP:OR policy. It's supported by the burton source and the 'resentment-etc' cite bundle.

The Burton source admittedly supports characterising incels as misogynist. But broadly it's sympathetic to incels, as one would expect from Anthony Burton, a scholar of great integrity and intelligence. Burton doesn't support the rest of the sentence - actually he strongly contradicts parts of it. For example, after mentioning Minassian, he writes almost all incels attempt to distance themselves from this violence . So allmost all the 66-word sentence generally has to rely on the 'resentment-etc' bundle, and sadly the WP:OR violations there are blatant.

To support the 'Misanthropy' adjective, the bundle lists just this vox source. It again supports characterising incels as misogynist, but says nothing about Misanthropy for incels as a whole. (At best, it weakly implies "radical incels" might be Misanthropes)

Similarly, to support the 'Self-pity' adjective, the bundle lists just this usa today source. All it says about self-pity is Posts from self-identified incels range from self-pitying (many call themselves ugly or even subhuman) to misogynistic to violent . That might support saying some incel posts express self-pity, but it's reaching way beyond what the source says to rely on it for the much stronger claim that the sub-culture is characterised by self-pity.

If it was just this article's effect on incel's best interests, I'd not be bothered. The POVs so extreme it's very likely helping them, in line with recent research finding a majority of the public are sympathetic towards incels. Similarly, while a few police forces are still given nonsense briefing about incels being a significant terrorist threat, not a single Five Eyes intelligence mid ranker specialising in Digital believes that as of 2025. Attention is rightly all on these guys.

But sadly, over the past 7 years or so this article, and perhaps especially the 66 word sentence, has been extraordinarily successful in making incels seem super bad and interesting in the eyes of young academics. Hence incels now by far the most well known of all Manosphere sub-cultures. Almost all social scientists have heard of incels, whereas in some surveys only a minority are au fait with Red Pillers, and less than fifth know about MGTOW. Granted, Blackpill has had significant impact on the mainstream, and some incel memes have proved potent. But overall, less than 1% of young men frequently look at incel content. Whereas the vast majority have a least some exposure to broad-sense manosphere - red pill influencers are all over the big mainstream platforms, and far more appealing to the average lad than incels, who are now minor players at best when it comes to driving misogyny. With the massive rise in misogyny among GenZ this last few years, it's been great to see Adolescence at last drawing attention to the wider manosphere. The last thing we need is the old WP:OR violating lede sucking all the oxygen back out of wider Manosphere research. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I see from searching the archives that the "demonising" quote is quoting yourself a year ago, in a talk page conversation where you never answered Writ Keeper's points: So, I'm curious what *actually* reliable sources you're intending to base any rework of this article on, because none of these seem to be both reliable and supportive of your intended changes and If you want to rewrite this article to be about "unwanted celibacy", you're going to need sources that actually discuss it in those terms.

If you think the sentence with common descriptors needs to be edited, that's perfectly well worth discussing (and I agree that it's overlong at this point). But that doesn't justify the complete reversion of the lead.

You argue that this is the stable version, but I would argue it isn't — the previous version (or one very close to it) has been in place far longer, including while the article passed GA. The edit several months ago that slashed the lead was never discussed, had no edit summary explaining why it was necessary, and moved portions of the lead into such strange places I wasn't even sure it was intentional.

As for the rest of your comment, it's getting a bit exhausting constantly replying to your years-long habit of making unsupported claims that this Wikipedia article is somehow "bad for incels' best interests" (see, for example, this 2020 discussion) and, now, absurdly, influencing academia. As you know, Wikipedia articles follow the sourcing, not the other way around, and I would suspect it is far more likely that academics and counterterrorism researchers were interested by, say, the dozen or so mass killings over the last decade than by a Wikipedia article that you claim was so POV it dared to repeat the very well-sourced claim that incels are misogynist, misanthropic, etc.

For next steps, I propose we restore the lead as of this revision and then we can discuss the long descriptors sentence and consider trimming it down to a smaller list of the most widely used and less duplicative descriptors. Work for you? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I prefer the longer lead as a starting point as we consider future tweaks. I am likely to respond much better to concerns based on Wikipedia policy/guideline or appeal to sources rather than trying to guess what is good or bad for incels. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with both GW and FFF. In fact, the lede as it is now has been described as "the most blandly undescriptive lead in the history of the entire cosmos". By me. Just now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The shorter version is too short and is not that stable. There is, of course, room for improvement, but this ain't it. This version should be restored. OP's argument against has too much OR. Grayfell (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey GW, were I up for re-writing the article, I'd first humbly request a fresh start, or at least if we could set aside various unwise IAR arguments I made in previous years. A 2025 re-write could lean more on systematic reviews or at least other types of review level WP:RS:

• RS#1 The incel phenomenon: A systematic scoping review
• RS#2 Psychosocial Characteristics of Involuntary Celibates (Incels): A Review of Empirical Research and Assessment of the Potential Implications of Research on Adult Virginity and Late Sexual Onset
• RS#3 Involuntary Celibacy: A Review of Incel Ideology and Experiences with Dating, Rejection, and Associated Mental Health and Emotional Sequelae

As per first sentence of Review article , such high-tier WP:RS summarize "the current state of understanding on a topic" . Relying on review articles - as opposed to using our own discretion to pick out things to say from the many thousands of individual studies & newspaper articles - gives us a better chance of complying with WP:Due. Even on a page like this that's been lucky to have sustained attention from several gifted editors. This might be especially clear on the hostility:compassion dimension. RS#1 is free to read , but #2 & #3 are pay walled, so to quote an Louis Bachaud open access article that cites them: Research in psychiatry and mental health therefore insists on incels’ wellbeing and recognizes them as a particularly fragile demographic (BTW, Bachaud's maybe the most gifted manosphere & incel researcher out there. Maybe a bit early in his career to cite him much in our articles, but he's awesome at putting these things in their wider context and repeatedly summarises the ever evolving research space, so would recommend anyone who needs a deep understanding of incels & manosphere to follow his work. ) If this article could be allowed to reflect the POV found in review articles then I'd suspect there would be fewer editors arriving on this talk page complaining of excess hostility, perhaps making it a less exhausting job for the good WP:Stewards here.

Naturally, Incel is partly a popular topic, so I'd not suggest removeal of all cites to popular magazines etc, just to trim a few, especially the ones 5 or more years old. Unless perhaps in a section covering recent historical attitudes. Same with older individual studies. All this said GW, unless you personally requested it, I'm not sure it would be top of my priority to undertake such a re-write. We're not in 2020 or even 2024 anymore, certain +ve outcomes that NPOV coverage of this topic might have led to back then are now closed off, at least in my imperfect perception.

Focussing on the 'unwanted celibacy' thing might help illustrate the wider consideration here. I'd no longer look to include that at all. Here's the article that first explicitly distinguished 'unwanted celibacy' (life circumstance) from 'involuntary celibacy' (sub-culture). The authors found that men suffering 'unwanted celibacy' but in no way associated with incel subculture still had significantly higher levels of misogyny than sexually satisfied men. There's been other studies that find an interesting U-shaped relationship, with those having both minimal & very high numbers of sexual partners showing higher misogyny than those in the middle. (On average, there are plenty of virgins & Cassonova's who are still very pro-woman.) But in the current climate I'd not see it as a net +ve for this sort of knowledge to be displayed more prominently. Most if not all who might react pro-socially already know - sensitive & experienced women become aware of the U shape relationship with out needing to hear about studies, in some cases consciously deciding to discriminate against chads as potential sex partners. (Only about 1 in 8 sexually active hetrosexual woman are like that though, so it's sadly not the sort of thing likely to show up in studies that could be used to refute the blackpill). In the current climate, others could perceive even a purely descriptive summary of the studies as an attempt to subtly guilt trip them into having sex with ugly men to reduce misogyny, & react in the other direction - this sort of effect would likely outweigh any benefits.

Ok, I typed all that in case you're especially interested in my views on this, per your curiosity emphasised in green (I normally only see editors do that to indicate a direct quote). And as it may be useful for future article improvement. But it's not germane to my current concerns, which are focussed on the lede and my strong preference for the shorter version. Your proposal doesn't work for me at all. In fact, I can't imagine anything worse than bringing back the 2024 lede and word-smithing the 66 word sentence. That would likely make it even more impactful and de-humanising! But I guess it doesn't matter what I think. I've already expressed my WP:OR concerns as clearly as I can, but have no support & 4 editors in good standing against. Much as I appreciate the graceful elements in your reply & the humour from others who chimed in above, I can't bring myself to self-revert. The best I can say is it would not be edit warring if anyone else does. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I have no objections to these sources being incorporated into the article if they have more information to add (and would note that the Sparks source is already being used fairly heavily). They seem pretty good at a glance, though I've not yet read them in depth.

I would reiterate that we really need to focus our work here on complying with Wikipedia policy, and not on what specific editors think would be beneficial to incels or any other group. Your conversation about a Wikipedia article influencing women either to "hav[e] sex with ugly men to reduce misogyny" or to "react in the other direction", combined with your discussions of influencing academia, are concerning from a WP:NPOV perspective. We are not in the business (nor should we be) of dictating where scientists direct their research, or trying to make members of incel communities feel better about themselves, or influencing women in their dating or sexual choices.

Regarding the green, I was quoting. Those were comments by Writ Keeper in the previous discussion.

I've restored the previous lead per the emerging consensus here, and am still open to suggestions on the sentence that seems to be the basis of most of your concerns with the lead, but would again encourage you to focus on Wikipedia policy around sourcing and NPOV rather than trying to make sentences less "impactful". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

While I'd much prefer deletion, WP:OR violations in the sentence could be eliminated simply by changing the opening words from "The subculture's attitude can be characterized by" > "The subculture's discourse has been criticised for including". With that change, no part of the sentence would be drawing a conclusion not supported by the sourcing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you expand on what exactly that change fixes in your mind? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm completely new to this article and talk page. I can see the answers to that question are in the first six paragraph post to this talk section and in the last sentence of Feyd's previous comment above. The sources don't say the subculture has an attitude, they say that some of its members have written and said things with the attitudes in question. So I would agree with the proposed change to the beginning of the sentence. 98.147.21.126 (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Succinctly and accurately put IP. You know, before Louis Bachaud came along, Naama Kates had seemed to be shaping up to be the most influential voice on the incel topic. Here's a track she made with legendary guitarist G. E. Stinson - I was feeling exactly like the mood in that track until you rescued me! You've got to the heart of the matter, but there's two other aspects. Proposed change would also resolve WP:OR in the sense that the excellent Burton source would no longer directly contradict parts of the sentence it's cited to support.

Last but not least, the change would help a little in resolving NPOV issues arising from the sharp contrast between the article's hyper-hostile tone & the relatively compassionate way incels are looked at by the general public and across various academic disciplines. I was going to keep my mouth shut on this per requests made above, but I've long been passionate about the near impossible task of making things better for incels ( E.g as recently mentioned despite strong views on global warming risks I took an incel related flight across the Atlantic back in 2023. ) And GW's generous wording on what the 'change fixes in my mind' does kind of invite this sort of response.

The good custodians on this page are of course entitled to request folk refrain from making arguments based on what's good for incel's or indeed wider matters like reducing misogyny. To be clear though, that's not generally reflective of Wikipedia policy, or the unwritten rules that govern the editing community. We do have an influential essay that says editors are not suppose to use the encyclopaedia to right great wrongs, but few take those words literally. All the essay actually says is that one should follow the sources rather than lead them - e.g., you shouldn't go beyond what the sources say even if you have strong views about "evil inkwells". It may be interesting to break down how the editing community stands in relation to "dont try to right great wrongs"

Carebears > 50% , editors who like most of the world's people have affinity with the Golden Rule. They believe in putting policy first, but see no contradiction in trying to achieve social good. For example, if they have expertise to improve NPOV on two different articles, they may chose to spend their energy on the one they feel would have the most +ve impact.

Hobbyists ~25% , scholarly editors who just like to impartially follow the sources without worrying about societal impact - they might be very caring in their off wiki lives, but see editing as a break from real world responsibilities. While these guys aren't closely aligned with carebears, they also aren't opposed to them.

RGW literalists, make up about 10% of the editing base, and while good faith, sincerely believe that editors should never be concerned about article impact. Fortunately, carebears can normally quite easily sidestep these literal minded types.

POV warriors compose about 5% of our editing base, and while they may pay lip service to RGW and actual policy, they are concerned chiefly with distorting article NPOV in favour of their agendas.

Griefers, making ~2% of our editing base, again may profess to believe in policy, but are secretly motivated just by causing strife. It's to the communities credit that so few have this as their primary motivation, considering how much stress there now is in the wider world. (Most of the inter editor drama we have is due to good faith differences of opinion)

Over-carers at < 2% are why our WP:RGW essay is necessary. They are good faith, but don't believe their altruistic emotions should take second place to policy. The reason there are so few of them is that they soon find themselves perma'd , leaving out of frustration, or upgrading to carebears.

Switching back to the problematic sentence, Ed Conduit has been a practicing psychologist for over 40 years & an author published by Routledge. He paid with his own money to have a journal article published saying this about the problematic sentence : There appear to be ten depersonalising mass nouns in this one sentence, with no sentience attributed to the persons. Instead, they are referenced with ten pejoratives that readers might perceive egocentrically as causes of harm to themselves. ... Should Wikipedia and the BBC slur incels, who are at high risk of suicide ...? We shouldn't want to risk influencing the public to perceive incels in such -ve egocentric ways, which would only make life even harder for them. Especially as even if we properly sourced every -ve quality the 66 word sentence attributes to incels, there's still nothing like that sentence even in the most anti-incel WP:RS . As per review articles linked to above, Conduit's compassion towards incels is characteristic of psychiatry, psychology and related disciplines. I've long pondered why the good WP:Stewards here seem to have such divergent views, as the ones I'm most familiar with like GW & WK seem exceptionally compassionate when I see them about elsewhere. Even the best of us have blind spots, so it could be for all sorts of reasons, though normally the cool kids never stoop to virgin shaming. (And at least some of the stewards here could easily be in the cool gang if they wanted to ) I wonder if they've been influenced by spending time on certain websites populated by folk not cool enough to be on tiktok, insta or snap? Not going to name the main website Im thinking of, and in fairness the young folk who populate it have it harder than folks from older generations like Ed Conduit or G. E. Stinson. The just published 2025 global flourishing study has confirmed that across the world, the long established U shaped pattern for youth & old ages to be the happiest times of life no longer holds true, with youth now an especially miserable time for many. This is partly related to the global sex recession, so I guess not surprising that some feel the need to punch down on incels. There are fell influences at play in the realm of Eros. These are the forces Im now called to contend with, requiring somewhat more painful & exhausting efforts than the most intense wikipedia discussion, so it's unlikely I'll have time for further editing for a while. But nice to depart on a note of agreement thanks to you IP. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I've made an edit that will hopefully address your concerns. Re: the rest of your comment, to be honest, I don't have the bandwidth to engage with the extended meta-commentary, much of which is off-topic for article improvement and includes several assumptions about editor motivations. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah this is one of the reasons I think that having a seperate article for involuntary celibacy is important, the incel subculture that came in the 90s-2010s is misogynistic and extremist but the term "involuntary celibacy" is a completely different thing. Aradicus77 (talk) 02:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Alert

Someone reverted Molly White and Simonm's invaluable contribution to this wiki 100% accurately describing incels as mostly white. Someone please revert the lede back and don't let the evil white incels win. 24.126.12.64 (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

One thing I try very hard to avoid is edit warring. If an edit I've made has subsequently been reverted, especially if it has been reverted more than once, I will take it to talk. And I will also admit when consensus is against me and will subsequently drop the argument. I do think Molly White's statement regarding the demography of incels is due and is accurate. However I would never ascribe a moral character to any skin colour. If it's been removed again and I missed that removal I'm happy to have a discussion about it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that the removal is that terrible. I think that the line was defensible, particularly in the times when it was "often white" rather than "mostly white", but I don't think it's so important that it must be specifically called out in the lede. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Did you know...that consistently using people's usernames, instead of singling out one person's real name while using others' usernames, is just as easy, is less confusing, and doesn't give the (mistaken?) impression that you're trying to single someone out for harassment? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Recent edits

@ILoveHirasawaYui I am a little bit concerned that your recent edits represent a somewhat WP:EXTRAORDINARY revision, particularly with how you are effectively claiming in wiki voice that these new papers definitively prove prior research outmoded. It seems a bit undue with its definitive tone. Now I have read one of your four sources and do believe it is due inclusion. I just worry that your framing seems non-neutral. I will read the other three though and will not make any further reversion until I have thoroughly reviewed your sources. Simonm223 (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I reverted. Pretty standard WP:BRD situation. Thanks for diving into those sources, Simon. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok so notes:

1. [5] This article was published in Feminist Inquiry in Social Work in 2023. It discusses how incel communities construct race in some detail and ends up... ambiguous. The conclusion states It is relatively easy to dismiss incels as entitled, violent individuals representative of toxic masculinities, but it becomes a bit more strenuous to blame them for their inability to attain the impossible standards of desirability that whiteness sets forth. Their racist misogyny is repugnant and unacceptable. However, rather than condemning them, this study urges social workers to undertake a closer, more nuanced understanding of their perceived (and perhaps very real) grievances. It's definitely a reliable source but it doesn't do anything to undermine previous literature. It is due inclusion in the article but, on its own, is not due rewriting the lede.
2. Taking the Black Pill: An Empirical Analysis of the "Incel". I accessed via Wikipedia library so no direct link. It is also reliable, published in Psychology of Men & Masculinities in 2021. I think it is also due inclusion in the article. It discusses race and racism in the context of Inceldom as a white supremacist belief system which includes both white and non-white participants who feed into hegemonic white masculinity. It also does not do anything to contradict prior research.
3. [6] This article was published in The Communication Review in 2025. It talks about race less than the prior two articles but does note On dating apps, research suggests that over 90% of non-Asian US women who state racial preferences reject Asian men (Robnett & Feliciano, Citation2011). Incel forums allowed him to connect with other Asian incels who had these experiences. Specific subgroups raised by participants included “the black manosphere,” “MRAsians,” “currycels,” and “ricecels.” Each had dedicated forums or Discords to discuss ways in which they have been discriminated against. This layered analysis can be superficially aligned with feminist intersectionality, though the underlying framework is incompatible This presents a weak opposition to prior research describing inceldom as supporting or upholding white supremacy through the presence of two non-white participants. However they were labeled P6 and P8 which implies a majority of participants were likely white.
4. [7] Actually provides full demographics for its study participants saying, "participants were predominantly Asian (n = 9) and White (n = 8). Other participants described themselves as Hispanic (n = 2) and multiracial (n = 2)." and Asians were the majority in the sample over whites. However the sample sizes are minuscule. This particular study had 21 participants listed here. That is not a representative sample. This paper is, however, also a good find.

All in all I would say that @ILoveHirasawaYui did a very good job finding reliable sources. However none of these sources seem to support that we can say with certainty that incels are not "mostly white". I think it would definitely be a good idea to explore the complicated relationships with race these studies piece out in the article body though. Simonm223 (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got "rewriting the lede" from. I don't wanna change the lede, I think it's pretty good as it is. But those studies warrant making the changes I made to the Demographics section, don't they? Number 4 literally says "Recent research suggests that common perceptions that Incels are almost all White are inaccurate", not based on its own sample but citing numbers 1 and 2 (and another article which I couldn't access). And I cited number 3 because it says that incels are "ethnically diverse", contrary to the sources currently cited in that section, which say that incels are "primarily white" or "young, frustrated white males".

Also, I didn't remove the sentence that said incels are mostly white, I just changed "most" to the more specific "55% of", because that's what the cited source says. Sure, 55% is technically most, but as it stands, the Demographics section says that incels are "predominantly" white, which isn't true, and cites older sources that are rebutted by these newer ones. 💖平沢唯を愛しています💖 (talk|contribs) 04:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, if we do add a section about non-white incels, should there be a sentence like "Among non-white incels, the acronym "JBW" (Just be white) is often touted to reflect the perceived advantages white men have in dating"? I can find many good sources on this. 💖平沢唯を愛しています💖 (talk|contribs) 08:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

It's been about a week with no response, so I think it's safe to just be bold and restore my edits now 💖平沢唯を愛しています💖 (talk|contribs) 03:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The blackpill should be its own seperate page, I'll make a draft for it but the user is right that its become much more broader, it encompasses looksmaxxing, superdeterminism, eugenics, and some of what he sourced of nihilist and doomer attitudes. This isn't talked about enough on red pill and blue pill and there's significant coverage on blackpill ideology recently for it to warrant its own page. Aradicus77 (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Working on the draft at Draft:Blackpilled (it's called that for now but I'll submit it for a move to Blackpill when it's finished. Aradicus77 (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

"Blackpill" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Blackpill has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 22 § Blackpill until a consensus is reached. silviaASH (inquire within) 22:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Blackpill (disambiguation) § Requested move 23 June 2025

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Blackpill (disambiguation) § Requested move 23 June 2025. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Blackpill (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:10, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Blackpill seperate article

Making a seperate article for the Blackpill, it's been denied numerous times by a seperate person who seemed to not have updated it when giving feedback, but right now working on it at Draft:Blackpilled before it should be moved to article space. Does further talk have to be done for this? It currently ties into Looksmaxxing and the Manosphere. And seems to be its own vast ideology seperate to Red pill and blue pill. Aradicus77 (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

If you go through Google books and search involuntary celibacy through the 19th century, there's many books that showcase the term, it seems to be a term that's been around for a while before appropriated by the incel subculture, so I'm making a seperate page for it at Draft:Involuntary Celibacy. There's also many articles by the Guardian and New Yorker regarding the trend of involuntary celibacy in general besides the incel movement so its useful as its own page. Aradicus77 (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you deleted my previous comment (see WP:TPO), but I'll put it here again: See point one of the FAQ regarding the subject of this article, which is the online subculture and not the circumstance of sexless people more broadly. Existing articles on sexual frustration or celibacy are more suited to those topics. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I deleted my whole thread there, not your specific comment. Why make that accusation? If threads are concluded they get deleted, which is normal on wikipedia. Now this new thread is about a completely different topic which is that of creating different articles for Blackpilled and Involuntary Celibacy, which you have ignored and just pasted what you said last time which has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Let me repeat what I said, the articles you linked are not at all the places for talk about "involuntary celibacy" or the "blackpill" those topics need their own articles. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Deleting threads is not normal on Wikipedia. Threads may be *archived*, but that is an entirely different process. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

How do I archive a thread properly? This seems like semantics. I made a thread a while ago here and it seems its no longer here, so it's been deleted, you can call it archiving but I still feel that was an accusation, when what I did was in good-faith and not in a way to "silence" or censor what they said. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Anyway this still has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll work on the articles. I just wanted to leave a heads up. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

You can archive conversations by moving them to the talk page archives (linked in the template at the top of the page), but more normally you can just leave them to be auto-archived by the bot. While you can remove your own talk page comments, it's frowned upon to remove them once someone has replied, and you should not delete other comments. If the past thread of yours you're alleging was deleted and not archived is the February 2023 section about Henry Flynt, it was archived, not deleted: Talk:Incel/Archive 10#Avant-garde musician Henry Flynt coined the term "involuntary celibate" in 1974 after being called a "creep" by Helen Lefkowitz in 1956.

My reply, which I've copied here, is quite relevant to the comment you've just made anew in this section. You're proposing creating some new page about the pre-online subculture idea of "involuntary celibacy", and as I said previously, there have been plenty of conversations about that precise thing on this talk page that lead to FAQ#1 and #2, and the general consensus that such material is best put at sexual frustration or celibacy. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, but there's not a single mention of "involuntary celibacy" in sexual frustration or celibacy. Given the extensive writing on the topic. It does seem it's eligible for an article now. Back in 2021 I asked about this and they said there wasn't enough coverage. But the looksmaxxing wave recently has led to a lot of prominent newspapers writing about the topic of "involuntary celibacy" as well as the blackpill. Here are some examples:

https://www.vox.com/culture/390911/luigi-mangione-uhc-shooter-manifesto-reddit-blackpill

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/apr/26/the-rise-of-voluntary-celibacy-most-of-the-sex-ive-had-i-wish-i-hadnt-bothered

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/20/involuntary-celibacy-incels-problem-right-to-sex-not-the-answer

Anyway, this talk page isn't really the place for this. I'll just keep writing the articles and move them to article space when they are done. Draft:Involuntary celibacy and Draft:Blackpiller just leaving them here in case of anyone who previously was working on similar articles stumbles across this thread Aradicus77 (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Apologies there's one mention of it in sexual frustration but still it's very peripheral and not indicative of the larger subject matter. It is also only used as a link to this article, which further states why there should be a seperate article for that concept. Since involuntary celibacy is not synonymous with the incel subculture that came later. People have been saying "involuntary celibate" for over 100 years. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I also previously mentioned in the thread that the term "involuntary celibate" was originally used for women. And the connotation with males came later. At the moment, it would also be good to have that involuntary celibacy article as to have a Femcel and Volcel article later down the line as those topics have also seen renewed talk in the media. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given that articles very similar to the one you're drafting have been repeatedly deleted at AfD, with the most recent deletion discussion resulting in an panel outcome of Overall we find there is a stronger consensus to delete the page and prevent its recreation. The deletion arguments are more numerous, better based in policy, and less well refuted. The consensus to salt the page comes not only from a large number of delete voters, but also a number of keep voters, who note the amount of community time wasted with the continual recreation of this page, a new page like your draft likely needs to go through WP:DRV. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The blackpill article was incredibly biased and undersourced, with it reading as if the user was part of the community and trying to promote it. The involuntary celibacy page was also similar in being either biased or undersourced. My page when its finished will have at least 50-60 distinct sources, most of them coming from reputable sources. At that point there would be no reason to delete the article. At the moment my draft hasn't been finished but when it does it will go through WP:DRV or Wikipedia:Requested moves Aradicus77 (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Also the blackpill article was given feedback and the user abandoned it and didn't update the article only to keep re-uploading it to be reviewed. That's why it appears to be deleted numerous times. I'm a good writer and don't use AI or whatever nonsense I've seen people using on this site when making articles. These pages are necessary to better map the phenomena of involuntary celibacy and its subsequent subcultures. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for notable topics. And these 2 topics have become increasingly notable in the past few years. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The fact it's also being called a neologism at (Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (4th nomination)) Shows how little people even know about the topic. Looking through many previous writers used bad sources or mainly original research. I can notice the one issue the article involuntary celibacy will have is the lack of substantial secondary sources for its earlier examples. But for Draft:Blackpiller it should be fine. Also Red pill and blue pill should be split into 2 different articles, one discussing the concept. And the other related to the manosphere. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Also the last deletion of involuntary celibacy was 10 YEARS AGO. Wow. There's way more talk about this topic now than there was in 2015. It should definitely be able to go through AfD. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to your plan to recreate the article on "involuntary celibacy", not the blackpill draft. I have my doubts that there's enough for a standalone article about blackpill (not to mention the increasingly long list of subtopics from this page you're talking about splitting out), but it's your involuntary celibacy article that I was saying should go through DRV, not the blackpill one. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Ahh. I get you, but still it feels like it's been a while since it was last deleted. The blackpill article was deleted I think June 2025? But it was really badly written.

What in particular do you doubt about the blackpill article? The concerns listed in the old involuntary celibacy page seemed valid. As I've been researching there is a lot more talk surrounding just mention the term "involuntary celibacy" or it not being properly defined. There aren't like official books just surrounding it, but there are many studied that were made between 2020-2025 which didn't exist 10 years ago. So we'll see.

Sorry if I came across a bit hostile btw. Thank you for replying and for your contributions. Aradicus77 (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible that there was some recent surge in interest by scholars in the use of the phrase "involuntary celibacy" a century ago and I just didn't notice, but my suspicion is that any new studies from 2020–2025 would have to do with the subculture (i.e. this page, not the one you're proposing). I see that all of the sources in your draft, save for the primary source from the 1700s, describe this topic. But perhaps you have more waiting in the wings, and we can discuss it at the DRV when you're ready to give it a go.

Regarding the blackpill article, I'm just a bit skeptical that there's enough material to justify a standalone page, rather than a subsection at this article or Red pill and blue pill. I could absolutely be wrong there, though — like I said, my concerns have to do with the other draft. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

You'd be right about that. It does seem a lot of this is still being talked about in culture. It would be fine to expand the blackpill section at Red pill and blue pill, but it would probably be far more possible for the split between the red pill blue pill concept associated in fiction and the Matrix and the manosphere. Also I wanted to ask if any additions on "series" to this page were possible? I felt something like "this is a series in extremism" or "series in terrorism" or "series in hate"... etc. That I've seen on other pages fit with the Incel subculture page. The community is rife with misogyny and extremism full stop.

Again thank you for replying and genuinely apologize for previous friction. I really do want discussions on here to be amicable and encourage people to want to be on the site, and I feel bad for the way I was writing before. Aradicus77 (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

You're thinking of sidebar templates (more at WP:SIDEBAR). Which one were you thinking should be added? I'd note there are two navboxes (alt-right and manosphere) at the bottom of the page, but I'm not aware of sidebar templates that make sense. A quick search of the talk archives suggests that the conservatism sidebar was being used on this page for a bit, but it was determined to be too tangential a connection to justify the sidebar.

No worries about the friction, and I appreciate your hope for amicable conversations on Wikipedia. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

See also

@Aradicus77: Re: [8]: As explained in the section I linked, As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, that's fine then. Thank you Aradicus77 (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)