Talk:Average frustrated chump

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 14 Sept. 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 14 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Average frustrated chump article.
Article policies

Contents


[edit] Comments

The Nice Guy Syndrome article was deleted because it consisted primarily of unverifiable original research. Simply moving that material here does not make it better, it just makes this article liable for serious pruning and/or deletion. Please remove the unsourced speculation from this article. Thanks, Gwernol 12:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

that article didn't include such stuff, is used all over the place. Not just blogs and forums either. But this concept is refered in major magazines such as Cleo, Maxim, etc... Mathmo 15:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This involves a different context, because it is a concept used within the seduction community. So the verifiability or orginal research aspects are not necessarily relevant. Yakuman 15:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The context has no impact on whether this is original research or not, it is unsourced speculation. The Nice Guy Syndrome article was also within the context of the seduction community. Sorry, Gwernol 15:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The term has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere and is sourced. It matters not whether you or I agree with the idea, but that it is expressed fairly. Yakuman 15:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read WP:V and WP:RS. The article is full of unsourced claims and speculation. I can go through and add {{citation needed}} tags for individual sentences if you like. This has indeed been extensively discussed, for example at the AfD for Nice guy syndrome where it was agreed that this material is WP:OR. Just moving it to another article does not change that fact. The article is full of weasel words that need to have citations. For example the "Friend/lover trait confusion" section starts "Some believe AFC behavior results from the affected males having a false perception of what "nice girls" (the women they desire) want in a lover" who believes this? Where is the citation? almost every sentence is an unsourced claim like this. Gwernol 15:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note a large portion of this article is explaining what is an AFC, i.e. it is a definition, NOT a factual claim

Thus can people please not complain about those parts being POV or original research or whatever, because people are free to invent terms for ideas & concepts which they can then call them whatever the hell they like. Then in a few rare cases they will become so widely spread and famous that the term becomes notable enough to be included in such a fine and upstanding encyclopedia as wikipedia itself! This doesn't however change at all even for a second that this term (or phrase) can be defined as anything at all. Just in case my point isn't clear enough I'll illustrate it with an specific example from the subject at hand, for instance we are perfectly free to say an AFC is a person is completely hopeless with women. Of course we can't say most people are AFCs, however we can say it is believed by the seduction community that most men are AFCs. Because then we are merely stating their views, and not claiming that view for wikipedia itself. That ought to have made my point clear now. Mathmo 12:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well put. Dessydes 14:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

This topic is valuable and I am glad Yakuman has started this page, but Gwernol is correct that it was full of unsourced claims and speculation. So I have entirely rewritten the article with proper sources (mostly from The Game, which passes WP:V, shows why the term passes WP:NEO). There are also many news article using the term which are cited on the Seduction community page. I will be out of town for the weekend, so I won't be able to defend these changes until I get back. --SecondSight 22:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Welll, what you created is basically a rehash of PUA propaganda, with cites to PUA propaganda. I re-added a few things, but this thing has serious POV problems. This is not the speed seduction list. My version said more than the standard "buy book and get ---- tonight" sales pitch. Now go fix.Yakuman 23:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"PUA propraganda"?!?! Needless to say that sounds like some very heavy bias in your written just then... ah well, at least you are merely making it on the talk page not the main article. Mathmo 15:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

My version reported on PUA concepts (because AFC IS a PUA concept) in neutral language (if you disagree, please explain exactly what was not neutral about my language before accusing me of "propaganda"). All my version did was report what has been said about the AFC term, mainly from Strauss' book, which is a published secondary source. FAQs on fastseduction.com are also an authoritative source on what PUAs say, because that site is one of the biggest and most influential in the community. If the problem with POV is the use of the term "pickup artist," then since you have removed the term, then there is no need for the POV tag. If there are other POV problems that you have not explained yet (and vague references to "PUA propaganda" is not any kind of explanation), then please explain these before you re-add the tag. As for your re-adds: some of these I took out (with explanation in the summaries). David DeAngelo is a good thing to add. We might have to take out Thundercat, but I am leaving it in for now. Finally, statements like "Now go fix" are unecessary and rude. Are you new here? Please read WP:CIV, along with the other policies Gwernol and I referred you to. I am sure that any disagreements we have over this articles are ones we can resolve by talking like reasonable people. I am going out of town for the next couple days, but I will be able to get back to you when I return. --SecondSight 23:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I understand that you mean well. The problem is that there needs to be some objectivity here, not just repeating what the PUAs say to each other. That's why my version talked about things other than what David DeAngelo talks about, although it does mention him. Gwernol seems to be baised against the PUAs and you seem to be biased for them. So it puts me in the middle. All I want is a fair discussion of a serious topic, but it has to be more than rehashing PUA promotional material, which includes Strauss' book. Now I have to go back and re-insert my previous changes. Yakuman 01:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe an example will help. Let's say we did an article on a multi-level marketing topic and only cited books from Amway salesmen and Websites by distributors. It would be a POV problem. This is the same thing.

As to my supposed incivility, my words might have been short, but my point is correct. Sure, this article is "sourced" but the sources are all on the same side. Strauss' book is full of unverifiable claims, for example. Nor have the other PUAs provided any verifiable evidence or independent studies showing that their theories are valid. You can't just quote them willy-nilly. Read WP:RS again.

I tried to connect this to serious discussion about real issues -- and you cut every last word of it out. That's unfair. I think your radical changes were a bit abrupt, in that you made no effort to discuss them first.

Add more material, that's fine, but make sure to add something from other perspectives, ok? Remember that anyone who uses the word "sarging" as part of his everyday vocabulary is not a neutral source. And there are others here who believe that the PUAs are not significant enough even to merit WP articles, so you have a greater burden. I'm just trying to be NPOV. Yakuman 01:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


"As a rule of thumb, sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves." From WP:V Yakuman 02:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes after rewrite

I understand that you mean well, too, so hopefully we can come to some compromises. Sorry that it was kind of abrupt to rewrite the page, though I think I made the correct choice. The previous version had so many POV, V, and RS problems (as Gwernol correctly point out), that I though it was more efficient to start from scratch and see what you and other editors thought than to explain every single little problem. Furthermore, I was worried about the page getting put on AFD in that state. Connecting it to a discussion on real issues? I liked your discussion. But it was original research, and is not encyclopedic.

I'm only changing a view things now; more to come later. I am going to divide other stuff into several sections for clarity:

[edit] Is is a stub?

I have been bold, and again removed the stub tag (per the directions on the stub policy page), which you still haven't given a reason for including. This article is to long and detailed to be a stub. The fact that it is incomplete doesn't make it a stub; otherwise, all wikipedia articles would be stubs. I'll leave the POV tag until more discussion, although I think it is misapplied here.

[edit] Books

Your listing of those books is interesting, but they are not cited in the article or mentioned in them, and none of them use the term "AFC," so associating them with this article is simply original research. I personally agree that these books are probably talking about the same themes that the AFC term does, but that doesn't make it not original research. Removed.

[edit] Quote from the stupid-boy.com forum

I removed this originally because it is from a non-notable author on a non-notable internet forum, and clearly doesn't pass WP:V or WP:RS. You re-added it with no reason. Not happening. (Random fact: I was one of the posters in that thread, and I think it would be valuable for people to read. But that still doesn't make it encyclopedic.)

[edit] This offensive crap

This is offensive crap What next rapists telling people their views.

[edit] Strauss, PUAs, and verifiability

First, lets address the issue of verifiability and Strauss' book. You say people (like Strauss or other PUAs) who (for example) use "sarging" in their everyday vocabulary are not a neutral source. This is simply a misunderstanding of WP:V. Those people are not a neutral source on how male-female relationships, certainly. But that is not what Strauss' book is being used as a source for here. Strauss is being used as a source on the definition of the term "AFC," and on that, he is an authority.

Is Strauss a reliable source? On PUA concepts, yes. Strauss' book is a verifiable source because it was published by a reputable publisher in a process that includes fact-checking. You have provided no evidence that he is not a reliable source on the term "AFC" (to do so, you would have to show not only some examples of where he misunderstands PUA concepts, but that he tends to do so in general). You are confusing reliability as source on human interaction with a reliability as a source on what PUAs say about human interaction.

Sure, some of the theories of Strauss and other PUAs haven't been verified. But as far as this article goes, that is completely irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a place for judging the truth of their theories. It is simply a place for reporting their theories in neutral language, if those theories are notable and verifiable (which the term AFC is, because it appears frequently in The Game, which is a reliable published source on PUA concepts).

WP:V states very clearly that it is not the job of wikipedia to fact-check: ""Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true." "It is this fact-checking process that Wikipedia is not in a position to provide, which is why the no original research and verifiability policies are so important."

[edit] POV

You seem think that since this page is about about an inflammatory subject about which non-neutral things are said, that to report those non-neutral things is a violation of WP:NPOV. That is not how the policy works. Wikipedia has plenty of pages on inflammatory or controversial subjects. Reporting what religious people think about religion isn't endorsing their unverified beliefs.

[edit] Telling "other sides"

You say that this page shouldn't be "just repeating what the PUAs say to each other," or "PUA promotional material." You say that there are other sides and perspectives that need to be presented.

WHAT other perspectives exist on the meaning of AFC, or what is said about the term? There really aren't any, because nobody else uses the term besides the seduction community, Jeffries, DeAngelo, and related people (and now the media, who uses the same meaning as all those listed). There is NO disagreement about what it means. There is no disagreement that PUAs think it's bad to be an AFC, and that AFC should change themselves. There may be plenty of people out there who believe that nice guys don't really finish last (who disagree with what PUAs are claiming when they use the term AFC), but unless those people use the term "AFC," their opinions are not a source for this page.

If there are other people than the ones that I list who are (a) notable or published in reliable secondary sources, and (b) differ with Strauss, Jeffries, DeAngelo, and other PUAs on what "AFC" means, or what the seduction community says about men it labels AFCs? If so, there is "another side" that should be included in the page. If not, there is no other side which needs to be included.

[edit] Is "Seduction community" a POV term?

No. I have misgivings about the term also, but that is what the people in it overwhelmingly call themselves. That is what the phenomenon has been referred to in the media, and what it has been referred to by Strauss. The fact that the coiners of a term were biased doesn't mean that we are biased in reporting on their use of the term. For example, many people have problems with the term pro-life. But that doesn't mean that it is POV to use the term describe pro-life people on wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't call them "so-called pro-lifers." Hence, I am going to change your use of "so-called seduction community" back to "seduction community." Actually, it is your claim that it is not a community, and your adding of "so-called," that is POV (even though you may be right, it's simply your opinion; other people might think it is a community). Like it or not, that's what those guys call themselves, and the name has stuck even if it's a stupid one.--SecondSight 09:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


You haven't realhy dealt with my objections. You just explained what you already said, except you used more words. Looking at your contrib list, it seems just about your only interest is this "community," which tells me you have an agenda to promote. As I keep saying, this is not just a PUA site, whether or not you admit other POVs about relationships exist. Yakuman 00:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have dealt with your objections in detail. Either you do not understand my response, you haven't read the relevant policies, or you don't like my response. Since you aren't specific about exactly which of your objections I haven't dealt with and why, I am going to assume that the accusation is simply empty posturing on your part. You haven't dealt with any of my objections (to the quote from stupid-boy.com, the original research resources, and the use of "so-called," for a start). Your reinsertion of those things without justification is bad faith on your part (aside from ignoring wikipedia policies), so I am reverting you again. I can't those edits stand, because the page is already an inch away from being deletable. If you continue with OR, V, and POV violations, I will have to support an AFD on this page if one happens.
Yes, most of my contributions on wikipedia are related to the seduction community. Those subjects are the ones that motivate me the most. So what? My contribution list is irrelevant to the editing of this page. Actually, I have made many criticisms of PUA ideology in other forums than wikipedia; wikipedia is however not a forum for me to voice my personal problems with that ideology. After a glance at your contribution list, I noticed that many of them are on similar subjects also. No doubt I could tease out an ideological bias of yours. But what matters is not your biases, but the quality of your edits. If you abide by wikipedia policy editing, it doesn't matter what your biases are. Please address my arguments, not my edit history.
Discussing PUA concepts on wikipedia doesn't make it a "PUA" site any more than discussing, say, feminist concepts on wikipedia makes it a feminist site. As for "whether or not you admit other POVs about relationships exist," of course other POVs on relationships exist, and it is more bad faith that you are accusing me of saying otherwise. As I said above, the question is not whether other perspectives exist on relationships, but whether other perspectives exist on the subject of AFCs. This is, after all, the AFC article, not the relationships article. I will ask you again: what other sides need to be reported on the concept of the AFC, and address the concept specifically in reliable published sources?
There are two ways we can do this. Either you can try to discuss this page seriously like I am with you, or we can continue reverting each other, which is a waste of time and energy for both of us. At the moment, you are giving me no incentive to cooperate with you. Your choice. --SecondSight 04:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what to say without repeating myself. I'll just add that I have tried to fit my copy in with your changes, but you refuse to accept anything that doesn't fall within a narrow POV. Of course this has to do with relationships in general. And the idea of "AFC" and "AFC behavior" existed long before Ross Jeffries arrived on the scene. Read what I originally wrote and you might get a sense of that. Other perspectives exist on the subject of the article, even if they don't use the subcultural acronym. You complain about "references," but those aren't references, but resources that cover the same subject. While you have belabored me in your own defense, you are still begging the question. You consistently act as if your edits must stay, unchallenged and unchanged. Yakuman 06:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I do realize that the ideas of "AFC" and "AFC behavior" existed long before Ross Jeffries. I agree with you that your resources are talking about the same basic subject as the article. I agree that other perspectives exist on the subject of the article. I am hearing you on all these issues. My main point, which you haven't been hearing, is that pointing out these connections is original research. From WP:OR:

Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position.
the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly' related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

From the section "What is excluded" by the policy:

It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;

Unless the resources and other perspectives you want to add use the particular subcultural acronym, including them in this page requires the exact kind of synthesis that WP:OR forbids very explicitly, because this page is about the particular subcultural acronym. Wikipedia articles have no place for resources that aren't directly connected to the article, which in this case would require that they are cited in the article or that they mention the AFC concept explicitly. I don't insist that my edits must stay unchallenged. In fact, when I reverted you, I made it very clear why. When I removed your resource list on grounds of WP:OR, the solution for you was to argue that it passed WP:OR. Instead, you just re-added it without justification, so, suprise!, I reverted you.

Look, to be honest, a part of me regrets this. Your version was more interesting and more valuable to the education of young men than mine. Yet it would have only been a matter of time before it was deleted. And since you have preferred to edit war with me rather than cooperate on improving the article, and you display a blatant misunderstanding of basic wikipedia policies, I have supported the article being deleted. --SecondSight 08:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The "original research" doctrine, if taken literally, would negate Wikipedia itself, unless everybody wants to take up plagiarism. For example, if you want to say that the "seduction community" was concerned with relationships, that would be OR, because "relationships" are not the same thing as "seduction" and "pick up." If somebody doesn't draw conclusions, there can be no communication. To even post something, I must do OR and assume the reality of the external universe and the existence of other minds. Yakuman 17:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

One of the areas that the seduction community covers IS relationships. Frankly this deeply worries me you don't realise this basic fact while at the same time trying to have a significant role in a seduction community related article. Likewise if somebody who doesn't even know how to add tries to have a major impact upon the article on fractional derivatives (a graduate level area of maths), this would also deeply trouble me. Mathmo 15:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correct

This article speaks so much truth. Men have to dominate the relationship —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.107.175.127 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 28 November 2006.

errr... dominate?! perhaps you got slightly the wrong idea.... Mathmo Talk 04:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removal of tag

As anybody got something against the removal of the pov tag? If so then speak up now and I'll put it back and we can discuss if the article is npov or not. As I see it now in the talk page nobody should have an object with this removal, except perhaps {[User:Yakuman|Yakuman]]? So if Yakuman is around tell me why you think it is pov and I'll add the tag back on until we get this sorted out. Mathmo Talk 10:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

This article had a verifiable source all along, so I'm not sure why it was tagged. I added a quote from the source (The Game) to make it more clear (I believe I had put this quote in an earlier version of the article, but someone strangely removed it). Although The Game was written by a member of the seduction community, it was published by a reputable publisher, and hence qualifies as a reliable secondary source. As for the other sources, they are more in a grey area. The alt.seduction.fast FAQ is cited, and I think it qualifies as a reliable source on what people in the seduction community think, because it is one of the biggest websites in the community (and notable in its own right outside the community). Note that the alt.seduction.fast definition concurs with Strauss'. As for the quote from Thundercat, I am fine if this is removed. Thundercat is notable within the community, but he is not-notable outside it. The question is which type of notability should be required for inclusion in wikipedia. There were several other sources that I removed. The problem with these was not that they weren't notable, but that they didn't connect with the "AFC" concept explicitly, so quoting them in this article was original research. --SecondSight 00:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not a secondary source, and it is not independent of the subject. There must be reliable third-party sources. If in fact this subject is notable for a separate article, there will exist these sources in plenty. Otherwise, it warrants merging to a main article on the subject. —Centrx→talk • 07:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not as The Game was self-published. Strauss himself is not indepedent of the subject, but ReganBooks is a third-party. Hence, The Game is a source published by a reputable third-party. Because it was published by a reputable publisher which includes a process of fact-checking, The Game should be considered a reliable secondary source (though arguably it is a primary source in some ways also). Fact-checking = verifiability. You suggest that if "AFC" is a notable subject, then there will be plenty of third-party sources on it (though wikipedia policy doesn't literally require "plenty" of third-party sources). In fact, there are [1][2], but these sources just don't include definitions of the term, which is probably why they aren't cited in the article. (I have no conceptual objection to merging this article with seduction community, but I do have a practical objection, because that article is big enough already, and it would be weird to have so much of it be discussion of this one concept. I advocate leaving this article as it is, OR merging it into a new "Seduction community concepts" article.) --SecondSight 11:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
One thing to keep in mind is that non-notable topics often warrants merging. The book or the author may be notable, but all the many sub-topics of the book are not and do not warrant separate articles. All of these sources are talking about the author and the book in general; they mention the "average frustrated chump" in passing. See the guidance at Wikipedia:Notability on this issue. —Centrx→talk • 16:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for making it possible for us to resolve this discussion before re-tagging. I agree completely that not every sub-topic mentioned in The Game warrants a separate article. Yet there are reasons to believe that "AFC" does: it is mentioned all throughout The Game, it is mentioned in news articles albeit in passing, it is part of the FAQ of alt.seduction.fast (which is notable in its own right), and "average frustrated chump" has 18,300 results on Google. As I mentioned above, I have no conceptual objections to merging this article with seduction community. The only thing I worry about is that it will make the already-large seduction community article monstruous, and it will be a pain to integrate this page into the article from an organizational standpoint. Maybe it is time to make a "seduction community concepts" page and move this article there. Perhaps other editors would like to give some input? --SecondSight 22:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Merging this all back into the article about the book should be obviously wrong, firstly this did not exist after the book but was around before the book even existed. Secondly the reason there are separate pages and wikipedia is not just one single article is because large articles are unwieldy and impractical. There is way too much stuff to include everything onto one single article, hence it makes sense to have multiple seperate pages for it. (plus for a bunch of other reasons, such as AFC is one of the most common terms referred by the media and that the average joe/jane would be likely to know if they know any at all. Also once the movie comes out there is most probably going to end up being way more media attention on this, which will only mean even more info on wikipedia about the seduction community etc.. Thus even a generic seduction community concepts page I see as wrong at the moment, perhaps in the future it should be created as an easy reference to the main pages for each concept/term/subject/whatever. But not yet, maybe in another year or so there will be a need for it). Mathmo Talk 06:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The amount of text devoted to "Average frustrated chimp" would be proportionately reduced in a merged article, commensurate to its importance to the topic of that article. "Average frustrated chump" does not appear to be notable independent of its mention, among other things, in the book. This article has no independent sources. —Centrx→talk • 09:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Would be a bad idea to significantly reduce the amount of text merely to squeeze it inside another article. Already the current article barely touches on some of the main relevant points. There are references there from places other than that book itself. Mathmo Talk 18:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
No, badly sourced information does not belong. The reduction of text is to reduce it to things that can be reliably verified. This is not a mirror of the fast seduction website. —Centrx→talk • 21:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primary sources tag

This article has a source published by an independent third-party. Hence, it does not only rely on primary sources. It is the publisher (and their fact-checking process), not the affiliations of the author of the source, that matter. Otherwise, we would not be able to cite, say, published feminists as verifiable sources on what feminists believe because the authors are not "independent" of feminism. We would not be able to cite journal articles on scientific experiments, because the scientists would not be "independent" of their experiment. We don't consider scientists' journal articles on the results of their experiments to be merely "primary sources," because they go through a process of fact-checking and peer-review that is independent of the scientists. Likewise, The Game is not merely a primary source because it went through a process of fact-checking (or at least, there has been no reasons provided to believe otherwise). I've made most of these points above, and Centrx has not provided a counter-argument to them (despite addressing other points), so I have removed his tag. It's possible that I am misinterpreting WP:V, in which case the burden is on him or someone else to show that I am. --SecondSight 09:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

With feminism, there are multiple sources all independent of each other, and independent of whoever invented feminism. An article about a scientist's experiment would need sources independent of him that review and test the findings; the scientist's own journal articles would be enough—and peer-reviewed journals are more independently checked than autobiographies. With this, every source listed is authored by Neil Strauss. An opinion column in a newspaper is not fact-checked, and an autobiography is not an academically research history. There are no independent sources to be found here. Wikipedia:Verifiability is accompanied by Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in whether an article is appropriate for the encyclopedia, and whether it warrants reduction and merging. —Centrx→talk • 09:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Centrx makes a good point here. The seduction community in general does not use traditional media which makes most information about it difficult to verify. The Game sheds light on a lot of those topics, so its excellent for an alternate source or further reading for someone interested. However, information written by the originator of the term doesn't work as the only source for a topic. Many neologisms could be pulled from autobiographies or are used often by particular people or groups; not all of them would be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I noticed that a number of other references have been added in; I've tried to clean them up a bit. It would be nice if a reference could be found outside of the seduction community websites; like a NYT article Neil didn't write. I think that would go a long way in resolving concerns about the article. Shell babelfish 21:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm being left with the surprising conclusion that Centrx (and others) believe Neil Strauss started up the seduction community?! Though perhaps that is understandable given that he gets the lion's share of the media attention. But he certainly did not start it up, been around for years before he had even started. Mathmo Talk 11:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know whether he "started" it, but it is a single source by someone in the community, not a neutral observer. Primary sources can help fill in an article, but they cannot substantiate an entire article. —Centrx→talk • 02:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
That you don't even know a basic fact such as that he didn't start it means you do possibly at some basic level suspect he did, and that he invented all this terminology etc... all of which is quite false as somebody with a basic understanding of this subject area would know. Hmm... now that I reread that... sorry if I put it a bit bluntly. But hopefully it is at least making my point more clear of how people frequently are incorrectly viewing Neil Strauss purely due to various factors such as the large amount of media attention he has sought. An interesting side comment you could make is that you could take the view Neil is not directly involved in the community, but is merely a reporter. But to effectively report on anything it is helpful to immerse yourself in the subject material, that is after all what Neil himself claims is the reason he originally become involved (but then he went very deep down the rabbit hole... and become more than merely a reporter). Mathmo Talk 11:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I do not know either way. I can recognize sourcing problems though, and this article has a severe sourcing problem; there is no evidence that the topic warrants a separate article. —Centrx→talk • 23:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't say this article has severe sourcing problems, but to appease you I did a 2 second google search which turned up thousands of results and I then included a couple of them. And it certainly does warrant a separate article, just one reason for this is that Seduction community is already long enough and the AFC article is a full length sized one. So simply looking from the size issue it doesn't make sense to combine them. Mathmo Talk 02:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The Urban dictionary does not constitute a reliable source for Wikipedia; anyone can add whatever they want to it. The News Tribune article is, again, about Neil Strauss. See Wikipedia:Notability#Merging. —Centrx→talk • 03:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
True, anybody can add to urban dictionary. However the definition used here in the article is the top rated definition added to urbandictionary (and the 2nd rate one too, even mentioned in the bottom ranked one too! But in a negative way, no surprise it is then the bottom ranked one). As for Neil Strauss, you seem to keep on treating him as if he is the community. Is better to think of him as a writer who heavily researched and infiltrated them, that is after all what even he claims he is himself. I fail to see why you should object to a reference simply because he is mentioned in it. Mathmo Talk 03:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
There need to be multiple published sources, even if he were totally independent of the community. Also, Urban dictionary does not meet the requirements at Wikipedia:Reliable sources or Wikipedia:Notability. —Centrx→talk • 04:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there no one willing to maintain neutrality?

From reading this page it seems that a lot of people are expressing a POV. If you look at the top there has been a vote for deletion. We had the same problem with "Nice Guy Syndrome". People get so riled up with relational topics that they put aside all rationality and almost cannot maintain a neutral perspective.

Neil Strauss did not start the community. That is a fact. The main thing he did was write a book. The book expresses his opinions on certain people from having met them, but it maintains a neutral, journalistic stance on things such as forum posts, timelines, etc. The fact is that a guy named Ross Jeffries invented the term. It is a term used commonly within the seduction community. What can be disputed is whether it is true that nice guys finish last or not, and if the term AFC is in reference to nice guys.

As people anyway, it is difficult to put aside personal opinions, but we must do so for the sake of the facts. Dessydes 14:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)