Talk:Pickup artist

Needs rewrite or deletion

This is not an article that should exist on wikipedia. When there is any sources that could be mistaken for WP:RS referenced here, they are completely mispresented and the article's claims synthesized.

For example:

Academic research has also confirmed to some extent that "game" and attraction principles do have a factual basis in social, physiological and evolutionary psychology.

So this is a WP:RS claiming that "game" has a factual basis? The source linked is not readable anymore but this is obviously WP:OR.

Another reference described as academic is actually a blog post or a personal essay mispresented as a study. It is described:

An academic paper on the community, published in 2012 by Eric C. Hendriks in the journal Cultural Analysis, details the value system guiding successful members of the Seduction Community based on an international study including participant observation of bootcamp and "lair" meetings in Germany.

This is again WP:OR as the article referenced was not a study and did not refer to any such studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esailija (talk • contribs) 14:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

If you are making a comment on the content of this article, we request that you please be specific about what you consider to be wrong with it. Vague comments such as 'this is becoming spam' are not helpful to anyone. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 10:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This site reads like a commercial

This article should be modified. As it is, it mentions plenty of fringe figures with no relevance such as Johnny Soporno. Also, it is entirely uncritical. There is now a strong countermovement, first seeded by Barry Kirkey (Extramask from The Game), now there is PUAHate.com, which exposes the shams and frauds of this subculture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.252.101 (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

site?! surely you mean page.... & btw PUAHate.com is smaller than Johnny Soporno I'd reckon. Mathmo ^Talk 07:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely you mean article. :P --Devourer09 06:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Seduction literature

Propose merging this in, or possibly deleting as a copyvio from http://themodernsavage.com/2008/03/09/14-seduction-books-listed-in-the-game/ , as noted in Talk:Seduction literature. I don't see any way it could expand beyond a section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• I see no copy violation, and the main article is rather long and so I see negative benefit in merging in this article. Mathmo ^Talk 11:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

  Well, maybe no copyvio, but seduction literature is a stub and likely to remain so. Perhaps seduction community could be split in different ways? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Debate on Mystery's article

Editors of this article might be interested in the debate going on over at Talk:Mystery (pickup artist)#Requested move.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Pioneers of the seduction community

I really think there is a lack of information on the begineers of the seduction community, it have to be started by trainers at least from 1980s 1990s, but it only mentioned the newers workers in this area 2000s and above, I think it would improve this article to collecte olders trainers forgotten by the merchandising of the newers trainers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.107.105.14 (talk) 14:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, more mention of the earlier guys would be good but unfortunately the way it works it is easier to find stuff on the more recent guys so it ends up that is what gets put in first. Mathmo ^Talk 03:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The 21 Convention is a pioneer event hosted by Dream. It is the first, and only event to consistently bring the major companies within the seduction community together, and release the footage absolutely free with no advertising, no cost, and no sign up required. UNLIKE Pua Lingo which has advertising.

Stop taking down the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.217.146 (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The first sentence of an article is arguably the most important one. I feel the current one as it stands -- "The seduction community is a loose-knit subculture of men who strive for better sexual and romantic success with women through self-improvement and a greater understanding of social psychology." -- is problematic for the following reasons:

• It does not incorporate the central role played by specific techniques;

• It fails to address the common emphasis on short-term "sexual and romantic success", which is ambiguous from the wording;

• It leans on two ill-defined concepts, namely "self-improvement" (vague) and "social psychology" (arguably has a distinctly different meaning within the scientific community from its common meaning in lay usage), making for an unclear or incomplete understanding of what the topic actually entails.

• It does not make reference to any of the controversies that surround the subject and which are well-documented.

I have no concrete ideas how to rewrite this at the moment, aside from changing "better ... success" to "greater ... success", which seems more correct. Any ideas? Goodnewsfortheinsane (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

many people who come in to the community are desiring to end up with a long term relationship, no need to put undue weight on the short term nature of many other relationships (after all the great majority of relationships that humans have in general are of a short term basis). Mathmo ^Talk 04:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Goodnewsfortheinsane, your whole section here would be a perfect case example for teaching people about writing a balanced article- that is, how one might think they're doing so when actually their own bias slips under their awareness. Ill use it, thanks! :) Mr.troughton (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Seduction lair

This article is bout a nondistinctive part of the community , not different from any other purpose-oriented mutual support clubs, and could easily be moved into the main article. DGG (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd respectfully but very strongly disagree, as they are the foundation upon which the seduction community is built upon. They are the "community" in "seduction community". Mathmo ^Talk 04:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree and merge for the same reason. --m3taphysical (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

My logic was that as a large area of the seduction community they are one of the most worthy subjects in this area to deserve a separate article from the main article. Mathmo ^Talk 02:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If they are " the foundation upon which the s.c. is built" then it would seem best to integrate it. DGG (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

My vote is for no integration. The seduction community consists of seduction coaches, dating coaches, individuals who consume seduction media without affiliating with a particular lair or program, wingmen meetups, unaffiliated friend-groups who've all read the game, and, yes, both for- and not-for-profit lairs. Of those, lairs stand apart for being (1) unlikely to receive press and (2) foundational. What needs to happen, if anything, is that this article gets expanded and its intro gets incorporated into the main SC article.drunkenfight (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

New content for 'History' and 'Concepts' sections

{{editprotected}}

History

Recently some figures within the community have espoused more radical views concerning relationships. Previously the seduction community, although rejecting conventional views on dating, to a large extent accepted mainstream views on marriage and monogamy. Johnny Soporno has used the discourse of evolutionary psychology to challenge the institution of marriage and the concept of monogamy within society. Stephane Hemon has also contributed to this debate, but approaches the topic using concepts from New Age Spirituality such as chakras and the attainment of higher consciousness. While Hemon proposes alternative committed relationship arrangements that involve multiple partners, Soporno rejects the idea of committed relationships and the suggestion of ownership that it entails. He asserts that ideas of monogamy developed only with concepts of property that were necessary for an agrarian society to mature. While these concepts are interesting developments within the seduction community, they are still seen as controversial especially with the collapse of Hemon's independent circle which undermined many of his former theories.

There has also been a convergence recently between the seduction coaching industry and the porn industry. Johnny Soporno, and Hoobie from Real Social Dynamics typify this trend. Johnny Soporno has worked in the porn industry for almost 20 years and has released products targeting men and women interested in the industry based on his experiences. Hoobie created a website that merged seduction coaching videos with pornography.

Concepts

The concept of social proof has received more attention now due to the theories that Adam Lyons has developed which he eventually consolidated into the theory of Entourage Game. Entourage Game changes the emphasis of pickup from doing cold approaches to engineering your lifestyle so that you create a large social circle of women who you then can date if you choose. This method is alleged by Lyons to be a more natural way of meeting a long-term partner and consequently it requires less effort. Lyons has also developed a formula for attraction:

(C - R) + Q + SE = A

which translates as

(Comfort - Rapport) + Qualification + Sexual Escalation = Attraction

This is just pseudoscience. You can't even quantify this as a mathematical proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.21.14 (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

This concise modelling of attraction has also been seen with Erik von Markovik with his famous M3 model which was popularized with the release of The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists. The innovation of Lyon's formula is the emphasis on breaking rapport to create attraction, a concept that was touched on by Erik von Markovik with his concept of negs, although it was widely misunderstood and parodied in the media at the time.

Adam Lyon is not the first to talk about breaking rapport as a way to create attraction. Breaking rapport starts, at the very least, with David DeAngelo who spoke of "busting on a woman."Apollyon316 (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Description of request- This addition covers the recent attention given to social proof and lifestyle within the seduction community as well as the convergence between the seduction coaching industry and the porn industry. I have tried to get as reliable references as possible, but due to the underground nature of the seduction community it can be pretty hard. I talked with DGG about writing about people filming pickup and posting it online as well as the trend for hiring female trainers, but I could not find good enough references for these. The proposed addition would be to add these sections at the end of 'History' and 'Concepts' respectively, although perhaps the first section might fit better in 'Controversy'. Anyway thanks for reading this, I am happy to look for better references if these are not sufficient though looking for grade A references for articles related to the seduction community seems to be like trying to find a needle in the cyber-hay-stack. Thanks for reading!

DRosin (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I've lowered the protection so you should be able to make the edit yourself now. By the way, the highest heading in articles should be level 2 (i.e. use == not =). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've put it up now, thanks for lowering the protection and pointing out my mistake with the article heading! DRosin (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, as I assumed, this would get better advice here than I could give by myself. DGG (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why the attribution to Adam Lyons?! The general concept of social gaming is far older than even how long he has been in the game. That is like trying to claim natural game came about because of RSD's Natural Tim. Mathmo ^Talk 04:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Unsourced material in History

Well, there's one completely unsourced paragraph in History, and surprise, it's the most suspicious :)

The body of knowledge in the field of "pick-up" has grown exponentially in the past decade as millions of men around the globe have taken an interest in the subject. Many write up their personal experiences and construct theories of the self and of social dynamics to share with other students. The combined material has the hallmarks of an interdisciplinary field of study and promiscuously borrows concepts and terminology from other disciplines in the arts, sciences, and pseudo-sciences. Evolutionary biology, neurolinguistic programming, and the psychology of influence are just a few of the fields that have been mined for concepts and metaphors germane to the practice of pick-up.

So it's a nice PR piece, but a lot of it is unverifiable, and pretty much all of it is original research, is my guess. I don't think there needs to be an argument for legitimacy. Thoughts on removing this paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.205.153 (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

if you read even just quite a small selection of sources it is quite undeniable the amount of words/material they've borrowed/utilised from other sources. Mathmo ^Talk 07:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As well Johhny Soporno and Stephane Hemon, two almost totally irrelevant fringe seduction community teachers seem to take up an erroneous space in the History. These two have almost as much space in the history section as Neil Strauss or Mystery while they are even within the community itself almost unknowns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.225.214 (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Johnny and Stephane are considered extremely fringe. Those sections of them should be removed. Apollyon316 (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• I wrote the bit about Johnny and Stephane. I think what is interesting are the concepts discussed and not the actual figures and their prominence. I think the first sentence:

'Recently, some figures within the community have espoused more radical views about relationships.'

sets out that these views are slightly fringe, but I think their prominence within the community is sufficient to include them in the article. DRosin (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

We should also include puahate.com, which is the counter movment of the seduction community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azubane (talk • contribs) 06:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

PUAHATE.com is just a random forum that started up recently, and absolutely nothing more.... read WP:SOURCES etc... to see why nothing on that site is suitable for quoting in this article. Mathmo ^Talk 07:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

unnecessary promotion of 'mystery'

not every dating page on wikipedia needs to be full of spammy links to the mystery page. If someone wants to make the claim that mystery needs to be singled out for special mention, this should be sourced and argued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.13.78 (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Worldwide view

This article is tagged with a concern addressing a worldwide view according to the United States. The undated tag instructs editors to refer to the talk page. Where is this discussion located? I've looked for it, but can not find it. It may be here somewhere within an ambiguous section. Where? What is the specific concern? If the issue is not addressed, the tag needs to be removed. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll remove it and if anyone disagrees they can revert my change and preferably comment here as to why. Devourer09 (t·c) 16:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that many wikipedia articles are the victims of spurious tagging; it is a hit-and-run tactic that lowers an article's perceived quality without discussion and with little or no punitive action against the perpetrator. -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's important that readers are aware of problems with the article. If an article has no sources then a reader should be more skeptical when reading the information. I believe that sourcing is the most important problem with most articles. Devourer09 (t·c) 18:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability

I feel there are enough reliable secondary sources within the References section of the article to establish the topic's notability. Also, if you look in the archive of this talk page you will find multiple instances of people trying to gain consensus for deleting the article but failing. I'm just putting this out there so there is no edit warring over whether the article is notable or not. --Devourer09 18:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with this. The article does need a clean up though. Blackjack676 (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with the cleanup. I was trying to work on it but I lost most of my internet connectivity recently so I can't do much for it now. Devourer09 (t·c) 01:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A Problem in the US Only

This whole thing is a problem in the US only and should be pointed out as such. No other culture lacks the social skills of people in the US. The shame of course is they pick a 'solution' that's so typical of them - and actually further propagates their own silliness. A little commentary on how pathetic the whole thing is would not be inappropriate and would only be opposed by stunted males from the US still acting like cowardly preteens. Put this article - if indeed it need stay here when so many really important things are systematically and wantonly deleted - in its proper context. And what would women and feminists say if they saw this rubbish? Thank you. previous unsigned comment by User:86.217.219.169

In fact i have met with members of the seduction community in places other than the US. I am sure that, if you go looking, you will find references to lairs, courses, gurus, books and media articles on the topic, world-wide: including at least Canada, Europe, and southeast Asia. Also, while the question may be relevant, of whether this kind of social activity is pathetic, it is hardly neutral point of view. So, if you can write balanced prose on the topic, then please do. In fact commentary from women and feminists does exist. Inclusion of prominent opinions in a section on controversy would serve to improve the article. -- 99.233.186.4 (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually there are many lairs for PUAs all over the world. It's quite an international community. To write the article with the perspective that it's pathetic would introduce bias and would make the article not WP:NPOV. If you disagree with anything I've said then you are free to refer me to WP:RS that help prove your point. Thanks. :) Devourer09 (t·c) 18:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the OP's claim is nonsense. The Internet doesn't know national boundaries, and PUA stuff was published in books and taught in creepy seminars for decades before the Internet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

acronyms and jargon

I stumbled upon an online seduction community and it was so filled with jargon and acronyms that the conversations were incomprehensible. The discussion on acronyms and jargon should be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimplyIrresistible (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick questions/queries

Just wondering whether anyone else has problems logging into the asf site or forums? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andwan0 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

HELP TO UNCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLE

Hi, this is a call to all puas. We need your humor to improve the parody of this article: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Seduction_community — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.44.224.188 (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to do with "psychology"

None of the claims of "the seduction community" are made in peer-reviewed journals. Virtually none of the "gurus" have any training whatsoever in psychology or the social sciences. It is preposterous that this article is allowed to present itself as "social psychology" in an unchallenged fashion. The claims of "the community" are utterly unverified and therefore pseudoscientific dogmatism; this fact should be reflected in future edits. Steeletrap (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Seconded! Would you care to make such an edit? Chymæra (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Academic Research

It has recently come to my attention that this section was used to advertise precisely one study by one author. I have edited the tone a bit, but kept the reference as it seemed somewhat relevant (notwithstanding the purported original intent). In any case, I would encourage others who are interested in the academic view on seduction (and the seduction community) to edit this section and include sources by reputable authors. For those who have the time and the interest, I would recommend searching pubmed for terms like "seduction" or "pickup" (e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=seduction ). A quick search of mine returned two possibly interesting sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24483605 , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23253794 - but I am certain there are many more. Chymæra (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge pickup artist into this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No objection to merger on either page after 30 days. Per bullet points on MERGE. Result is to merge. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

---

I think that pickup artist should be merged into this article as there seems to be a big overlap in the scope of the articles. Any thoughts? --81.4.180.206 (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support - Nuance between these subjects is completely lost in the article as it stands. Merge would help with accuracy --5.81.52.82 (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"... sexual success with/access to women"?

Resolved

What should the "slashed term" in the introduction mean? How could this be said clearly without the / ? --User:Haraldmmueller 08:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

MOS:SLASH has this covered: just replace it with "and". Done.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 23 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVED to Pickup artist, per WP:COMMONNAME.(non-admin closure) While many supported without stating whether they preferred the hyphen or not, others have pointed out that without the hyphen is more commonly used. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 12:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 12:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Seduction community → Pick-up artist – Rationale: Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. No one refers to pick-up artists as a "community" other than pick-up artists. It borders on abuse of the word. The current article is the result of a merge between the Pick-up artist article and a badly PoV-pushing Seduction community article (both dating, under various titles like the malformed "Pick Up Artist", etc., to 2006). Many of the flagged problems of the latter article remain, but the merge should obviously have been to the better-written article and better-attested, more neutral term. Spelling-wise, "pick-up artist" dominates by a wide margin, followed by "pickup artist", and "pick up artist" last (because it's not really grammatical in most registers, in which compound modifiers are not written with a space). The lead section will need some massaging after the move.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support, also per WP:COMMONNAME. -- irn (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support PearlSt82 (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose "Pick-up artist" doesn't sound neutral to me, it's a loaded term that means a certain thing. It brings to mind people who try to pick up as many women as humanly possible and not just people who study seduction because they're bad at it. Non experts should not be lumped in with people who practice it all the time and identify as "artists"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Not a valid rationale; WP:NPOVTITLE only applies when the title is a descriptive phrase Wikipedia made up; if the WP:COMMONNAME isn't very neutral we use it anyway. "Seduction community" is so rare it doesn't even rate at all at Google Ngrams [1]. If there's a scope problem at this article, it's fixable by moving material about seduction in general, including "seduction instruction", to Seduction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
    • This article seems a little too large to merge into Seduction without violating WP:UNDUE. I believe that Pick-up artist should be a separate article in that case, describing those Don Juan womanizer types and not merely anyone who studies seduction. It seems independently notable, with all the media coverage it has been getting._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Determining individual pick-up artists' expert status seems like it would be introducing many additional, unnecessary challenges. The majority of sources seem to use "pick-up artist" without treating this as a subset of any other category. Grayfell (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Ridiculous that this section was merged to this very RECENT online movement. Revert the merge and WP:SPLIT back out pickup artist as an article describing the personality type, slang term, and use as a stock character. Per Google Ngram, "pickup artist" is the more common spelling. I can't believe that subject was co-opted by this article. -- Netoholic @ 10:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The fact that people involved in using (and sometimes teaching) PUA techniques have some webboards doesn't make it a "movement", nor "a community"; that looks like original research. There are various forums around which some "online community" has developed, but such a sense of bro-hood is particular to each forum, and they are not intricately connected to each other. There's OR going on here, and some misconceptualization. There are guitarists, and there are also people hiring experienced guitarists to teach them the instrument, and lots of online forums about techniques and tabulature and getting gigs and so on, but we don't have an article on "guitarism" or a "strumming movement" or a "guitarplaying community", especially not on the basis that some of the forums and participants in them think and talk of their webboards as online communities. The real coatracking going on here is using WP to promote the idea that such an organized subculture exists. There's no real evidence of any such global coordination. It's just a bunch of psychologically manipulative dudes trying to get laid easier.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support move to Pickup artist. Saving the non-negligible edit history is necessary. "Pickup artist" is the common name for this phenomenon; "seduction community" sounds like a euphemism for what's better known as the pickup artist movement. News references to "seduction community" often call it the "so-called seduction community", "seduction 'community'", "self-titled seduction community", etc.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Common name, versus promotional and POV neologism that hasn't caught on. (And the previous merge makes perfect sense.) Andrewa (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

• Having closed this discussion, I can't help but note that “Pickup artists” and “Garbagemen” should really switch names with each other. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
• I was going to point out that a hurried reading of a post near the top of this thread suggests, appropriately enough, that the seduction community is dating the malformed "Pick Up Artist". EEng 05:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Spam Reversions

User MrOllie has been reverting a lot of edits to suit his own agenda and using personal attacks. He will not even let any of my minor edits stand, including:

The additional point that female pickup artists exist Typo fixes Removing a promotional link

I have opened a dispute resolution because of this. As a new user, he is breaching the don't bite the newcomers rule.

WikiSchnitzelBoy (talk) 09:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

As I have explained to you on my talk page, you need to provide reliable citations for your changes. Google searches and PUA sites are not reliable as Wikipedia defines it. - MrOllie (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

About RS…

The whole article uses a relatively low standard of reliability. This is actually pretty common with certain classes of topics. Opinion articles make up a large body of the available coverage, so there aren’t always better sources available.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

'Gender roles' vs 'Sex Roles'

The sources cited by these statements explicitly say 'gender roles', and we should follow the sources per WP:V. - MrOllie (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

It is clear from reading the article that it deals with males and female, thus the traditional roles refers to the roles between men and women. i.e. sex roles i.e. the roles between the two sexes. Clue is in the name...sex

The article has nothing to do with gender and gender identity etc, thus the cited sources that says it does are incorrect.

Vallonen (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

So your solution is to leave the sources in place, and substitute your personal judgment for what they say? That is expressly not allowed by Wikipedia's core content policies. - MrOllie (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to replace the current source with a source that links to the male and female sex since that's what the entire article is all about. The article has nothing to do with gender and gender identity etc. The article clearly is about males and females, men and women. i.e. sex roles i.e. the roles between the two sexes. (and the source used should reflect this fact, not sure what Wiki policies says that it shouldn't) Vallonen (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

No, if you want to change it the onus is on you to find a new source. In the meantime the article should follow the sources we have. The policies in question are WP:V and WP:OR which I have already linked for you. Now that you know about them, it would be great if you would self-revert until you find new sources. - MrOllie (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you telling me there are no sources for the male and female sex? As for the sources in place those are clearly incorrect since they do not link to the male and female sex but to gender, and gender and gender identity is not what the article is about. I am aware of the polices and I can't find anything that says that incorrect sources should be used instead of correct ones, nor can I find anything that says that incorrect sources should be used until there are correct ones available.

Added, it appears it says 'sex roles' in that very source.

Vallonen (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm telling you that the article has sources, and the article's wording must follow the wording of the sources. If you want to change one, you must also change the other. We have only your word that the present sources are 'incorrect'. On Wikipedia we do not substitute our own judgment for that of the sources. Re 'that very source' - you have changed content attributed to three sources. Which are you referring to? Because I've read all three and none of them use your preferred wording. Again, please self-revert, you are putting words in these author's mouths that they did not say. - MrOllie (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

And I'm telling you that the source mentions 'sex roles' which directly deals with the male and female sex, men and women. i.e. the roles between the two sexes. Thus my edit is not only correct by in keeping with the source and the content of the article itself which deals with male and female, men and women, and with men picking up women. The article has nothing to do with gender and gender identity. Read it.

As for changing the content no, those two edits are consistent with the male and female sex. Vallonen (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

What specifically are you talking about? I have read all three sources and they do not use the term 'sex role' at all that I can find. - MrOllie (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, you claim that I am putting words in the authors mouth, that too is incorrect, Quote from the article "...The rise of "seduction science", "game",[2] or "studied charisma" has been attributed to modern forms of dating and social norms between sexes which have developed from a perceived increase in the equality of women"... clearly this deals with the two sexes, not with gender and gender identity.

You can't use sex and gender interchangeably, they are NOT the same thing. So either this article is about sex (male and female, men and women) or it is about gender and gender identity, it can't be about both. Vallonen (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"Gender" is a clear representation of the sources, and per WP:V we report what sources say. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree. "Sex roles" appears to be WP:OR. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

If you report what the sources say PearlSt82 you should perhaps start by using the article itself as the source which clearly says 'sexes' i.e. male female, not gender or gender identity.

Interesting to note that MrOllie called for assistance, perhaps I should resort to doing the same. A bit childish, but still. Vallonen (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I have this page on watch, as do over three hundred other users, there was no calling involved. Announcing you're going to violate WP:MEAT will not get you anywhere. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Vallonen, please drop it. This is much to close to what falls under gender-related sanctions. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I reiterate: If you report what the sources say PearlSt82 you should perhaps start by using the article itself as the source which clearly says 'sexes' i.e. male female, not gender or gender identity. Quote from the article "...The rise of "seduction science", "game",[2] or "studied charisma" has been attributed to modern forms of dating and social norms between sexes which have developed from a perceived increase in the equality of women"... clearly this deals with the two sexes, not with gender and gender identity. Vallonen (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

A wikipedia article can't cite itself. That's not how this works. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Vallonen, I suggest making an edit request, clearly identifying what you want changed, the references supporting the changes, and the relevant content policies. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The article clearly deals with the male and female sex PearlSt82, not with gender or gender identity. Thus the source should reflect this. You can't use a source that doesn't cite what the article itself is about, which is male and female, men and women, and men picking up women. Vallonen (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

All the sources at issue are specifically about pickup artists. - MrOllie (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

(ec) The cited sources for the term 'gender roles', namely the Kaufman piece in Psychology Today, discuss pickup artistry and gender roles, making it appropriate for this article, and for the terminology used in the article. Articles are to reflect how sources describe them, and the sources explicitly use "gender roles". No source uses "sex roles". PearlSt82 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The article clearly states that it deals with the two sexes, not with gender and gender identity. As I've pointed out previously, you can't use sex and gender interchangeably, they are NOT the same hing. The source used should reflect this. As for sex roles it's used in the source itself.

The issue here is that sex and gender are used interchangeably despite the fact that they are NOT the same thing. Vallonen (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

As there's no edit request, it's time to drop the stick. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Renaming category

Hi! Shouldn't one rename Category:Seduction community? @Insertcleverphrasehere:, maybe you can help? Wikisaurus (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Influence on society

The article seems to be stuck in the 2000s. Much like early Marxism (an apt, and original, analogy — no offense intended to any Marxists reading this), many of the least radical/toxic concepts of the turn-of-the-millennium pickup community gradually percolated into the mainstream. In many cases, those happened to be the ideas that were most grounded in bona fide research (no surprise there).

Furthermore, while I’m sure someone somewhere is still running “bootcamps”, there is now a huge industry of dating coaches who clearly don’t fall under the definition of “pickup artist” (see my separate edit removing that “synonym” from the lead sentence once I finish writing my talk page comments). RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Societal context

A separate Context section (or first subsection of the History section) should be added, covering the relatively rapid mid-late 20th century changes in Western society’s courtship conventions, and other aspects of the sexual revolution, among other things.

Honestly, without that crucial paragraph(s), this article will remain a Wiki article, not a ‘Pedia article.

Other revisions to the layout might also potentially improve the article as well.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)