Talk:Neil Strauss

Social skills brain V Strategic skill brain
There are two types of brain the strategic and the social. Men have the strategic brain. Women have the social brain. It is perfectly normal for men to lack social skills. This is real scientific fact not some moronic made up book claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolerthancoolascoo (talk • contribs) 22:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't he attend Vassar? Strauss attended Columbia U.

How old is him? Here http://www.elmundo.es/suplementos/magazine/2006/351/1150391961.html they say he is 42 years old.

as far as it is known the break up piece on the sundaymirror is not true. feel free to add it when there will be proof of it but so far lisa has denied the story. 

Deleted two references to a site called thundercatseduction.org for having broken and possibly malicious scripts.
 * Could be more specific in exactly what you thing is wrong? Because thundercat is related to style. Mathmo 19:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Article Clean Up
--SecondSight 23:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Put the stuff related to the Seduction Community into its own section.
 * The section on The Game was heavily POV, so I re-wrote the whole section. Statements like "Strauss’ biography of this period of his life is both sincerely intimate and suitably humorous. Though many who attempt to document life in such a way often fail, Strauss succeeds with great panache" and "Though the book is heavily male-centric, it doesn’t come across as chauvinistic or antipathetic and therefore should appeal to those who are merely curious about the secret society of pickup artists (of either gender)," although I personally agree with them, are way too POV and sound too much like a book review.  Instead, the article should quote/paraphrase and cite actual book reviews.  There are links to reviews of The Game on Talk:Seduction Community if anyone wants to use and cite them.  I might do it myself, when I get around to it.
 * Some claims in the article need citation (like the claim that some members of the seduction community called Strauss a traitor for writing The Game, even though it is true). I've found sources for two of the claims (that Strauss was referred to as "Most Powerful of the Jedi," and that he taught the major 3-day seminar for 5 students).
 * Removed external links to Mystery Method stuff. The article already links internally to the page on Mystery and the Mystery Method (which already have those links), so there is no good reason to have them on this page also.
 * No citation is needed to make the claim that Neil is effemine -- nearly everyone who meets him thinks he is at least very effeminate if not gay. People who have not met him can just look at his photo and realize that even if Neil is not gay, it would not be unreasable for someone to think that his is gay  when they first see him.206.59.61.187
 * Yes, a citation is needed to make these claims: Many people in the seduction community believe that "Style" is a homosexual who has not yet "come out of the closet." Strauss maintains that although he is very effeminate, he is not gay." You would need to cite a source showing that many people in the community think he is gay, and you would need to cite a source quoting Strauss saying otherwise.  See Verifiability.  Until those claims are cited, I don't think they belong in the article, though I will leave them up for now with the citation needed tag.  The only published article I've seen suggesting that Strauss may be gay also suggests that all the guys in the community are really in the closet.  I've met Strauss, btw, and I didn't think he seemed gay. Historically, dressing or acting in an androgynous manner has hardly been unusual for seducers (see The Art of Seduction by Robert Greene).  The fact that Strauss spent years of his life learning how to pick up women seems evidence that he is straight or bi, so it's been my perception that most of the people in the community calling him "gay" are doing so as a homophobic insult.  Of course he could be gay anyway, but so could Mystery.  So could any guy, regardless of whether he dresses metrosexual or not, or matches media stereotypes of what gay men supposedly look like.  It's true that Strauss appears effeminate, but since, as you say, everyone can tell that from his photo, why do we need to mention it in the article?  --SecondSight 18:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It just sounds like school-yard name calling, and without a citation, that's all it is. I took it out. --Cosmogee


 * First of all, I don't think being gay is a bad thing, so it is not name calling. However, you wanted a reference, I provided one.


 * In the same vein, some people think GWB is an alien. Anyone familiar with ThunderCat's blog will know the comment boards are mostly populated by 12 year olds with ADHD. I really don't see that you can use it as a citation. As for "he also writes articles on gay musicians" wtf? Enough. Come up with something credible, or don't re-add this. WoodenBuddha 19:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked at your reference, and as WoodenBuddha says, it just doesn't cut it. It appears that the post you are referring to is the one by Evolution on Jan 29, 2006 2:34:45 AM. It's pretty clear that this guy is kidding around (correct me if I'm wrong).  A few random comments on Thundercat's blog are NOT a credible source, and they do NOT represent what the community thinks.  As you should know, the commentators on his site are mostly idiots who spend all their time gossiping and flaming each other, Thundercat, and any of the gurus. If Thundercat's site is to be cited at all, it should only be to his actual articles, not the comments.  I'm removing the text again unless you can find a real source.  As for Strauss himself has authored published articles about homosexual musicians. , so frickin what? OMG Strauss has written articles about GAY musicians!!! He must be GAY too!!!1!111    (P.S. the info that Strauss wrote articles for those musicians might be relevant for the page, if it was included in a way that made sense.) --SecondSight 19:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, you guys do realize that Neil did document a lot of the Game with posts in Mystery's Lounge, which would be considered a blog. He directly quoted some of them in the book.  I know his book is published, and publisher would have to check the facts, but the only thing that they would have to verify is that what Style said was posted really was what was posted.  They did not have to verify the veracity of claims made by the posters.  So it seems to me that if Niel can use blogs as a reference, it is okay to use a blog where someone speculates (if he was joking, he was only half-joking) that Style is gay.  But I won't post it again.  I don't have time to get involved in a "war" over this.206.59.61.187
 * You know, 206.59.61.187, everyone would be much better off if you chose to personally deny the veracity of what you read on the internet instead of fagging it up for everyone else.VTNC 17:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think its important to note effeminate does not necessarily mean gay. I have a straight friend who is effeminite, and he is 100% straight. And gets more women than you could shake a stick at. I think using what amounts to (lets be honest) supposition from people who ..erm....dont seem to have a great amount of life experience ...is not a high quality reference.


 * Mystery's lounge is probably a lot higher quality that Thundercat's Lounge (where most posters don't even attempt to post anything serious or useful). What process Neil had to go through with his publisher is not the same process we go through on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia has no formal fact-checking, so it's not true that "if Niel can use blogs as a reference, it is okay to use a blog where someone speculates (if he was joking, he was only half-joking) that Style is gay."  Furthermore, I'm not quite sure why we would want to cite someone joking around (even if it was only "half joking").  But thanks for dropping the issue. --SecondSight 20:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: The Ireland times reference is suspect - it claims to be dated november 2006, a date in the future, and the link does not work

It says 11/09/06 in the artical. In Ireland, that means September 11 2006. I've fixed it now.--Richy 20:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Changed "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star" back to "How to Make Money Like a Porn Star." "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star" is Jenna Jameson's autobiography which Strauss was the ghost writer on.  Strauss' collaboration with Chang was on the graphic novel "How to Make Money Like a Porn Star." --Taobear  —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC).

Break-up of Strauss and Lisa Leveridge
None of the articles provided confirmation from any of the parties involved that Leveridge actually broke up with Strauss in favor of Robbie Williams. All we really know is that they had dinner dates, and that he is into her. Until some conclusive evidence is cited that Strauss and Leveridge have broken up, lets leave the tabloid speculation out of the article. According to this blog post, the rumors aren't true anyway.


 * I'm one of those taking the Stylelife challenge. Someone on the forum posted a thread where he said he met up with Neil, and apparently him and Lisa are indeed over. Dessydes 18:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There are also claims on Thundercats website that Neil and Lisa are in an "open" relationship. It *could* mean (purely speculation ! ) that both sides are true, that Neil and Lisa are both still together AND she spent a few evenings with Robbie.

Self Proclaimed??
It was actually a PUA by the name of Joseph Matthew, who calls himself Thundercat who named Neil Strauss "the most powerful of the Jedi", as told in "the Game".At the end of every year since 2003, he has held a contest on his website to determine the best PUA of the year. In 2004 he declared Neil "The most powerful of the Jedi". 80.47.159.250 05:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is wierd apparently he's NOt broken up with Lisa . Dessydes 16:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"One year after he had joined the community, he published an article in the New York Times about his experiences"
although he claims in his book to have been in the community for a couple of years or whatever, there are rumours he had been around since 98/99. Basically we are only going on what he says himself, nobody knows for sure..... Mathmo Talk 20:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC) It is a known fact that Neil was in the community as early as 2001, as he has archives of posting then...and that is when Mystery's first bootcamp was.

Chris Powles was once in a porno movie
I'll dig around for a source first though before posting it, because most people probably won't believe me. Mathmo Talk 11:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Neil once said he kept his clothes on in a porn movie whilst researching the Jameson book. Maybe you are referring to that? Dirtybutclean


 * Probably is the same one, unless there are two? You can see Chris Powles referenced for it on IMDB. Mathmo Talk 01:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Nose Rape
IrishJew reverted an edit made because they thought it might be vandalism. Weirdly... it is not! Checked out the videos, that is Neil Strauss in them. Though, if it is to be included might need to be rephrased a little differently. Mathmo Talk 10:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I almost reverted that too. I guess it falls under "truth stranger than fiction." -- Ben 14:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, must have been more than once person who tried to add it in? Hadn't notice that, I haven't been watching my watchlist quite so carefully recently. Sure is "truth stranger than fiction", something a lot of people on XfD don't seem to realise which bugs me. Voting for deletion simply because they hadn't heard about it or don't believe in it, when a 5 second google search would show them otherwise (even worse when the nominator doesn't do the basic checking, had to deal with that several times over earlier this month with a whole bunch of bands that were being nominated for deletion). Ah well, such is life here on wikipedia. Was very surprised when I saw the video clips, is some crazy stuff being shown. Pushing the limits for sure! Wonder if this should be mentioned and the best way to go about it. I'm thinking just a one line mention and a link is all there should be at the moment. Mathmo Talk 13:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But... Mathmo! This is so important!!! One line just won't do! I think it needs at least its own section and a mention in the intro. (The preceding was meant as humor.) -- Ben 14:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * nah, what you meant to say is that instead of en.wikipedia.org what we need to have as well is noserape.wikipedia.org, not just its own section but its own entire site! lol Mathmo Talk 17:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A Totally Scientific Guide to Seduction
Just by chance came across on msn another article by him, this time from Esquire. Mathmo Talk 08:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed
This article reads like a publicity piece. We are told his stories are ribald, we have details about his promotional activities, and everytime a negative review is added it is removed. Hence the template.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * so the template is here because each time a negative review is added it is removed? doesn't seem like much of a reason to have it, if a review is removed again when it should be kept then put it down here on the talk page (I tend to follow talk pages more closely than an article, as there are less edits to it) then I will myself see to it that it is kept in the article as it should be. Cheers! Mathmo Talk 09:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think that (forgetting the negative review) it is NPOV? Doug Weller (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * it could do with some of the more critical views of him (like his spinning of the truth, his level of skill, his marketing methods, etc etc), of which there are plenty (Though proper sourcing could be tricky). but over all I don't feel it is a big enough issue to slap a huge NPOV tag on it. Mathmo Talk 05:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm happy now. Thanks. --Doug Weller (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"Some have accused Strauss and his stylelife team of of producing fake-positive reviews and underhanded marketing and much discussion has arisen about the subject.[16]"

I don't think this sentence makes much sense as far as neutrality is concerned. This same reviewer had already been sourced as being the ONE negative review of the academy out there. There is ONE negative reviewer total that is making all the negative claims. ONE reference to this ONE mans negative blogging seems quite enough for this article.

To me it seems clear that someone out there is attempting to stir up controversy where none exists. I do not know if this is an effort to promote his own site (it seems very likely the editor is the very blogger who wrote the review) or if it is just someone with a personal vendetta to settle, but one thing thats clear is there is an agenda at work. The worst part is that this trouble maker is making it necessary to even have this 'talk'...because the more 'controversy' that is stirred up over this, the more the attention seeker is 'winning'. GeorgeJorgel (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been interested to see the reviews of the Stylelife Academy; however, Wikipedia's policy on verifiability is very clear that blogs are not reliable sources: ''Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.'' Can we get some reviews of the Stylelife Academy from some better sources? Even though I was finding those reviews enlightening, Wikipedia is the wrong place for them, and it's really a good thing in general that Wikipedia does not allow blog sources. --SecondSight (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you note that someone sabotaged the link to the review, removing the 'o' from seduction? Anyway, I am pretty sure that in this case you are wrong. For one thing, the review was on the Seduction Community website, not on the Seduction Community blog. So, I am putting it back but I'll raise a discussion on the RS noticeboard, WP:RSN--Doug Weller (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You may be correct that these sources are not blogs, yet the problem remains that they are self-published websites. The quote from WP:V in my last comment applies to them also: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.. Here's another relevant quote from WP:V: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer Do not leave unsourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for details of this policy). Consequently, the default is that we need to keep that material out of the article until its verifiability is established. Thanks for raising the issue on the RSN noticeboard. If you get a positive answer there, you are welcome to put that material back in, though I would be very surprised. WP:V is really not at all ambiguous on this issue. --SecondSight (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You cite the "Self published" rule but ignore, of course, that that applies as well to Strauss' website, as well as his book. Especially considering there is little to no independent research backing up his claims. Like other self help gurus, from dating, to dieting, to other issues, Wikipedia should not be a source for unverifiable advice, or the people who promote it. Most of the criticisms on this talk page are correct; the article is written essentially like a puff piece with language and words that shouldn't be used, or imply more than there is actual evidence for. 24.88.79.249 (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strauss' website is citeable as evidence of Strauss' marketing campaign. As for his book, it is not "self-published," it is published by Regan Books, a division of Harper Collins. If you question the evidence behind specific claims in the article, then please be more specific. --SecondSight (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:ADVERT statements removed
I've removed the statement surrounding the Forbes article. That article makes no mention of Neil Strauss. Any connection made in the Wikipedia article was WP:OR. I've also removed WP:ADVERT and unsourced statements about "closely guarded secrets". VG &#x260E; 14:16, 28 October 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).--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Neil Darrow Strauss
His name is Neil Darrow Strauss, as given in Emergency, page 390 =). 201.80.198.13 (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That appears not to be a credible reference, even if I could identify what it was. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Emergency is his OWN BOOK =) It's his latest book (2009) 201.80.193.83 (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Neil's real age
I recall seeing in the past that Neil Strauss's real birthday was in 1969, not 1973 as it now shows. I specifically remember saying to myself, a few times even, "he is two years older than me, so maybe I can do this stuff too." I wonder, why the change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.164.153.188 (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Neil's b-day is March 15 (http://www.mediabistro.com/articles/cache/a2441.asp) Age: 33 http://www.myspace.com/neilstrauss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.20.210.108 (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In reply to the response above: Neil Strauss covered the breaking story of Kurt Cobain's suicide for the New York Times, which was in March, 1994. That means if Strauss was really born in '73 as the wiki page states, he would have been only a 21-year-old university student covering such a high-magnitude story, which is highly unlikely. He also wrote about Cobain before his death, putting Strauss at an even younger age. As stated before, his previously reported age of 41 or 42 (born 1969) seems likelier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.74.195.87 (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The current source (http://www.datingskillsreview.com/style-neil-strauss/) seems questionable. If others agree, it should be removed with the year. If we can't find any reliable sources for his age, we can leave the year out. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems like a pretty good idea. Or how about something along the lines of, for the year of birth perhaps stating "age debated anywhere from 'x' to '42 years old.'" Might be only good as it could put pressure on someone to come up with, and stick to, the real age.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.74.195.121 (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the birthdate once again. I don't think we're going to make much progress unless a reliable source can be found. A birth record might work, but my initial searches haven't been fruitful. --Ronz (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Can the picture of his passport be a reliable source? It's on page 408 of Emergency, kittian passport. I have this book.Ssspera (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, images of passports are not acceptable because they are primary sources. It's worth checking WP:BLPN archives to see. --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The birthdate of 13 Oct 1973 (Emergency p. 408, viewable on Amazon) is not credible. Based on school history (graduated high school 1987, college 1991, as referenced by school publications at this edit), presumably birth year is 1969. However, barring any reliable (third-party) references explicitly giving a credible date or year, I think it most prudent to simply not include birthdate information.

Had he in fact been born in late 1973, he would be very precocious and would have attended college from age 13/14 to age 17. This would have been noteworthy (notably in reference to college dating), but as there are no remarks in primary or secondary sources indicating this precociousness, it is reasonable to conclude that he attended school at a normal age, so born 1969 or so.

It’s reasonable to assume that his passport image is altered, not least to reduce the risk of identity fraud, and there is a winking suggestion of this in the line below the passport image, which notes: “Even secret agents had to forge their documents.”
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity
My memory is vague now as it's been over a year since I read on him, but I'm pretty sure Strauss is part or full Jewish. Should it not be researched and added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.74.195.134 (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity
My memory is vague now as it's been over a year since I read on him, but I'm pretty sure Strauss is part or full Jewish. Should it not be researched and added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.74.195.134 (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Strauss is most likely Jewish. This photo shows him with his father Ivan and brother Todd in a Latin School of Chicago newsletter; Todd graduated from there in 1991, so he would be born around 1973. This 1973 announcement in The Sentinel, a Jewish newspaper in Chicago, announces the birth of Todd Darrow Strauss (Darrow is also Neil's middle name) with Ivan Strauss being the father. Linked together, those pieces of evidence strongly suggest Strauss is Jewish. 2600:1700:37AA:4950:C62A:107F:93D:F08E (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Neil Strauss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080130070618/http://sbpu.blip.tv:80/file/108302/ to http://sbpu.blip.tv/file/108302/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090904193813/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002074610 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002074610

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neil Strauss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070222091127/http://www.esquire.com/features/what-it-feels-like/ESQ0805WIFL_100_14 to http://www.esquire.com/features/what-it-feels-like/ESQ0805WIFL_100_14

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Jeffrey star
Writing a book with Jeffrey. Proof through impualsive YouTube video interview. 2601:802:8102:5250:B847:829C:BA49:C48 (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This has no source. Jeffree's name is also spelt wrong. Unless someone adds a source this has no grounds. I can't ping the user since they don't have a userpage but if someone wants to add a source and/or release date I don't mind keeping tabs on that. Chefs-kiss (talk) 09:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)