Talk:Real Social Dynamics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Real Social Dynamics article.

Contents

[edit] Archives

Archive up to 24 May

[edit] Reliable sources

I've chopped a good deal out of the article. While some of the information was sourced, the sources were forum posts and blogs, which are not generally considered acceptable sources. If you'd like to discuss the subject, please find reputable sources such as newspapers, magazines etc. Please see WP:CITE for ideas on what constitute reliable sources. Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 04:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I've discussed this with Jareth at length, and have been given a good answer for why we can't cite fs.com and thundercat here, in this SPECIFIC article. We can use the book, we can use magazine articles. I've made the point that it's hard to find /positive/ information for RSD cited anywhere. As the page is vandal-protected, I'm making a sub-page that we can use as the article template for our new article: Real Social Dynamics 2. Help me out here guys :-) WoodenBuddha 06:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Since the same tired paragraphs keep being re-added, I'll try to cover some of the more salient points:

  • Forums and online scam/rip-off sites are not reliable sources. Anyone could make posts or claims with absolutely no verification. Wikipedia cannot use these unverfiable reports as sources.
  • The neutral point of view policy is central to writing an article. Statements like "RSD is widely critisized in the community" are not neutral, especially when not backed by any reliable source. A neutral statement would be one like "The New York Times reports that RSD is widely critisized in the seduction community because..." Statements need to be attributed, otherwise, they're just an opinion.

Information critical of a company is encouraged. Wikipedia is not a marketing vehicle and we aim to include all points of view on a subject, however, the same policies apply to positive and negative material: the information must be verifiable, it must come from a reliable source and finally, it should be written in a neutral tone. Any information that does not meet these criteria, especially when discussing living people or current companies will be removed immediately. If I can help explain any of these policies, please feel free to contact me. Shell babelfish 00:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Strauss is not a neutral or authoritative source. It is uncontested that he recently sold 375 sets of DVDs at nearly $4,000 a set. Do the math. Strauss is not a neutral journalist. He wrote a book that hyped his own abilities while simultaneously bashing the industry leader, RSD. Then he made tons of money off selling DVDs based largely on the hype he created form his book. To cite him as a source on wikipedia is ridiculous. Quoting him is bad enough, but to not allow users to know that he is making money off of all this is even worse. this unsigned comment was left by User:Keepitneutral and moved to the proper place on the page by me

The passage cited from The Game merely relays Strauss' opinion on TD and Papa. Strauss is an authoritative source on what his own opinion is. Since Strauss' opinions are published, they are citable as a source on wikipedia. (RSD's opinions on Strauss would also be citable if they were published.) Maybe, as you say, Strauss' is simply out to bash RSD, or maybe not, but your opinions on Strauss' motives are not encyclopedic. Though you are welcome to document Strauss' selling of the Annihilation DVDs on Neil Strauss. If you, or RSD disagree with Strauss' opinion, the solution is to have RSD's point of view published somewhere, or at least put up on their website, and then cite that in the article. --SecondSight 01:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not allow documentation of Strauss's DVD sales to give context on who he is on the RSD page? A casual wikipedia user looking for information on Real Social Dynamics will find that quote and may take it as an authoritative source. Including that Strauss is a competitor in the industry provides the proper context for the quote and gives the user the ability to make a more informed opinion on the validity of Strauss's opinion. If Strass has an opinion on RSD, let that be cited on his wikipedia page. There is no need to include a quote, let alone one without the proper context, from a competitor to be placed on the RSD wikipedia page. If Strass has a comment or opinion, let that quote be on his site. --this unsigned comment was left by User:Keepitneutral and moved to the proper place on the page by me; please sign your quotes using four tildas, instructions are in the invitation notice on your talk page

First, I doubt Strauss' opinion of RSD can be explained by wanting to bash the competition. Strauss has many other competitors, but you don't see him bashing Badboy, Juggler, or David DeAngelo, and he gives props to Pickup 101. It sounds like he simply has personal issues with the owners of RSD. Yet I completely agree with you that Strauss' quote shouldn't stand alone on the page. You might have a point in saying that Strauss' opinion of RSD belongs on Strauss' page. What do other people (like Shell Kinney) think of that idea? --SecondSight 01:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The whole idea of WP:NPOV is that all points of view need to be fairly represented. If there is verifiable criticism of RSD, it would be great to include it - I'm just not sold on the fact that the percieved moral failings of the founders is necessarily pertinent in an article on the company. Maybe in their own article, maybe in Neil's article? The point of the RSD rebuttal is that the quote did seem a bit out of context and the company has been in contact with m:OTRS over continuing problems with the article -- I'll find out where specifically on their website they said the comments about Neil are; I just looked and couldn't find them myself either. Shell babelfish 01:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. My point isn't that Strauss can't have an opinion of RSD but that any opinion he has should not be on an RSD wikipedia page. There is already a box on the right of the RSD page and other seduction pages which easily allows users to see what else is out there. Any user interested in the topic can go to Mystery Method's page or DD's page, etc etc. They can compare the descriptions and go to the web sites and make their own judgments. But its pointless to have the opinion of someone like Strauss who is selling his own stuff, on the page for RSD. Strauss is not a higher authority, he's just another guy selling DVDs who happenned to write a book full of his own opinions. He is not a removed and impartial journalist. If we allow Strauss's opinion of RSD on RSD's page and RSD's opinion of Strauss on his page and Mystery opinion of DD on his pages, etc than all these pages are going to turn into continuous edit wars. Quotes from his book do not belong on the RSD wiki cite. 69.123.5.198 02:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Keepitneutral

I am not really sold on the relevance of personal issues with RSD's founders either. I think I would be fine if Strauss' criticisms of TD and Papa were moved to Neil Strauss. --SecondSight 02:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
As I said, articles about the seduction community would be better served if we keep all the pointless fighting off and allow the basic information about what each company does to be presented and users can make their own decisions. 69.123.5.198 02:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Keepitneutral

[edit] Citing RSD's rebuttal to Strauss

Ok, I can't find anywhere on RSD's website where they address Strauss' claims about them. Perhaps the specific page on their site where they say that should be cited with a footnote? --SecondSight 01:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing criticism section for now

Per the discussion above, I think Strauss' opinions of the founders of RSD belong in his article rather than on this page. I just put a brief mention of Strauss' opinion of them on Neil Strauss. Hence, I am removing the criticism section. But I want to emphasize that I would like to see a criticism section in this article eventually; it should just contain actual criticisms of the company, rather than of its founders. Of course, this change is welcome to debate. --SecondSight 02:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Even a criticism of the company by Strauss or someone from Mystery Method really doesn't have a place in an RSD article IMO but I'm glad that we've removed the criticism section. Now, can this site be locked as it is so that only someone from wikipedia can change it if absolutely necessary? This has been enough of a headache already and I don't want this site to be vandalized any further so that we don't have to go through this on a daily basis. 69.123.3.193 02:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)keepitneutral

The site was vandalized and the biased criticism was added back almost immediately after SecondSight's revisions. I suspect Mystery Method is doing this and I don't expect them to stop. We need to lock it or this is going to be a daily ordeal.69.123.5.198 02:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)keepitneutral
Automata's re-add of the criticism section wasn't actually vandalism. Yet if he wants to add it back in, then the solution is to discuss it on the talk page, not put it in without explanation. Also, I really don't think we have any reason to believe that there is anything to do with Mystery Method going on here. --SecondSight 02:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Excuse the gaff. I should have checked the Discussion first. I decided to revert the latest edit because wholesale removal of Criticism led to a reduction of quality on the RSD article. I would actually be interested to see a section on the good points of RSD philosophies and strategies AND the bad points Criticism, etc. This applies to all the coaches (Mystery Method, DYD, etc.) in the seduction community. But, information that that is properly referenced and relevant to the article should be included and not removed as a middle-of-the road approach.

[edit] Removed a bunch of cruft

All 'facts', positive or negative, should be cited. This isn't an advertising page. --WoodenBuddha

All "facts" you removed were directly from RSDs website and the two other references given. Removing the entire history section is completely unacceptable - had you bothered to check the edit history before tearing the article to shreds, you would have easily seen which particular reference was used for the material. If you cannot abide by policies here, calling facts about when the company started, who the officers are and where they went to school POV, please find somewhere else in Wikipedia to edit. Shell babelfish 17:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The cities that RSD operates in are facts, they should not be removed. I think you can agree that the RSD page, when it isn't being attacked with Strauss quotes is informative and neutral. Nothing is cut and paste from the RSD website. If you'd like to see an advertising page please see the wikipedia page for Mystery Method. Articles from magazines that should be cited to their independent source (i.e. the magazine) are cited by linking to their text on the MM web site. That is unnecessary and improper citation and should be removed. Also, direct links to the MM DVDs and the MM E-book sales pages are present in the reference section of the MM wiki page for no apparent reason. The MM page is a giant advertisement. If you're going to regulate and keep after seduction wikipedia pages, please do so fairly for all pages. -- KeepItNeutral

KeepItNeutral - Please start signing your posts. The list of cities in which RSD operates are indeed facts. They are however, also list-cruft. I fail to see how it's useful to enumerate them when 'a variety of international locations' would suffice? As far as I can tell, the Mystery Method page contains detailed information on what is taught, rather than faint musings on how great MM is? WoodenBuddha 15:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The list of cities adds more information so that a user can immediately know where they operate. Internation locations doesn't imply how widespread RSD is and how many cities it operates in in the US. Also, there is more detail in the MM page which is fine, however, I'm specifically referring to the fact that 1)criticism is absent 2)the magazine articles are cited to a MM page when it would be more appropriate to cite to their independent sources so as not to divert users to the MM page when they follow a reference and 3)the unnecessary link to MM dvds and the MM e-book. Users who want to see what MM offers can go to its web site which is already linked. Allowing references to MM product pages makes the page function more like an advertisement. The links I mention in 2) and 3) should be removed. The RSD pages previously contained mention of RSD products and that was removed as "advertisement". If wikipedia wants to keep its integrity it should follow suit with the MM page and remove the advertising links. Please justify why they need to stay. ----Keepitneutral

I'm afraid you misunderstand the word "list-cruft" as used on Wikipedia. That term is used when someone creates a "People in Star Trek with Green Eyes" list or something similarly silly. Since the article is no where near the size limit, I can't see how listing the cities was invasive. However, since the sites are available on RSDs homepage, there's also no reason we have to leave them there. Shell babelfish 17:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

By all means provide a referenced link to your current bootcamps page right where it says "International Locations". Nobody is stopping you from editing the Mystery Method page - if you feel it should be changed, go for it! That's the magic of Wikipedia! Other people will edit your edits if they believe them to be wrong. I for one would welcome information on what RSD offers on the RSD page, but not couched in "BUY THE BEST BOOK OF THE MMILLENIUM FROM THE PEOPLE WHO INVENTED SEDUCTION" hyperbole. If you look at the RSD edit history, you'll note I added links to many of Tyler's posts which I thought useful, and described as 'seminal' - however, these were removed at RSD's request. I'd love a long and informative RSD page, what I would not love is more blatant advertising and silly sales language. It makes it much harder for me to justify the existance of RSD's page next time someone (as they have many times) tries to nominate it for deletion, and I try and defend it! WoodenBuddha 15:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the magic of wikipedia is that people have to continuously watch their page to stop it from being attacked. RSD has tried to add more information for its page before and it is repeatedly attacked. Is there an option where the page can be set, approved by someone like yourself and then locked to all users so that this is not a consistent problem. Much more information could be added to the RSD page but it will just be attacked again. This has been a problem for several weeks and I don't see that trend changing unless something permanent is done. I have no problem discussing edits before they are made but that whole process doesn't work if the edits we spend time reasoning out only remain until someone attacks the site again. RSD could spend time write a very informative and neutral description of its company, one that is accepted by moderators, and then someone can come in and change it back. I like wikipedia but for this specific article there needs to be some kind of lock feature. You have to understand that everytime a potential customer goes on the RSD wiki site and sees inaccurate or distorted information and criticism, it affects RSD's reputation and business which is unacceptable. I'm willing to help create an informative and fair RSD page but its useless if it is going to get edited several times a day. ----Keepitneutral

Both of you should really read WP:AUTO. We strongly discourage editors so closely involved in a topic from writing about it. It is very difficult to remain objective in those cases and its becoming clear from your posts that you're both taking this a bit too personally. I know who both of you are so please, lets keep the competition out there in the real world and off the pages of Wikipedia. Shell babelfish 17:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm content with what Shell Kinney has written. Although I agree some of the terms like "social integration assistance" are awkward, I'm content with the way it is as of this moment. My concern now if that this version won't last, that it will be attacked again. So, my question is how do we stop that so that I don't have to check this every day? ----keepitneutral

Unfortunately, I'm not a fluent with the language. If you can think of ways to improve the wording, please do so. Deleting lines because you don't like the wording isn't the most contrstructive or civil of methods - we all are working together to build this encyclopedia. The idea is to resolve all the disputes people are having with the article and get it to a stable state. Shell babelfish 18:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
As I've stated before, my concern is that the site will continue to get attacked and a stable state will never be reached. Thats why I'm advocating putting a complete lock on it so that someone has to go through a wikipedia employee to change the article. I understand that isn't the way wikipedia articles usually work but in this instance, this discourse has been going on daily for approximately 3 weeks with no end in sight. We had the article "stable" a few weeks ago and the problems have resurfaced. A locked site isn't ideal but its better than constant edit wars. Can someone please explain why we cannot completely lock this site? ----keepitneutral
You're welcome to request protection, but you may wish to review Wikipedia:Protection_policy first. Even pages like Abortion and Adolf Hitler don't get protected and you cannot imagine the number of edits those recieve on a regular basis that have to be reverted. Also, please note that if the article is protected to stop the edit warring, it may not be protected in the version you prefer and will not remain in that state indefinately. In the long run, its much better to just resolve the issues. These types of issues are the main reason we suggested interested parties refrain from editing. By the way, if you put ~~~~ at the end of your posts, it automatically puts your siganture with a time stamp. Shell babelfish 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

We can't protect this page permanently because that would be in contravention of the Wikipedia:Protected pages policy. We only protect pages temporarily. I can't speak for other administrators but in my experience a 3-day edit war is far from insurmountable as I have seen far worse in the past; so I see no reason to make an exception to the standard here. --Ryan Delaney talk 19:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Why did you put the links to MM sales pages back on the MM page. I tried to link to RSD products on this page and they were removed. Either links to product advertisement pages are acceptable or they are not. You cannot maintain a double standard. If they are acceptable than the RSD links need to remain; if they are not, then the MM links must go. As for the MM article references, they should be linked to the magazine article itself if it is hosted on a webpage, otherwise they should be cited the way the articles are for RSD on this page. If wikipedia permits this kind of indirect linking, then you have to allow RSD to link to their press page as well. Please pick a standard and apply it to all seduction pages rather than adding MM links and removing similar RSD links. Keepitneutral 19:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please restrict discussion of the Mystery Method article to Talk:Mystery Method. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I posted here because there seems to be an inconsistency in the way the two articles are being handled. My post discusses both the RSD and MM wiki pages and is appropriate in either discussion page. My point is that there needs to be a level of fairness in what is and isn't allowed in seduction articles on wikipedia as a whole and that allowing advertisement links on the MM page while simultaneously removing similar links from the RSD page does not constitute neutral editing.Keepitneutral 16:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reinstatement of Criticism

Per Wikipedia's guidelines:

'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.'

There will be a reinstatement of the Criticism that was removed yesterday. Whether in whole, part, or slightly modified. I am opening up a discussion prior to making any changes to minimize possible edit wars (which is what some of you actually seem to want). Wikipedia's spirit of inclusion would be violated if facts which are available from published sources are prevented from finding their way into an article. Just because they do not present facets of an article in a good light is NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON to exclude them. The issue is relevance and verifiability.

Some of you found the following too disparaging to RSD, while others favored its inclusion:

Criticism

RSD is criticized in Neil Strauss's book 'The Game'. Strauss, who goes under the pseudonym 'Style', lived among pickup artists in his two-year odyssey to document the inner workings of the seduction community. Together with Erik von Markovik (Mystery), Stephen Nash (PlayboyLA), Herbal T, and Papa, they founded the Project Hollywood mansion where key seduction concepts were field-tested and disseminated. Strauss writes of the founding members of RSD, Tyler and Papa:

"There was a lesson here, perhaps the last one this community would teach me. And that was always to follow my instincts and first impressions. I hadn't trusted either Papa or Tyler Durden when I'd first met them. I found Papa spoiled and robotic, and Tyler Durden soulless and manipulative. And though they'd made great leaps forward when it came to fashion and game... The scorpion can't deny its nature." [1]

What, if any, changes to the above would you like to see? More importantly, how should criticism be presented? In researching the RSD article, I found quite a bit of criticism directed at the company from weblogs, forums, and various online sites. Of course, these do not conform to Wikipedia's best practices policy and will not be used. Whether the controversy is fair or not, they exist. And the prevailing company ethos from these unofficial sources does seem to be echoed in Strauss' statement. Again, should a critique of the company even have a place here? And if so, how should it be presented? Wikifly 22:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The criticism was removed because its about a couple of people, not the company. If you'd like to put that quote on the page about those people or in Neil's article, it would make more sense there. By putting that entire section in the article, its giving undue weight to one man's opinion. Please read the WP:NPOV policy carefully, it describes in detail how we handle differing points of view. If you can find more sources which support his criticism, it would warrant two paragraphs, otherwise, we're putting far too much emphasis given the length of the article. Shell babelfish 23:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

True. Though at the time, Tyler and Papa WERE RSD. But we do need additional POV's to support this criticism. Perhaps the only other possible sources would be those who lived among Strauss, Papa, and Tyler at the Project Hollywood Mansion at the time. Does criticism even have a place here? Because, by definition, it is always from a particular (read: subjective) POV. Wikipedia's policy is verifiability over truth, so I wonder how criticism should be presented in this case. Wikifly 23:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

IIRC (I don't follow seduction blogs closely) there's a substantial amount of criticism for RSD on Thundercat's Seduction Lair. Could be a source for a possible criticism section. I agree that there isn't much point in having one if we're only going to use Style's book though. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thundercat's site could be a possible source, but many entries in there do not conform to Wikipedia's best practices policy. I also found additional sources that may meet Wiki criteria, but with the edit wars going on here, will refrain from making any changes until we get more community feedback. Thus far, Strauss' book seems very substantive with respect to the community as a whole. RSD does not seem to be singled out per se, but is documented only as it relates to the seduction community's seminal period during the time of Project Hollywood. I am going to read through Strauss' book to see if there is additional material NOT directly from Strauss himself. Wikifly 00:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If you follow the seduction community you will find that Thundercat has no credibility. If you look at the forum on MM, you can see that even much of the MM community beleives Thundercat is garbage. Moreover, Thundercat should not be posted for two basic reasons 1)Thundercat himself sells seduction materials and is a competitor with an incentive to criticize RSD. In fact, he previously posted copyrighted material of RSD on his blog which he had to remove after legal action was taken (see his blog). 2)Thundercat is a business partner of Strauss and helped advertise and sell Strauss's DVDs set by disseminating a notice to subscribers of his newsletter. You really have to know a lot about the seduction community to understand how shady individuals like Strauss and Thundercat are.Keepitneutral 00:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As stated above, many entries on Thundercat's site do not conform to Wikipedia's best practices policy and will likely not be included in the RSD critique. But no one has a lock on what SHOULD BE and what SHOULDN'T BE on Wikipedia. Shell Kinney has suggested that criticism be placed under 'Tyler Durden' or 'Papa' Wiki entries. This is not a bad idea, but as the History of RSD highlights Tyler and Papa, how relevant is it to include opposing views from trusted published sources of the community? And by 'trusted', I mean Wikipedia's definition of 'trusted source'. Wikifly 00:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS which states in relevant part that "Also ask yourself:
   * Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident."

There is a direct conflict of interest for Thundercat and Strauss who both conduct business in the seduction field. Their opinions of RSD are welcome on their own wikipedia pages but adding their biased criticism to RSD's short wikipedia page distorts the view of RSD for the common user. Moreover, given their conflict of interest, a casual user who is unfamiliar with the business dealings of Strauss or Thundercat is likely to confuse them for actual, neutral sources. Despite what competitors would like most people to beleive, RSD consistently receives great reviews from its clients. Allowing crticism from Strauss or Thundercat does nothing but distort a user's view of RSD.Keepitneutral 01:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There may be a possible conflict of interest with respect to Thundercat's site. Though Strauss documenting his candid thoughts on 'Tyler Durden' and 'Papa' for purely commercial reasons seems rather specious. He paints a rather embarrassing portrait of himself in many parts of the book. His friend Mystery is also put in a stark and unflattering light. But he goes on to praise many of his 'competitors', e.g. Juggler. One does not come away with a feeling that he targets RSD. But perhaps what we need is a POV other than Strauss to substantiate the criticism.
I don't think its specious at all. When you look at the timeline, Strauss comes off as a very clever business man, not a neutral reporter. If he had simply written an article about the seduction community that protrays RSD poorly, that would be quite different. Strauss releases his book last Fall in which he alleges that he became the best pick up artist and transformed himself into the most skilled in the field. By December he had already made mention in the community of sharing his "secret" annihilation method to only a select five students becuase it was "too powerful" for the public. Througout the early part of 2006, Strauss continues to hype his annihilation method in his newsletter from neilstruass.com and constantly talks about how despite public demand for the secrets, he cannot release them because they are too powerful and dangerous. He then continued to hint that he "might" make the method available at some point. Then he goes on to say that he only made 400 copies and will only be selling 375 until they run out (marketing: establish credibility through book, hype yourslef and you product and then sell a scarce resource). He then sets up a web site, only375.com and sells sets of DVDS for $4,000. The whole process is rather clever but not that hard to figure out when you take a step back. Without his book, he has no credibility. He used the book to present himself as being on a higher moral ground to establish trust and used the book to hype his own skills. He was making mention of the annihilation method only a few months after his book was released, that is not a coincidence. Criticism from competitors in the industry have no place in a wikipedia article on RSD.Keepitneutral 13:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Strauss is no doubt a shrewd business man. Though I believe the proceeds from the sales of the DVDs are going to AIDS research. (Can someone fact-check this?) To come clean, I did start receiving RSD's newsletters recently and found them rather enlightening. In fact, I highly recommend them. However, in editing the RSD article, I do have to stick to the facts on hand and put my personal feelings aside... (continuing)... Tyler and Papa plotting to have Strauss evicted from Project Hollywood so that the mansion could serve as a base for RSD's operations does not seem like a really cool thing to do. The claim is supported by other members of the house, independently of Strauss. To put it mildly, RSD seems poorly represented by Tyler and Papa at the time. To the extent that RSD is a different company today, perhaps it would be unfair to criticize RSD NOW for what happened THEN. If RSD is helping clients and everyone is happy, what does it matter? Nevertheless, are you opposed to ANY criticism appearing on the RSD article, or just those which come from Strauss et. al? Automata 22:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Criticism from reputable sources is welcome. If we want to add a note about Strauss's criticism, perhaps a one liner in the History section where the founders are discussed? That wouldn't give it undue emphasis like before, but also doesn't exclude it completely. I think we can agree that Strauss is probably a biased source, which is why I suggested seeing if anyone else backed up his claims. If we can quote a source where other housemembers discussed the eviction or other things at the mansion that corroborate his statements, it would validate the criticism. Obviously, he timed the book well, but that doesn't necessarily make everything in it invalid. Shell babelfish 22:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)



Good summary of the points so far. I agree that being such a short article, a substantial criticism section would unduly bias the RSD entry. Would it be appropriate to add a one-liner in the history? Good question. I welcome comments from other Wiki editors. As for corroborating Strauss' claims, there IS another source independent from Strauss that is documented in the book. Namely Stephen Nash (PlayboyLA), one of the founders of Project Hollywood. Briefly, Stephen was also complicit in "freezing out" Strauss along with the rest of the RSD crew, but had a change of heart. He approached Strauss to apologize and explained the events that took place in the house:

  • "Do you have a few minutes... I want to get something off my chest before I leave [Project Hollywood]. They're trying to freeze you out. Papa and Tyler Durden. They're using tactics on you. Tyler Durden is telling everyone to ignore you. He wants you to think that everyone hates you... He can't have you here because you threaten him."

Stephen continues to explain,

  • "All they do in Papa's room is hang out in the bathroom and plot. Every word that comes out of Tyler Durden's mouth is calculated. Every post he writes is to serve an agenda. The guy's mind is all gears, turning and manipulating. He sees everyone in life as a set. They have routines worked out to make students give their workshops better reviews and routines to control guys in the house. Every time someone new comes up to the room, they inoculate him against you... The house is part of their business plan. I had to leave. I can't be around that sh**."

Earlier today, a Wiki editor was helpful enough to send me an audio clip of Stephen speaking (don't know if I can post it here). So I'll transcribe it: Stephen mentions someone he lived with (probably Tyler) who had amazing skill at seducing women, but whose demands on their friendship (indirect reference to Project Hollywood) was too much for him. I did some research on Stephen Nash and he is currently a dating consultant, but had no independent interests at the time of Project Hollywood. He does not seem to be involved in any alleged feuds within the community. Wikifly 00:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


Theres still a lot of problems with using Stephen Nash's quotes from Strauss's book. 1)I beleive Nash was a previous employee of RSD so there may be some bad blood which weakens using him as a source, 2) Quoting Nash from Strauss's book is hearsay. Its still Strauss 's words about what Nash allegedly said, 3)as you've already noted, Nash himself is a dating consultant and a competitor in the industry. The type of sources that should be cited for a wikipedia criticims section for RSD would be crticism in a reputable source like a neutral newspaper writer or unbiased magazine columnist. Moreover, as have been discussed at length, the wikipedia page for RSD is not a page for Tyler Durden or Papa but a page about the business and what it does. Even if the quotes you cite were reputable, which they are not, they would be inappropriate for the RSD page. If they could be confirmed outside of Strauss's book, they may be appropriate on a page for Strauss, Nash, Papa or Tyler Durden or possibly a cite on Project Hollywood Mansion, but not for the RSD wikipedia page.Keepitneutral 02:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested in what Stephen Nash has to say about this. Does anyone know how to contact him? Spyzoom 12:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how you would contact him. Regardless, hes not a source that should be cited on an RSD page. If we're going to be contacting people to solicit criticism, then we're going to end up in a situation where every company gets to put their jab in about each of their competitors. Crticism should be from neutral sources, not biased competitors.Keepitneutral 16:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he's biased because he's a competitor. It doesn't seem that anyone else does either. I'm restoring the criticism section. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, did you read the discussion about undue weight? You've restored a criticism, not held by a majority or any significant minority, but by one man and given in one third the article length. Surely that is a clear departure from WP:NPOV. There was some discussion earlier about how to include the criticism if the concensus was that the criticism should even be included at all. Shell babelfish 21:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
If you want to discuss what should be in the criticism section, that would be one thing. Keepitneutral appears to be framing the discussion as a question of whether there should be a criticism section at all. --Ryan Delaney talk 01:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Please do not put words in my mouth. The criticism you are adding has no place on this page because 1)the quote is from a highly fictionalized book written by a competitor who sells seduction materials and 2)the quote you cite relates to two specific individuals whereas the page is about RSD. If you'd like that quote to be somewhere, then put it on a page for Strauss or for the book itself or possibly a page for Tyler Durden or Papa. The type of criticism that would be appropriate would be from a verifiable, unbiased source such as a neutral magazine or newspaper article. Please stop adding inappropriate criticism to the RSD page.Keepitneutral 02:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Ryan, we've already discussed at length why it is innapropriate to quote Strauss's book here. The page is for RSD the company and if anything a quote from Strauss could be included on a page Strauss or the specific individuals he write about. Moreover, Strauss has a clear bias which has been discussed. The page had settled down for a time, please do not start another edit war by adding the criticism back in any further.Keepitneutral 21:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
First, Strauss' opinion is shared by at least a significant minority in the community. Thundercat didn't used to be against RSD; he used to host TylerDurden's writings from his website, and they may have been business partners. Still, I am leaning towards leaving out that particular quote from Strauss for now. The problem is not so much that Strauss may be biased or a competitor (Strauss has many competitors who he portrays positively), but that the page, as it stands, is about RSD, not about the people behind it. If the page gets expanded to have more detail on TylerDurden or Papa, then maybe their portrayal by Strauss should be mentioned. Nash's quote from The Game is actually directed towards RSD's business practices, such as that they try to manipulate students to give them good reviews. (This criticism has been corroborated by several RSD students who are quoted on Thundercat's blog.) Still, quoting Nash being quoted by Strauss might be questionable. --SecondSight 02:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem I have with all of the criticism cited so far is that its all being done by competitors in the business. Its one thing to have criticism from an outside source but quite another to allow business competitors to put criticism on other wikipedia pages. The fact that Strauss might not criticize all of his competitors doesn't change that fact that he still has an interest in criticizing some competitors, particulary larger established ones like RSD. Theres a lot going on behind the scenes in terms of business relationships that no one here has complete information on. We know Strauss works with Thundercat and that he may/likely still conduct business with Mystery. The details of all of this we'll never really know. Saying that a significant minority holds a view is pretty hard to say in a business like this. Also to say that the alleged "manipulation" of students has been corroborated by students on Thundercat's blog is a pretty weak claim. Can you really trust something off a blog that is hosted by someone who had to remove files about RSD after receiving a cease and desist letter? Can anyone verify the statements of the alleged students, can anyone verify they were actually students? You really have to understand theres a lot of competitive business practices going on beneath the surface and that quoting a competitor in any circumstance is inappropriate for this article. I'm not saying their can't be a criticism section but that if there is, it needs to come from a better source. The bickering of these seduction companies doesn't belong on wikipedia.Keepitneutral 12:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with Ryan's decision. But we may want to expand the RSD article to perhaps include a section on RSD Concepts, Philosophy, etc so as to give more balance to the entire article. Surfjam 01:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a good thought but the problem with this is that, to my knowledge, RSD is mostly about what they teach and do on their live programs and their theory, etc is only taught there. Granted, TD has made many posts but the RSD program is still distinct from his writings. Some of this might be easier to access when RSD and TD release "The Blueprint" which should be out soon and make it easier to make a larger, more informative page that can actually cite to RSD theory and concepts.Keepitneutral 12:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The additional bit to the Criticism citing Strauss' possible bias does seem to balance things. Can we get a citation source for the RSD statement, though? Stephen Nash's comments are much more damaging, IMO, since he was inside RSD. Would anyone like to start a stub on RSD concepts? Spyzoom 02:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Nash's comments on RSD manipulating students is actually corroborated by a series of internal RSD memos that was circulating within the community. The memos were sent from an anonymous source WITHIN RSD's ranks. RSD lawyers threatened legal action if the material was not removed immediately from some sites, e.g. Thundercat. The memos can still be found on some file-sharing networks. I have read them and RSD really does not come off well, especially in their attitude toward the more diffcult students (who undoubtedly need the most help). There was one section wherein a particularly difficult student was described as pathetic (and other expletives) and without going into detail, would make Strauss' comments seem like high praise by comparison. Bluecrush 13:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the memos you note that allegedly come from RSD, but if they exist there needs to be a way to verify them. Are they signed PDFs or something or just text that is purported to be from RSD? We would need a way to confirm that any statements actually came from real students and weren't just posted by someone or sent to Thundercat by someone claiming they were true. If it was verifiable and true information, its seems like Thundercat wouldn't have complied with the legal threats. The fact that he did would lead me to beleive that something else illegal was going on or that memos were false information or created by someone and leaked to file sharing networks. Just because something is spread on a file sharing network doesn't mean it is true. I don't see how we could cite to something like that.Keepitneutral 13:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
If RSD is reading this and allows them to be posted here, then they will be posted. People can decide for themselves. What say you, RSD? Bluecrush 13:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

As you can see from my edit history, I've tried before to keep this article from being deleted. I'm starting to think perhaps it should be now. Looking at the page now, it describes a fairly non-notable company, rather than before making up one of a series of articles about the seduction community, describing how RSD was different, and I guess, what was important about that difference. The page used to have links to articles Tyler had written, links to some very positive (and fairly negative) reviews - in short, it was an article that someone reading would get a balanced view of the company from, and useful information about the community and the company and its founders place in it. Now this has gone, and the page has basically become a fairly generic holding page for a company that fails all notability tests, I ask myself if it's of any value to Wikipedia.

Definitely we need to keep the Seduction Community page, and the RJ page - both are definitely notable, and we can provide a large number of citations in the media for both. Most of the other can be merged in to the Seduction Community page. What do people think? WoodenBuddha 08:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to try to preserve some of these articles and I can see why merging them all into a single seduction page might be beneficial. My main concern is that all of these companies are presented fairly. We shouldn't get rid of the RSD and MM page and leave Juggler or get rid of the Juggler page and leave RSD and Mystery or get rid of the RSD page and leave MM and Juggler, etc. I agree that RJ has been around for much longer and deserves his own page. I kind of like that most of these companies have their own pages right now but managing them fairly has been a challenge. I think leaving them all as they are or merging could both potentially work as long as there is a level of fairness in presenting each.Keepitneutral 12:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


The reason why RSD is targeted for AFD is because the RSD page no longer fairly represents information that is publicly known about the company. WoodenBuddha has a point that the page has become rather generic and seems more like an information stub, without any additional background material. It is understandable that RSD does not want to be negatively represented on Wikipedia. However, no one here is tearing RSD for fun. Only that information relevant to the company be included here. Even if you were to take issue with his neutrality, Strauss' book, for better or worse, IS considered a trusted source (as defined by Wikipedia).
'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.'
In other words, can Wiki readers verify that a quote about RSD came from the book? Yes, they can. They need only walk down to their neighborhood bookstore. Even in the unlikely event that all of Strauss' writings are completely fabricated and there was no Project Hollywood and all the characters were the product of a deranged mind, the fact still remains that these quotes can be verified to exist. The question is whether these quotes are relevant to background information on RSD.
And by the way, the view that Strauss is biased is not shared by everyone here. I have also read the book, and have to agree with others that one does not get the feeling that he is out to target RSD, or anyone for that matter.
It has also been suggested that RSD stubs on Concepts, Teachings, etc. be initiated. Great idea. Perhaps someone can take a look at the MM page or the DYD page for ideas. As for RSD Criticism, I am in favor of at least a stub that can be expanded over time commensurate with more sources as they become available. Bluecrush 14:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
How does the article no longer fairly represent knowledge that is publicly known about the company? The memos that have been mentioned cannot be verified in any way other than that they are floating around on file sharing networks, were posted on Thundercat and then removed, and are allegedly said to contain information about RSD. For all we know they were created by someone to damage RSD and have no basis in fact and thats why they had to be removed from Thundercat. It would be improper to put such information on a wikipedia page without knowing whats really going on.

Strauss's book, though in print, violates the conflict of interest part of wikipedia's guidelines already cited. No one is denying that Strauss is a competitor and no one is denying that shortly after he released the book which contains the negative quotes about Papa and TD that he was already beginning to market his seduction materials. And no one is denying that Strauss released and sold his DVDs whereby he entered the seduction market. Wikipedia should not allow a quote from a competitor to be placed on RSD's page because regardless of how much anyone favors or likes Strauss, he has a clear conflict of interest and cannot be considered an unbiased source.

A criticism stub would be appropriate when criticism of RSD can be verified and cited to a reputable source such as a neutral magazine or newspaper article, not a fictionalized book by a competitor. In addition, Strauss' quote is particularly inappropriate because it does not deal with RSD the company but Papa and Tyler Durden.Keepitneutral 14:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed WoodenBuddha's quote/criticism section because the quote is wholly about Tyler Durden and not about RSD. I also removed the shameless linking to Mystery Method from the history section.Keepitneutral 15:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As is clearly seen from the archive.org link, you guys used to boast that you were Mystery Method instructors. Now you claim you came up with the programme yourself? Could you explain this discrepancy? WoodenBuddha 15:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The page is about RSD and there is no need to attempt to justify citing to Mystery Method. RSD is its own business and company started by Tyler Durden and Papa as is stated in the history. There is no need to try to cite to Mystery Method within the RSD article.Keepitneutral 15:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


I'm not trying to violate any kind of revert policy but I thought Shell Kinney made it clear that any criticism should be geared towards RSD not Tyler Durden. Also, I'm sensing a high degree of MM bias among users here. People are going out of there way to search for criticism for RSD yet the MM page has no criticism section.Keepitneutral 18:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Keepitneutral, if you read the whole article, you will see that the context was a bootcamp by RSD. Hence, TylerDurden's actions are relevant. As for the "revert policy" which you aren't trying to violate, you already have (it prohibits 3 reverts in under 24 hours). Several people has asked you to read the Three-revert rule. You are welcome to discuss removing WoodenBuddha's new criticism section, but reverting it multiple times is a violation of the rule. I am reinstating the criticism because it is relevant to RSD, and because it is from a verifiable source. If you revert it again today, you will be subject to being blocked temporarily per the three-revert rule. --SecondSight 19:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Criticism Section

WoodenBuddha has added a new criticism section:

  • Hugo Rifkind, writing for The Times describes Tyler as an 'arrogant geek' and recalls an occasion where he "I watched him ridicule a homeless female beggar with such misjudged excessiveness that, mid-interview, I feel compelled to turn my back on him and empty my wallet into her hands"[1].
The company's website has also come under attack for inaccuracy - statements such as "we’ve been around longer than any other company that tries to teach you how to be good with women"[2] and "I’m Willing To Do Something That Nobody Else Is Willing To Do By Offering a Full Money Back Guarantee..." are generally considered to be flat-out falsifications in a community that can trace its roots back to the 1980s (see: Ross Jeffries) and in which money-back guarantees are common[3][4].

The first paragraph of this should definitely be included (it has a reliable secondary source). As for the second paragraph, I'm not sure (does it avoid being original research?). Keepitneutral, WoodenBuddha did NOT need to discuss this new criticism section on the talk page before adding it. He would have needed to discuss the Strauss quote if he had tried to re-add it (because so many editors had determined that it should not be in), but he didn't need to discuss the new criticism because it was, well, new (and had a verifiable source). Instead, the burden would be on you to provide an explanation on the talk page for why criticism from a verifiable source should be removed. --SecondSight 19:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read the article carefully. There is no mention whatsoever of the company Real Social Dynamics. The part of the article you refer to states "...on a “boot-camp” (workshop) with a renowned American PUA who calls himself Tyler Durden." The article never states that TD was in charge of the workshop or that the workshop was sanctioned through RSD. Tyler Durden could have been conducting a bootcamp outside of RSD or merely in the presence of students on a bootcamp of RSD or any other company. The article never mentions RSD or states that Tyler Durden was acting on behalf of RSD as their instructor. Because the article never mentions the company RSD, all you have is the individual behavior of someone who is associated with RSD. You do not have an article referencing RSD. This article belongs on a page for Tyler Durden. I am removing the criticism because the article never mentions RSD in any way, which is the subject of this wikipedia page.Keepitneutral 20:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The founder and director of the company might have been working for the competition for a weekend? Seems unlikely somehow. This is ridiculous use of weasel words. Further more, the action of the person who started, and can be seen as the driving force behind a company, in a work context, are very definitely relevant to the company. WoodenBuddha 20:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily for the company but possibly for himself or meeting people who were on a bootcamp. The point is you don't know. The bigger point is that the article never even mentioned Real Social Dynamics at large or anyone other than Tyler Durden. You can't cite an article as criticism of a company when the article doesn't mention the company. The quote is about Tyler Durden and does not belong on a RSD wiki page.Keepitneutral 20:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In your sole opinion. Feel free to look at your options as far as Wikipedia mediation goes. I have reported you for 3RR violation after multiple warnings. WoodenBuddha 20:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That's an incredibly strained explanation. There is simply nobody but RSD who TylerDurden would have been doing the bootcamp for, considering that the article is written September 2005. There is no reason to believe that TD does freelance bootcamps separate from RSD. This article provides evidence of how one of the founding members of RSD (and its figurehead) behaves during bootcamps, and that is certainly relevant to the article. Yet perhaps we can change the wording of the article so it doesn't explicitly say that it was an RSD seminar that the reporter witnessed. --SecondSight 21:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Keepitneutral, it is understandable you may want to put RSD in a good light. But if you are too close to the action, then perhaps you might want to take a break from editing this page and help out on some of the other seduction entries for a while. Even add criticism when appropriate. Start those RSD Teachings + Concepts stubs that were suggested earlier. You don't seem to be a big fan of MM, go do some damage there. OK, kidding of course.

No one wants to unfairly disparage RSD. If that were the case all the criticism of RSD on blogs, forums, etc. would have been brought to bear on this talk page. And believe me, they are legion. I have come across much worse things from alleged former students and people with past associations with RSD. But I read sweeping statements here like "Thundercat is garbage" or "he [Strauss] has no credibility", etc. and can't help but think how counter-productive these comments are. It only makes other editors here question your neutrality and motives.

You are literally shooting yourself in the foot.

Wiki editors are not fools. And you need to realize the Wiki community is more than just (gasp!) yourself. We are all volunteers here. So please, if you can muster it, let everyone do their job the best they can. If you disagree, then discuss it here before making repeated reversions and erasing the efforts of others. Thank you. Automata 23:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Given the discussions here, I am reinstating the Criticism section to the last known version by Secondsight, with minor changes to reflect most of the suggestions here:

RSD is criticized in Neil Strauss' book The Game. Strauss, who goes under the pseudonym 'Style', documents his two-year odyssey living among pickup artists at the Project Hollywood mansion where RSD was founded.[5]
In September 2005, a writer for The Times describes an incident at a seduction bootcamp where he witnessed one of RSD's instructors "ridicule a homeless female beggar with such misjudged excessiveness that, mid-interview, I feel compelled to turn my back on him and empty my wallet into her hands." [6]

The quotes from The Game can probably be looked up if a Wiki reader chooses. And the quote from The Times accurately describes that what was witnessed was an RSD instructor. I leave it to other Wiki editors to decide whether adding that it was Tyler Durden, one of RSD's founders, would make the quote even more relevant. I will try to follow up on Hugo Rifkind to get additional information, but the Criticism section meets Wiki criteria as it stands. Bluecrush 01:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the new section is a tremendous improvement over the last. Its to the point and doesn't unduly burden the article the way the first try did. Excellent work! Shell babelfish 07:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The line about Strauss is still inappropriate. "Villian"? Thats a gross overstatment. The line also doesn't contain anything about Strauss's business ventures which is important information for a user to evaluate his POV.Keepitneutral 13:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


I took a RSD bootcamp and it helped me immensely and I'm trying to keep these pages balanced. Right now there seems to be a clear bias in favor of MM by some of the other editors who seem determined to find something, anything, that they can put on to do harm to RSD. There was once a MM criticism section which was removed by several users. Apparently, wikipedia doesn't think MM should have a criticism section. But the crticism that is being thrown at RSD is unfair. People think that what they read in the Game is real and that Strauss is a neutral journalist, he is not. Then Thundercat and other put out an unverifiable memo that is allegedly from RSD. Legal action appears to have been taken thundercat quickly folded. Listen, take a look at the situation for a second. If Thundercat wasn't doing anything wrong, he wouldn't have taken the stuff down. I say his site is garbage because it is. There is hardly anything useful on that site anymore and his feud with RSD is ridiculous. Thundercat works directly with Strauss, they both marketed and hyped Strauss's annihilation method DVDs before they came out, do you think that is a coincidence or do you think that Thundercat helped Struass out of the good of his heart? Theres a lot of money in this business and some users here don't get that. When I say Strauss has no credibility, I mean that too. If you followed the events between the release of his book and the release of the annihilation method you will come to the same conclusion. He acts like he wants to help everyone and goes out and hype himself all over the media as the best PUA. He hints at the annihilation method soon after the release of his book but repeatedly swears that he will enver release it. He claims it is too powerful. Eventually he hypes it to a point where its basically being marketed as a magic pill for men to be successful with women and the week before he release his DVDs he continues to explain how he fortuitously only made 400 copies not intending to sell them but that now he is. Then he sells them for $4,000 netting himself over a million dollars in a day. When I read the game I loved Strauss but his act has gotten old and it seems he was always after the money. As for MM, I don't have much of a problem with them except for the fact that users here continue to push for criticism for RSD but not for MM. MM can be criticized as well but users here don't seem to want to allow that. So I got tired of all the RSD bashing and started to defend them using wikipedia policies which I feel is appropriate. Now I'm being blocked by sarcastic, rude users who argue about fairness when they are unwilling to be fair themselves. Wikipedia is a great resource but right now its being used more for criticism than information in the seduction pages. I've tried to be fair and compromise. Users would complain that the RSD page is an advertisement when the MM page and the page for Mystery were filled with links for products before I started improving these pages. As of today, I had to remove two obvious and unreference links to MM products from the Mystery Page. If you guys are going to watch these pages then watch them fairly. The reason I compared the RSD site to the MM site is because the MM is much more of a slantd advertisement than the RSD page. Users here want to nitpick over the alleged fact that RSd instructors may have used to work for Mystery Method and then link within the RSD page to the Mystery Method web site. That is ridiculous. Users here rail about how that is an important part of the history of RSD. People are pushing to include trivial references to RSD instructors because its a vital part of the history and Tyler is "inextricably linked" to RSD. Ok, well is Mystery inextricably linked to Myster Method? Did any of the users here who tout the unbiased view of Neil Strauss ever include something about how Mystery was in and out of mental institutions? Or is that not history? Is that not important. Some people here are too closely involed in all of this and fighting too damn hard to find something bad about RSD. The whole Mystery web site is without criticism and was a giant linked advertisement for MM and the MM web site before I started taking away some of the unnecessary links. All I ask is that these pages are regulated fairly.Keepitneutral 13:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The information on the Strauss DVDs is from www.only375.com which states they are sold out. The price on the site when they were available was $3775. The price is no longer up because they are allegedly sold out. If we're going to put something about Strauss on an RSD page, then users deserve to know that he allegedly grossed about $1.5 millions dollars from DVD sales as a competitor of RSD.Keepitneutral 14:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


I understand that a number of you have a personal interest in this article. Its very obviously making it difficult for people to be objective -- that's why we strongly suggest that you don't edit articles you're vested in. If you're going to continue editing, you're going to have to drop your biases at the door or you're heading down a path that will eventually have you banned from seduction articles. I'm not singling any person out, this is just a gentle reminder that there are policies and guidelines that editors are expected to follow in order to continue editing.

That said, I've restored the criticism section. It is imperative that the article follows WP:NPOV. The Times article portion is sourced well and now written in a very neutral manner, showing both sides of the story. Excellent work! The section about Strauss needs a citation for the DVD sales. Saying "it was on this website" isn't acceptable. If you don't have a source, that information will need to be removed.

Why doesn't everyone take a step back and try editing together to make this a better article? Its much more productive to work towards a consensus than tear each others work apart. Shell babelfish 05:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've stated before, the criticism both in Strauss's book and in the Times article is about Tyler Durden. It is more appropriate on a Tyler Durden page. Ryan Delaney was correct to remove it. Why did you add it back?Keepitneutral 16:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Thanks to everyone for their helpful comments. Upon closer examination of The Times article, the claim about Tyler being "one of the most polished PUAs in the world..." is in fact attributed more to Neil Strauss himself (surprise!). The reporter was merely contrasting Tyler's reputation as a PUA with what he ACTUALLY witnessed:

"... Yet in Leicester Square, I watch him ridicule a homeless female beggar with such misjudged excessiveness that, mid-interview, I feel compelled to turn my back on him and empty my wallet into her hands."

It would therefore be misleading to attribute the line "Tyler is one of the most polished PUAs in the world..." to the reporter.

The Criticism has been cleaned up to be more NPOV as follows:


RSD is criticized in Neil Strauss' book The Game. Strauss, who goes under the pseudonym 'Style', documents his two-year odyssey living among pickup artists at the Project Hollywood mansion where RSD was founded.[7]
Strauss is currently a seduction teacher, marketing a limited set of DVDs in May 2006. [citation needed] Although a competitor to RSD, Strauss considers RSD founder, Tyler Durden, to be one of the most polished PUA's in the world. [citation needed]
In September 2005, a writer for The Times describes an incident at a seduction bootcamp where he witnessed one of RSD's instructors "ridicule a homeless female beggar with such misjudged excessiveness that, mid-interview, I feel compelled to turn my back on him and empty my wallet into her hands." [8] The incident is alleged to have taken place in London's Leicester Square.

Wikifly 19:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added the exact quote of the writer. His exact quote can be fairly attributed to him. Also, this is still criticism of Tyler Durden and not RSD as hads been mentioned by Ryan Delaney.Keepitneutral 21:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Keepitneutral, the Criticism by Wikifly was worded to make it NPOV and avoid excessive material one way or the other. Your addition is a rundundant mentioning of the Strauss' (possible) view which came before. It further weakens the spirit of writer's voice where he is trying to say that DESPITE Tyler's supposed reputation as a PUA, what he witnessed in Leicester Square was despicable.

You also failed to add the following observation by The Times reporter:

"These guys are awkward geeks who have learnt how to be arrogant Casanovas. Outside their routines, they are now arrogant geeks. Not a nice mix."

Would you prefer that this also be mentioned in addition to what you have? Bluecrush 00:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


After checking references to Tyler and Papa in The Game, other members of RSD are in fact mentioned, e.g. Xaneus, Sickboy, PlayboyLA. The entire RSD crew is noted to have tried to "freeze out" Neil Strauss in an apparent ploy to gain control of Project Hollywood. Given the other comments, I am restoring the Criticism as presented by Wikifly.

side note: We still need proper citations for the DVD claim and Strauss' view of Tyler. Automata 00:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to quote the writer directly about his criticism of Tyler Durden then it is only fair to also quote the fact that he notes Tyler's great reputation as a PUA. I'll remove the earlier reference attributed to Neil Strauss so it isn't redundant and reinsert the quote which references Strauss and hundreds others. Thats a balanced account of what the writer reported, that despite Tyler's reputation, the writer criticized him for what his allegedly arrogant, etc behavior.Keepitneutral 18:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: the times quote and article. As I've maintained before, despite the fact that the alleged incident with Tyler Durden was during an unnamed bootcamp which I still maintain we cannot be sure was sanctioned by RSD, the quote is still about Tyler Durden and an alleged incident with a female beggar. The quote doesn't criticize Tyler in his capacity as an instructor nor does it criticism RSD's teaching methods nor does it criticize RSD the company in any way. Its a personal anecdote about what someone alleges to have witnessed between Tyler Durden and an individual. Ryan Delaney has agreed that this quote is more appropriate on a Tyler Durden page and I'm willing to hear reasonable discussion on this before we have ot turn this into another edit war.Keepitneutral 19:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Even though I maintain that the criticism of Tyler Durden, as RyanDelaney has previously stated, belongs on a Tyler Durden page, I took RyanDelaney's suggestion and moved part of it to the introduction.

[edit] Added More information

A problem with the RSD page previously was that it was attacked so often it was difficlt to add information for wikipedia users to actually understand what the company does. Most of what RSD does is run bootcamps, so I attempted to expound on what a "bootcamp" actually is so that wikipedia users have a better idea of what the company is and does. Note that I didn't put anything in like "MASSIVE SUCCESS" or anything and tried to keep a neutral position and provide factual information. I'm open to suggestions but I wanted to add to the page since it was pretty bare bones before. Please do not recklessly delete anything as I can change things if necessary as we discuss them.Keepitneutral 14:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC) . Keepitneutral, good work on trying to improve the page. Let's be careful to really keep the story factual and NPOV. Adding references to Mystery isn't an advertisement or endorsement for him in any way. It's just an important part of the history. Feel free to refer to "The Game" to verify. As Neill Straus has written in his book, the RSD guys were Mystery's students, then Mystery's instructors before forging out on their own. No need to hide or sanitize the history. WP is uncensored and NPOV, not adcruft to promote RSD bootcamps. As anyone involved in the community knows, the very idea of bootcamps and in-field workshops was popularized by Mystery. (I don't endorse Mystery in any way. Help me add criticism to that page if you will.) DutchSeduction 18:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Papa's Interest Before RSD

In case anybody is curious I believe this is the Papa in real life - [1].

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/a/Talk%7EReal_Social_Dynamics_19ff.html"