Template talk:Seduction community

Untitled

I think as a good guide, we should say you need to be able to find three news articles about someone before we count them as notable - otherwise we start to have people like Ray Gordon, Shark, stRiPPed, and so on adding vanity pages about themselves. Any thoughts?

WoodenBuddha 12:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I would like to get a bit more specific on exactly what this template is for, or else it will get impossibly long and useless. I agree very much with renaming it from "Commercial Seduction Teachers" to "Notable Members of the Seduction Community." There are many commercial seduction teachers who are not part of the seduction community, or only have a tangential relationship to it. For inclusion into this template, it seems obvious that someone should be (a) notable, and (b) a member of the seduction community. I also think that "Notable Members of The Seduction Community" should mean that the person be notable as a member of the seduction community. Otherwise, anyone who has achieved any kind of fame, and happened to browse seduction forums could be a considered a "notable member of the seduction community." Not only should someone be notable in the wikipedia sense, but they should also be notable and influential within the community. Also, I would like to comment on what is meant by "member." I think to qualify as a "notable member of the seduction community," we should talk about people who's ideas have been influenced by the community, and who's ideas have influenced the community. There are many people who teach seduction, or who advocate similar ideas to the community, but they won't qualify as notable members of the seduction community unless they are actually involved in the community in some way. If we don't have some ground rules like these, the template will get impossibly long, and the people included in it less and less related to the seduction community, which will put it at risk for deletion. --SecondSight 00:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Another issue, this template seems to be about people, but one of its entries is a company. Perhaps we should (a) change RSD to TylerDurden and link it to the RSD page, or (b) re-make the template and call it "notable teachers in the seduction community" or something. --SecondSight 00:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

We could easily move the page, rather than remake it. I do see your point, and I thought about this myself, but it works at the moment :) WoodenBuddha 07:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that "Notable Members of The Seduction Community" may not be an appropriate title for this template as the term "notable" doesn't fit. If we are going to create a template about gurus or notable people and put it on a lot of related sites such as "Seduction Community" or member pages, why don't we call it "Pioneers of the Seduction Community" or "Pioneers of Seduction and PU"? This gives us much more breathing space and makes it clearer who should be added. We really should make a criteria list as to who is eligible to be on the eventual template. I just make a list you can edit it afterwards. Johnny Rocketfingers 16:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Criteria For Making The List

1. Credibility - Press coverage in form of at least 3 news articles seems a reasonable indicator of credibility.

2. History - You can only be a "Pioneer" if you have contributed something over a decent amount of time. Therefore I would suggest that if the person hasn't been around for more than at least 2 or 3 years, he should not be eligible for this list.

3. Quality - May be granted if the person has contributed something of quality (articles, products, ...) which does not fall in the seduction-junk category.

4. ?

Johnny Rocketfingers 16:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Additions

In the interests of keeping the template from getting too long and clunky, I think it's reasonable to require people to satisfy a burden of proof for showing why someone qualifies before adding them. I also suggest that people be only added to the template once they have a wikipedia page (this will help satisfy the requirement that they be notable, and it will avoid nasty-looking red links). --SecondSight 00:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Hi By!

Nick

I added Nick from www.playboyskool.de to this template, whom I also created the wikipedia page about. I found numerous media articles about him and it appears he will also be at cliffs PU convention this summer (2006). Apparently he has been around for years, mainly in Europe.

See my comments on his page. I removed him, because there is no evidence so far that he is actually a member of the seduction community. It's encouraging that he will be at Cliffs, but I don't think that alone is enough to qualify him as a community member. If you can show that his ideas are substantially influenced by the community, or that he is well-known in the community in Europe and it's simply a fluke that neither WoodenBuddha nor I have heard of him, then we can put him back in the template. I think it's reasonable to require a burden of proof for people who want to add new names to it. --SecondSight 00:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too sure if he has contributed something to fastseduction, but he definately made his mark in the European Seduction Community. I might need to point out that the seduction community isn't solely located in North America and isn't centralised to a few websites. Be aware that all the new PU and Seduction related material is being spread through an underground community and has only recently surfaced and gone public because of The Game by Neil Strauss. I will add him later on, but I feel that his member site needs to be updated first. Johnny Rocketfingers 16:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ron Louis and David Copeland

I've noticed some attempts to add Ron Louis and David Copeland to the template. I have heard them, and they are commercial seduction teachers who perhaps deserve a wikipedia article of their own. But as far as I know, they are not involved in the community in any significant way. So they should not be added back in without justification being provided. --SecondSight 00:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC) RON LOUIS IS JUNK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.231.225 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Nash

I added Stephen Nash because he was mentioned in the Game, as Playboyla, has gotten news articles in a few New York newspapers, the Chicago Tribune, and has been getting media requests through NBC, and BBC. He also continues to blog with free advice regularly, and most in the seduction community respect his opinion.

Dglass81 13:33, 10 Feb 2007 (UTC)

David DeAngelo

Double your dating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.117.83 (talk) 06:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Savoy

Savoy should be on there. His wikipedia page has a few news articles and there are more on the Love Systems site. He's President of Mystery Method Corp, he runs Love Systems, he wrote Magic Bullets, he co-wrote the Routines Manual, he was a consultant to the VH-1 Pickup Artist show, he has spoken at David D, Cliff's List, etc. He's been around 4 or more years. He runs The Attraction Forums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camera123456 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Second that. As the head of TMM, Savoy runs the market leading commercial PU company. The number of forum members on the Attraction Forums speak for themselves (72.900 members today). comment added by WikiPUA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.83.148.16 (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Third that. Pre The Game I was a natural, I wanted to learn how to work group sets and get threesomes. Strengthening the transition phase so that you could use it to open after a functional or situational opener, or just dive into conversations, is exactly what I was doing before the VAH. There's also a lot of great stuff Savoy added in reworking qualification, which is also what I was doing before the VAH. What they've done is make it a topic of conversation rather than BHRR, and made it come in waves rather than just one phase by itself. In short he's made the game a lot more seamless with natural game, which for me is the goal, just take what we do naturally and refine it. The 6 types of relationships and learning how to frame those different relationship expectations before sleeping with your girl is also something I haven't heard anyone talk of before Savoy. He's definitely added things to the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthToPower69 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Savoy should be there, but he can't be added until there is an article on him. I did start off over here: User:Mathmo/Savoy but only ever made a start though. Mathmo ^Talk 04:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put Savoy back up on the list as his Wiki page is back up. I added him halfway because of his influence on the community, length in the community, and current innovations (primary relationship management and emotional progression model).Coaster7 (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I endorse putting him on the list. --SecondSight (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Owen Cook (Tyler)

Before I realized there was a discussion page for this template, I added Owen Cook (Tyler) to the template. Of anyone in the seduction community, Owen was the biggest glaring omission. As there is now an Owen page, I believe having him up here is not a stretch (considering we have people like Lance Mason and Juggler on here) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedcom (talk • contribs) 19:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is indisputable that he should be on the template now that we have an article for him --SecondSight (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

David X

I have added David X to the template. I believe he meets all three criteria and more, for the following reasons: there are many articles written about him, including the long description on Thundercat's blog, the mention of him in "The Game" and the article linked on his Wikipedia page. The History does not leave room for any doubt, since David has been an MPUA since before the community was born - he has started teaching 15 years ago (asper his newsletter). Moreover, he could be argued to truly be "the godfather of seduction", as he has coached Cliff from Cliff's list who was the central point of creating the community. Sources note that David has given Cliff the idea that seduction can be taught by creating a simple system of two rules. Here is where the final criteria, quality, comes in, as David's teachings are renowned for their simplicity and effectiveness. I therefore believe that there is no question that David X should be a part of this list.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by davenry007 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

David X should not be on this list. His wikipedia page does not follow the guidelines and has only links to pages that are either written by him or are at least influenced by him. Nothing objective about it so there is no credibility (see requirement 1). What about requirement 2? His influence in the seduction community is very minimal. Nothing innovative at all, and he is not active the community at all. Just the past year, not much of him came out. The third requirement, quality, does not apply to him. He did not release or contribute any value to the community at all. Coaster7 (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I support David's inclusion to this list. I believe that he is one of the most important / no BS members in the community, and I had no idea that he is still counseling. In my opinion, his seminar I saw on Youtube packs more valuable information than all the other gurus together. David is one of the pioneers, and this is indisputable. I am befuddled that he doesn't get more press coverage, however I advocate his staying on the list. As a great admirer I will address the claims above: 1. there are articles written about him. 2. are you kidding? influencing the community's very existence and creating the direct seduction current : i.e. badboy, shark, etc. all stem from David X's teachings, David Deangelo picked his fake name after meeting David X, should I continue? 3. compare the quality of his teachings which stem from the experience of a NATURAL with women with a Deangelo seminar which is a hodge-podge of excerpts from books and esoteric interpretations. David X is here to stay. Runforcerun (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

David X is not even close to meeting the bar to be on this list. His Montreal 2002 videos may have affected you personally but he has not been involved in any way in the community since 2002. I'm sure others will back me up on this one. --Sedcom (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he hasn't been involved or not in the community recently. In fact, he has been doing private coaching for some time. Truth of the matter is, this list is about pionners of the community, and as such David meets the criteria. Moreover, I am not sure newcomers such as Mystery or T.D. should be registered as pioneers or rather as important members (see discussion below). If somebody has started something but not been involved in it for a while that shouldn't change his status as pioneer. Therefore your claims are easily refutable. davenry007 (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

David X is notable in the seduction community. But he has not been shown to be notable for Wikipedia in his article. In its current form, David X would not survive a nomination on articles for deletion; all the other members of the template would at least achieve no consensus or keep. Consequently, I think it's a bit premature to put him in the template (which will just make the article a higher profile target for deletion). Any editors interested in documenting David X on Wikipedia should consider improving his article as their first priority (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Seduction for some suggestions, and so you can figure out why it needs improvement). If someone adds him back to the template and the article gets nominated for deletion, then I won't help save it like I usually do. --SecondSight (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Renaming the page

I noticed this page was quietly renamed to Pioneers of the Seduction Community by 70.110.203.215 on 18 July, 2008. Although this was discussed years ago (see above), I wondered what others thought of this change, and whether it should be changed back until we have a chance to discuss it.

First, I oppose the page being renamed without discussion. However, "Pioneers of the Seduction Community" is closer to what I've always wanted the template to be (it used to be called "Seduction Gurus," or something like that). I think it was renamed because merely requiring notability in the Wikipedia sense is a low bar to pass, and doesn't reflect whether a figure is at all important in the community. Here's an example:

Recently, an article on Dimitri the Lover was written. He was added to the template. However, he didn't seem to fit with the other people, who had been famous inside and outside the community for years. Dimitri has recently gained followers in the community, but he is only a marginal member. He is not respected in the community. There is no evidence that his teachings are descended from the community. Having him on the template gives the impression that he is an admired leader like the other members of the template, and that people in the community in general share his opinions, which is not true. His notability and media attention stem less from his actual participation in the community, and more from his attitudes towards women and legal troubles.

In the past, any notable member of the seduction community would have to be an established guru. But now that the community is getting better known, anyone loosely affiliated with the community with a few news articles about them could end up on this template. Requiring that someone be a "pioneer" keeps people like Dimitri off the template.

The problem, of course, is how to define a "pioneer." "Notable" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia; pioneer does not, and we would have to debate it on a case-by-case basis. This could get cumbersome. I don't know. Another problem with "pioneer" is that is might exclude more recent, but still respected, gurus (who are still admired, but haven't really been around long enough to be called "pioneers"). While wikipedia-notable might be too broad, pioneer might be too narrow. I don't know, maybe narrow is good. I'm just thinking of whether someone like Tim from RSD or Brad P should be includeable if they got a few news articles about them. They are definitely respected, but it might be debatable whether they are "pioneers." --SecondSight (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SecondSight. Therefore, it would make sense to have the Pioneers section as is, and then create a new list of prominent seduction teachers. In other words, anyone who is notable enough to warrant an entry in Wikipedia gets added to the list of "prominent" seduction teachers. But you can't retro a "pioneer" status to someone who wasn't there when it was all being created. Simply make a second list and the problem goes away, no? -- Freya —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.242.177 (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

'Pioneer' is a completely wrong term to describe half the guys in that list who have only been part of the community for a couple of years. Some of them are 'notable', if only for being mentioned in 'The game' and trying to set up dating organisations. 'Pioneer' would mean guys like Jeffries and Mystery. So 'Notable' is a far better term for a list like that.

LightOfWisdom (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Order of the names on the template

Should the order suggest the level of notability? I noticed that Savoy was put up near the top. We either

1) Go to alphabetical order 2) Leave as-is but put new names at the bottom 3) Decide on some sort of notability ranking

I strongly discourage #3. #2 is my preference, but I could be persuaded to switch to #1 as it's fairer. In the short term I recommend putting Savoy's name at the bottom. --Sedcom (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer 3, but it does have a very obvious problem (namely, deciding upon how is more notable than another?). 1 seems bland, almost a chicken out. Then again, I do lean towards supporting 1. Except: a much better alternative could be to rank them according to whoever has been around the longest. As this largely/roughly matches up with how notable each of them are. Mathmo ^Talk 06:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Matador

Vitasmortis just added Matador to the list. Although he is very well known in the community, he is mostly known as Mystery's wingman. He has not innovated the community in any way that would grant him on this list. Looking at all other members on the list, each one has contributed to the dating community, but Matador has not. I would not put him on this list.Coaster7 (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Since Matador made significant contributions to Mystery's new book Revelation (particularly in the area of kino escalation and the A3 phase), has spoken at Yale (who else in the industry has done that?), has had a great deal of news coverage over the last few years, and is probably one of the better known PUAs in both the community and in the general public because of the VH1 show (thus helping to make the seduction community more acceptable to the public), it seems to me that he belongs in that list just as much as some of the others. Vitasmortis (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The contributions to a book is not considered notable. Any guru can write a book and claim it is significance, but Matador did not even write it. Sure he is a main instructor at Venusian Arts, but that doesn't mean he is notable or has made any contributions to the seduction community. Just the mention of his name in some articles or books is also not good enough to be considered notable according to the WP policy. If Matador has great news coverage, put that in his article page, but he doesn't have it. Everything points to Mystery and the slight mention of his wingman Matador, so that means it is not written about Matador (secondary source). Coaster7 (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What about co-starring on the VH1 show? What about his talk at Yale? Those are some pretty big accomplishments that VERY few in the seduction community can claim to have achieved. He was also the second person EVER to lead his one live programs. I'd consider that a big thing too. Vitasmortis (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree Matador should be on the list for sure. Contribution to the pickup community? How about getting mainstream coverage and being one of the most well known PUA in the world? That contributes to making the community known around the world, I'd say thats a big contribution and certainly makes him 'notable'. I've added him to the list, hopefully a more neutral page will build up for him.

LightOfWisdom (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Matador was a significant guy in the industry, but he will need his own article on Wikipedia to be justified to be included on the list. Let's keep this list clear as possible. Meanwhile, Matador can be found through Mystery's page and he is also associated with him. Bossanueva (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Jordan Harbinger

Jordan Harbinger is not even close to meeting the bar for this page. His addition slipped through the cracks (easy to do since the format was changed from a sidebar) Sedcom (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC).

Not sure why this is the case. He hosts two hugely popular shows in the community and has done a lot to bring things mainstream. He has also been around for 5+ years (before The Game came out). Where is the bar in this case? Granted, I'm a new editor and so maybe I just don't quite get it yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.238.212 (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

While other mentions on this page are well known seduction coaches, Jordan is mostly an entertainer with 2 popular shows but he is not a seducer even though he wants to present himself as one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.244.112.179 (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Jordan in all likelihood has one of the largest audiences in the entire seduction community. Your comments and edits smack of bias here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.146.237 (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter how large of an audience he has, what seduction theory has he contributed to community? Ok, he has large shows, I agree. But where is his seduction concepts. What is the reason that would put him at the same level of pioneers like Mystery, Neil Strauss and others on this list? Mystery has contributed at least 70% of community jargon, was first to do live infield bootcamps and creator of one of most famous system out there in community. Anything Jordan Harbinger has done with same level of contribution? To me he has no place here with the pioneers, he did not pioneer anything, he did not teach anything new. He just put together a show.

Criteria from this article, Point 2 and 3 have not been satisfied with Jordan. Even though he has been around for a long time, he didn't pioneer anything decent for long amount of time.

2. History - You can only be a "Pioneer" if you have contributed something over a decent amount of time. Therefore I would suggest that if the person hasn't been around for more than at least 2 or 3 years, he should not be eligible for this list. 3. Quality - May be granted if the person has contributed something of quality (articles, products, ...) which does not fall in the seduction-junk category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.244.112.179 (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Jordan's been around for 5 or so years, so #2 is indeed satisfied. The PickUp Podcast and the SiriusXM Satellite Radio show, Game On, definitely satisfy #3. As for #1, Jordan Harbinger has plenty of press coverage and credibility, especially since, with Mystery's show canned, he is now the only person in the seduction community with a regular maintstream media presence (having his own show on satellite radio). In the end, this could be debated all day, but I'm not going to get into an edit war with you over something that isn't even an article. I'm going to add Jordan Harbinger back to the template. I tried to discuss any bias issues you have about it privately, but you're not registered here at Wikipedia and thus have no talk page.

Mario Luna

WHAT?? --UberKaeL (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Mario Luna is a spaniard clown who takes ideas from the Pua gurues from América, and he teaches that ideas like if he was the creator of that. He is only a spaniard clown. And is a dark skin midget,jojo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.72.134.156 (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)