Talk:Friend zone

message: Friend Zone is just a definition of a popular phrase, it's not pseudo psychology because it's not psychology at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.145.198.172 (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: This Is Not Psychology

message: I never realized the "friend zone" was gender specific. A straight woman can fall into the "friend zone" too, for example becoming "one of the lads" or a sister figure, when she actually wants to be a romantic interest. I speak from experience :)
:This might be too US centric but that is the most ridiculous thing I have read in the last twenty minutes. If a woman is in the friend zone, it is because she is either not assertive enough or her friends aren't interested in her because of other reasons. The only caveat is that if you are talking about multiple male friends as a group there is a high risk of breaking down the group and men will avoid this. 65.11.23.219 (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "it is because she is either not assertive enough or her friends aren't interested in her because of other reasons" ie. exactly the same scenario that occurs if the genders were reversed. What was your point? You've pretty much pinpointed the cause of the friend zone (for both genders) 124.181.3.189 (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

text: See Archie and Betty - arguably the most famous example of the phenomenon in all of popular culture.  Surely not male-specific at all. 174.2.222.208 (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but if you had spent the same amount of time you spent writing all that by actually editing the page, there would be no problem with it now. My point is, no work is done if everyone just complains. Λίνουξ (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: people who give this advice usually believe that women aren't interesting enough to be friends with unless there's a good probability of sex.
This article is rather uncritical.
That's bull. Men can't approach women for serious relationships unless they past through the friend zone first, the problem is they get stuck in the friend zone no finding their goal of the relationship. Plenty of friendships are made with men and women, men have to hide their cards, some seek a relationship (sex) and others don't feel the need for sex.65.11.23.219 (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  it's gender-specific because... 

message: One of the indicators that one is in the friend zone is "other various signs?"  Does anyone else find that really entertaining but not especially informative?  Yeah, it probably is just me.  But I'm changing it anyway. Bad ideas 06:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watch out for other signs! 

message: This article is falling into the original research tarpit. Last year it was a handy, short reference to the fact that there is a thing called the "friend zone" and where it's used, now it's starting to be an advice column and attracting all sorts of crufty, pointless insertions. It sounds made-up because it is made-up. If this article is to be saved from the hell that is music genre definition articles, something must be done. --Dhartung | Talk 23:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article needs more than cleanup, it needs heavy cleanup, or a complete rewrite. Klosterdev 18:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: The article does not read like an encyclopedia entry, is sexist, and much of it is not sourced.  The topic itself is completely valid, and is common in human relations.  While it doesn't deserve deletion, it does need a complete rewrite, preferably by a psychologist or someone who studies human relations. Klosterdev 18:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a complete rewrite 

message: Is there anything but original research in this article? You can't use use male-help websites as references for facts abut men and women, when the websites themselves don't cite any sources. --Apoc2400 09:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All original research 

message: Crap crap crap crap crap crap crap crap crap crap crap crap crap crap crap
(this article).  That is all.--Loodog 05:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  crap crap crap 

message: I find the authenticity of the "Once this psychological classification has been made it becomes exceptionally difficult to undo" sentence very questionable, especially with its "citation needed" tag. I'm thinking of removing, but I'm not sure if I'm within my right to do so...
76.105.205.97 (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Yes you can edit stuff if you wish.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authenticity 

message: Yes I know better ones can probably be found. If you have ideas, please give them or put better ones in. I'd love to have one of Ross & Rachel together. Can anybody make a composite. Also can anybody please improve the lede paragraph; it doesn't flow well and I'm unhappy with it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Please make the changes if you feel the urge.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: I have added the NPOV tag to this article because it is written from the perspective of those in the "friend zone" without addressing the POV of the objects of their one-sided attraction.  The language is not neutral: "there were several causes in which a man might become corralled to the friend zone" "It has also been suggested that women may also become victims of the 'friend zone'" etc.  The article also does not present any views that are critical of the "friend zone."
In contrast, the Nice guy article is well-sourced and provides multiple viewpoints and interpretations of the "nice guy" label.  173.228.119.43 (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not clear exactly what your issue is with this article. If it is a matter of changing a few words (eg corralled or victims) then why not change them? If you'd like to add content, please have reliable sources to back up each one. If you'd like to add content which is critical of the concept of the friend zone or which suggests that the phenomenon doesn't exist, please add that, again with sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral point of view 

message: I think this is a US cultural term, I've never heard something like this in my home country.
Also, there is a lot of sexism thought the article, and talks about what we must consider "standard relationships". Apparently the "Friend Zone" is something that cannot happen on gay relationships, unless you use once again sexist role models to fulfill the article terms.
Also, what is with words like "it is said?". By WHO is it said?, WHY is it said?.
The worst part is that the article itself talks about it like if it was some kind of scientific research backing this up.
--124.24.252.68 (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree PPP (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. The term originated as a (US) pop culture joke, a description of a situation in a dating relationship, and the article conveys this, and does not convey that it is a scientific term with research backing it up. It is clearly a controversial term -- some will find sexist parts to it, others won't. If people want to know what friend zone means, the article does a competent job of explaining it but, like everything, could use improvement, more references, etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Yep, I'm in the UK and have never heard the phrase "Friend zone", before I read this article, I wouldn't've understood what it meant if I had heard it anyway. Seems like a load of original research. 82.153.119.45 (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Because no one has bothered to fix it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this Article serious? 

message: There's a school of thought that the Friend Zone is a construct of the self-professed Nice Guys. It implies that the woman owes the man sex for being nice to her, and if she instead offers her friendship then this is seen as worthless if it does not involve sex. The article seems to have been written from the point of view of a Nice Guy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.64.121 (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about romantic love, not sex. Nice try blaming men for something women do. 97.127.177.102 (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friend Zone as part of "Nice Guy Syndrome" 

message: In all seriousness, this article is embarrassing.  Aside from the almost worthless information provided that could be summarized in a few sentences, there is nothing of real value here.
Additionally, is it really necessary to use the word 'pathetic' to describe the man in the first picture?  There is nothing 'pathetic' about his outward appearance.  This is a judgement based on the subjective standards of the person who inserted the picture.
71.234.172.156 (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Problems 

message: Pointless article ever  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luiswtc73 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  garbage 

message: I note all the foregoing discussion that this is pseudopsychology and unworthy of encyclopedic inclusion, but it did remind me of "Ladder Theory" http://www.laddertheory.com/ladderconstruction.htm which argues that men have just one friend zone, whereas women have two.
LaFolleCycliste 22:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related to ladder theory? 

message: Surely the 'friend zone' is just another way of saying/another version 'unrequited love'? Couldn't it be mentioned there? I think it needs discussing as an idea - it's significant enough as a popular concept - but it doesn't need the validation of a whole article.Tzfyr (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view, friend zone and unrequited love are two related, but distinct concepts: friend zone is more of an ongoing relationship (involving unrequited love, or maybe even unrecognized love -- a kind of sexless holding pattern) while unrequited love is usually a one-time happenstance leading to a breakup (or a country western song). Friend zone is more of a recent pop culture term, while unrequited love has a longer history. In my view, two distinct articles is best. But of course "unrequited love" can be mentioned in this article since it is a relevant part of "friend zone".--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with 'unrequited love' 

message: While I do think there's value to having an article on this topic, at the least it needs to be rewritten from scratch. "There are differing explanations about what causes a person to be placed in the friend zone by another, whether it be misinterpreted signals, fear of entering a relationship things going wrong and losing that friendship"?  The entire article seems to take the point of view that acquaintances of opposite gender somehow deserve to be romantically involved, and a friendship is an anomaly caused by problems in the relationship. The trudging list of 'examples' that follow are absurd – I am almost entirely certain that the majority of them were meant to be humorous, and the few remaining are poorly attributed ("some have argued") or simply not attributed at all. And, in fact, the majority of the article is devoted to charting its various uses in popular culture, suggesting that perhaps the original author mistook this site for TVTropes. As it stands, this article is an embarrassment to the standards of rigor Wikipedia adheres to, and unless someone is willing to heavily edit it to create a more objective and analytical tone, I would strongly recommend it be deleted entirely. -76.126.246.70 (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree there are writing issues; I tried to fix them with a copyedit. But "rewriting from scratch" is not recommended and it can be problematic at Wikipedia since incremental changes are usually preferred by the community, and abrupt sea-changes can cause battling with past contributors. In my view, what this article could use is more and better references; invariably, this approach will improve an article and lead to better writing as well.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Good catch on Footnote #11; it did not seem like a reliable reference. About whether the article belongs in Wikipedia, the community has voted twice that it does. Wikipedia has serious content, plus information about pop culture which has an importance (arguably) of its own.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awfully Written 

message: I'm particularly fond of the entry for this in the Newer York Fictional Glossary, but I think due to the satirical nature of said glossary it definitely is not a reliable source for the article. I'm including it here for it being noteworthy (and interesting) though.
friend zone / [/frend zōn/]
proper noun.
a relationship between an ugly man and a sober woman.
the Newer York Fictional Glossary --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Some truth in that.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  the Newer York Fictional Glossary 

message: The major additions here in early December 2014 involve much POV-oriented material and sourcing issues. For example, Chelsea Buchler is an college undergraduate, and citing her undergraduate thesis numerous times, as if she's an expert, is a clear violation of Wikipedia's rules about no original research. An additional issue is one of balance, like this article is turning into a soapbox for individual contributors to express their points of view regarding gender issues, not covering the subject as an encyclopedic one.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only skimmed the new additions, but I agree that there seems to be a big undue weight issue. I'll try to edit it down and remove any original research sometime in the next few days, if I have the time—unless someone else gets to it first, of course. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; too lengthy for what could have been a small paragraph. Λίνουξ (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried to fix it up a bit, tried to keep the good stuff, see what others think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major problems with the new additions 

message: a few times i've attempted to add a short paragraph in the criticism section, mainly for being too one-sided, biased and not conforming to an encyclopedia's ideals of showing different stances in a matter or giving more information. 
the point was that the topic of "friendzone" is seen by feminists as "misogynistic", yet this view is very often disregarded due to the fact that women as well as homosexuals have been and are "friendzoned". not only that, but it is often viewed with a very stereotypical view, such as man-wanting-woman, which is in itself sexist. yet it seems that the page creators or whoever guards this page do not accept edits which shed a different view on the topic. often i've heard "original research" and since english is not my native language, i had difficulty understanding. the fact that everything needs references is sickening. we flood ourselves with information, whereas this simple point was logical. do we really need somebody's blog link to validate logic? most content on this page is linked to feminist blogs, which seems to fall under that exact criteria. why not have someone with a more neutral standpoint control page content? and the critization of content being "poorly written" is very weak, since anyone can rephrase.
i seriously question the policy of this website if edits are reverted WITHOUT QUESTION, logic is looked down upon and content is written based on one-sided blogs. i would be very pleased if someone could answer, especially since the tone of the page is considerably biased.Zerochuckdude (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really wish to contribute here? Or are you a blogger, an essayist, thinking you're somehow above Wikipedia's rules that you can add unreferenced content? You wrote "the fact that everything needs references is sickening"; so, you feel entitled to contribute your opinions instead? Learn Wikipedia's rules. Read verifiability, reliable sources, this one too. Master these, contribute impartially, and other contributors can help you with the English language, sprucing up words such as elitistism and critization.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As Tomwsulcer pointed out, you need to follow some rules. Please read about what Wikipedia is not, which should answer many of your questions. Σούπερμαν (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: How well a title can fit a paragraph. Zerochuckdude has some good points to make, but instead of adressing his points, details in his comment get attacked. But hey, I know, the rule is this should not become a chatboard, as someone will probable point out soon. The issues of feminist (i.e. non-impartial) sources, the reverts without any obvious supervisiary conductrules and the lack of logic I have seen before, especially about article-subjects which descibe normal human behaviour. yes, we all have friends, yes, some fall in love, yes, sometimes the timing of that is off, resulting in a disconnect and afterwards frustration. Is and has always been the human situation. By writing a clear and unbiased article here, maybe we can inspire someone to find a fix for that in the future.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.74.3.97 (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is with the statement above that Zerochuckdude has some good points to make -- Wikipedia does not improve when Zerochuckdude or Tomwsulcer or any other contributors here insert our own unsourced opinions; rather, we can include those of reliable sources that are hopefully secondary and with the provisos that we try to be neutral and unbiased and objective. Just how it works. If one feels the article is biased towards a feminist viewpoint, why not find some masculist views and add those, from reliable sources?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Except of course that most of the sources used are from mainstream publications and academic journals. There is only one source used that could be described as a blog, but it appears to be pretty well-established and, more importantly, it is only used in conjunction with established, reliable sources. But don't let facts get in the way of your rant about mean feminists. Oh, and Wikipedia doesn't allow "decanting [sic] opinions based on the same kind of sources" because, a) no such sources exist; and b) per WP:FRINGE Wikipedia does not include every conceivable point of view. There is a big difference between neutrality and balance. freshacconci talk to me 22:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikipedia elitistism strikes AGAIN. 

message: Just seems like this article is a magnet for every jokester to insert a name or unfounded opinion, and contributors who know how to contribute to Wikipedia spend way too much time reverting all the junk. Wonder what others think?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I think semi-protection might be a good idea. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, someone needs to get on this.  I just reverted an edit like that, so it's still a problem, and it's half a year after these last two comments.  --IAmACowWhoIsMad (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe this article needs to be permanently protected 

message: I don't have sources for this, but only personal brief experiences in this area. The Friend zone is maintained by both participants. The desiring person, who won't end the friendship & the desired person, who won't end the friendship. If just one of them ends the friendship? problem solved. Short term pain, is better then long term pain - particularly for the rejected romantic. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, sharp comment. I think you're right in this, although I agree -- no direct sources on this (maybe the news people are not as observant as you). But I'm kind of thinking it belongs in the article somewhere, that is, the idea that the friend zone is maintained by both people, not just one. I've thought of it like two planets orbiting each other, each with a pull, but not connecting.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an interesting point of view, but it needs a reliable source if we want to include it in the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I hope you might consider re-instating it. I think the idea is right, because it gets at the essence of the friend zone idea, in that the relationship continues, but dysfunctionally, because each partner wants something, albeit something different. I think it's central to what the friend zone is about, so central, it may not need a source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea might be right, but the article needs to follow WP:V. If we include an idea purely because some Wikipedia editors believe it's right, but we don't have a source for it, that would be original research. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, but here's the thing: it's not a new idea, not some new theory taking the article in an alternative direction, but rather it is the essence of the friend zone, explained. As a relationship, it has duration in time -- why it's called a zone -- and the reason it lasts, over time, is because both partners want something (which most of the sources say, in different ways) -- one wants a romantic relationship, one wants only a friendship -- and this is the basis of the stuckness quality of the relationship. So, really, we're not talking new original research here, rather, just a common sense way of expressing the fundamental nature of the relationship, as verified by many sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are reliable sources for this explanation/analysis, then I would be fine with including it. You and GoodDay both said earlier in this discussion that you don't have sources for it, but if that changes, then we can consider adding it to the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Core of the Friend zone: Nobody walks away. 

message: Looking at the editing history it's very clear there are some obvious "ownership" issues going on with this article.
This article also demonstrates some extreme POV/agenda pushing. The criticism section is by far the longest and most detailed section of the article. The tone and content of the article is clearly slanted negatively and dismissively towards the term.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.168.144.189 (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "blogs" such as The Washington Post, Oxford English Dictionary, Los Angeles Times, salon.com, Chicago Tribune, Psychology Today, Huffington Post, The Guardian and Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. freshacconci (✉) 21:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Ownership/POV issues with this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Friend zone. 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/20081205051857/http://www.tv.com/friends/the-one-with-the-blackout/episode/351/recap.html to http://www.tv.com/friends/the-one-with-the-blackout/episode/351/recap.html
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) 04:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is absolute not balanced. Browsing through the talk page, it seems that it was first all man-oriented but now it's totally feminist-oriented. This article is totally degrading! Yes, I am a nice guy. Yes, I do not know how to express my feelings. NO, I never blamed a woman for it!! NO, I do not have any bad intention! It just happens, that I am befriended with a woman (without having any feeling at first) but then have developed some and did not know how to express them without destroying the friendship. 
This article hurts. It's a mad rush! 24.222.35.218 (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I re-read the article and I think you're onto something, that it's a bit tilted toward the female perspective. But as you noted, the tilting goes back and forth over time, and perhaps the way to fix things is to investigate further with sources reflecting a more balanced view. And about relationships -- while Wikipedia articles can do amazing things, they are not particularly suited to repairing relationships -- and I think relationships beguile pretty much everybody.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not balanced 

message: I believe that if the 2005 film Just Friends is mentioned, then the hit movie Are We There Yet? should also be mentioned. 
“Take Suzanne to the airport in the morning? Wow,
you are stuck in the friend zone!” Harrygoround (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2019 

message: Remove errant apostrophe after reference to “Just Friends” movie 58.6.130.159 (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Mindmatrix 12:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2023 

message: In the movie Eight Days a Week (1999), Peter is pursuing a woman romantically, but his friend says:
Matt: "Yeah, sure, you're in the friends zone"
Peter: "Is that bad?"
Matt: "Bad? It's the worst."
...
Matt: "Are you kidding me? You're the one doing life in the friends zone." WikiRoaringFork (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional popular culture addition