Talk:Romance scam/Archives/2013

Interesting article but where are the referencs?
I would like to see some references, particularly on the "Size of the problem" estimates which might as well be original research if references are not provided. 86.14.239.3 21:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a beautifully written article, but I agree with the comment above; both the tone and the lack of research suggest original research, particularly in the "Size of the Problem" section. Can someone restructure the paragraph so it sounds more like an encyclopedic entry? Excelsium 06:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Original research
Where is the original research, and which paragraphs is it in?? I will remove it when someone finds it! --SunStar Nettalk 23:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Through the ages
Just a note that the Romance Scam is by no means new, and predates the internet. Often played out through the mail, after meeting while on holiday.

This is a 'natural' scam, because there is no clear dividing line between scam and marriage, just a broad range of relationships from abusive to supportive. There are always romance scams against lonely and wealthy marks, particularly in tourist destinations, because the marks are realitively wealthy and away from home: if successful, those scams spill over into mail scams where the mark forwards money.218.214.18.240 23:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How insulting to even compare romance scams to marriage, as if they are even in the same BALLPARK. Romance scams are not "spillovers" from "natural" relationships, they're SCAMS, pure and simple. 75.94.76.166 (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Scamletters
I don't think it's a reliable source. See Reliable sources WhisperToMe (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Unwelcome additions
I would ask people not to add farce to this page. This is about a real phenomenon. Farce will be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unveiled (talk • contribs) 20:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Psychological Analysis
This section is based on material in the Anti-Scam site Real Stories, which deals with a multitude of real romance scams, the analysis is taken from one of the victims. This matter is too recent for there to be literature on it outside the net. On the other hand many millions of dollars are being scammed from gullible people on dating sites each year. Hence this material is of current interest in informing about and fighting this crime. Arguably real-life material is of far more help to potential victims than abstract pondering. I therefore ask people, especially those who do not yet understand the impact of this matter, to respect this material.

97.118.200.31 (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC) I think citations are due here. Could you add some where you see fit, and perhaps provide an external link to Real Stories? I believe that would remove any doubt that this was not original research, and it would provide context for those more curious.

Also, you pointed out that the scam being analyzed was typical, and you point out that it is from a male to a female, but you don't give us information on how commonly females are the scammers, whether the scam depends on marital status, or if it is always focused from one gender to the opposite. One could assume that males are always the scammers, or that this scam format is only used when the "predator" knows the gender or marital status of the victim.

In my opinion, to improve balance and adhere to ethics, the article needs expansion (preferable) or the heading should be changed. Not that I'm trying to be overcritical, but the section immediately struck me as unfair after reading the heading. I think this could be an opportunity to add a lot more to the article. 97.118.200.31 (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Original research
I've challenged and removed all the Unsourced material, but have not checked to see whether the Sources actually back up what the article says. If you want to put anything back, be sure it is accompanied by a good Source per WP policy. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)