Talk:Friend zone

This Is Not Psychology

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)

Friend zone is kind of a psychological thing because it is a common recurring thing that happens everyday by adults or teenagers. I just got friend zone by a guy who i am crazy for but he doesn't see it. So. ×××× — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.38.154.50 (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The pseudo-scholarly tone in this article is ridiculous. It reads like a parody. There is no science to the term "friend zone", it's just an informal term for unrequited love with the addition of friendship that has unfortunately become a tool for blaming a person for not falling in love with their friend, and, unfortunately, a tool for sexism - sexism that can be traced in this article, by the way. This needs a complete rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by That.Annoying.Narrator (talk • contribs) 22:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree too. Not psychology. That people have decided to invent new words instead of using words that actual psychologists use doesn't make this a psychological phenomena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.57.245 (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia sucks

"The friend zone (or friendship zone) is a popular psychology concept found in many pseudo-psychology texts providing dating advice to a male audience. Friend zone refers to the situation where the female has begun to view a male as a friend only and not as a romantic partner, a psychological classification supposedly exceptionally difficult to undo."

The words in bold constitute a negative bias AGAINST the commonly known definition of the term. Remove these, and your changes are likely undone or cited as wrong because then it's something that cannot be proven. Also the term pseudo-psychology implies less-than-credible and has no place here. Ask any guy and he will tell you. There IS a friend zone. It's not just a friend zone, it's an anything zone. The longer you remain in a certain way to somebody the stronger the frame of that relationship gets and changing it is extremely noticeable and unwanted by the party with the stronger frame. Best example of this? A break up after a long term relationship.

Example: you meet a girl, and you don't get her number. You get her Facebook info and add her there, OR you meet on a dating site. If you chat with this girl online for 3 weeks and haven't made a move for the number, you're already in the Facebook zone and she's going to be pretty unlikely to give it to you or to want to meet you. Same with friends zone. It's the same psychological occurrance. You meet a girl in class. You really want to date or have sex with her. You withhold these feelings from her and pretend to want to be friends, or think "friends first" and become friends. Three weeks later the guy makes a move. Girl's like "WTF?? I thought we were friends? You said you only want to be friends."

Now the one thing I don't agree with is that it's extremely difficult to get out of. Although it might seem that way and it isn't easy when you have the knowledge and time to do anything, anything becomes easy. It all comes down to change. People are creatures of habit and notice abrupt changes. Grow up with a child, and you don't really notice her growing up. Come over to see a child you once saw at 2 who is now 5 and WHOA. big difference. This also occurs when someone does a lot of self-improvement. They will face resistance from their friends who are used to who they are and think that they are either not being themselves or that they don't like who they are becoming.

It is very much PSYCHOLOGY and not PSEUDO-ANYTHING. And yes both men and women can be in the friend zone. In fact, one of the ways to get out of the friend zone with a girl is to put her in your friend zone.

But yeah, summed up- The editor's opinion of what is or isn't accurate on something that cannot be proven by reading a text book does not qualify the use of derogatory words such as pseudo-psychology or the word supposedly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.181.206 (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with much of this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Look at the article for Unrequited love. It states (using a professionally written book as a source) that platonic relationships are a common path to romantic feelings that are not reciprocated. Unrequited love within a mutual friendship is the very definition of the friend zone, although the authors do not use that word. In fact, many psychologists can tell you that the friend zone is an extremely, if not the most, common type of unrequited love (although I have no idea how anyone would need one to).

"Now the one thing I don't agree with is that it's extremely difficult to get out of. Although it might seem that way and it isn't easy when you have the knowledge and time to do anything, anything becomes easy. It all comes down to change."

Falling in love isn't a conscious decision. You can't choose your sexuality and who you find attractive falls under that umbrella. Sometimes, even if you make all the right changes, it's just not going to happen. You can't make someone fall in love with you (just ask Bonnie Raitt). But this is why the friend zone is so difficult to get out of. Just as you can't help falling in love, your friend can't help NOT falling in love with you. Celera65 (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Celera65

Interesting about connection between unrequited love and the friend zone. Maybe we might add a "See also" section to unrequited love, if it isn't already there? What other changes would you make to the article? Again I urge you to work from established sources -- it's what they say that counts. And if anybody needs dating advice (ie how to get out of the dreaded friend zone), I can't put it in the article Dating (which I revamped considerably a while back) but there are suggestions in "Dating and mating in the twenty tens" -- on a google article called a knol -- if you google the title in quotes you may find it, but Google is ending their knol service in May.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The "see also" section in the unrequited love article is actually how I discovered the friend zone. For this article, I would change the tone (ie, using more sources from psychology professionals rather than dating advice articles). But I found an old New York Times article which mentioned a study where men were more likely to fall in love with someone who didn't return their feelings by a ratio of 3 to 2. Does this mean that men are more likely to fall into the friend zone than women? Although to be fair, it seems to suggest that this is because men are more likely to fall in love with someone more attractive than them. Whatever the case, I can tell you from my own experience that it's just as difficult for women to get out of the friend zone. NY Times article Celera65 (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Celera65

Interesting NY Times article. Maybe the article needs to be adjusted to suggest that both men and women can fall into the friend zone (but that it is somewhat more likely for this to happen to men?). About changing the tone to making it sound more clinical, possibly, with using more sources from psychology, my recommendation is that we can do this provided that the psychological sources explicitly use the term friend zone in their study. It is a pop culture term and I do not know how much it is considered seriously as a subject of inquiry by the academic community. And my sense of this article is that it will be a flashpoint for the unresolved frustrations of people of both sexes, possibly tying in to the ongoing battle of the sexes, so there is an ongoing risk that the article will reflect not what the term is actually about, but about dissatisfactions and unsatisfied longings. Further, the TV show Friend Zone complicates it further, boosting readership dramatically. Btw you might wish to write something on your user page User:Celera65 so your handle does not light up in red letters. About being in the friend zone, I've been there too.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Like you said, "friend zone" is a pop culture term so I don't believe you can find a scientific paper using that word. After all, if you wouldn't use slang in a school paper, why would a professor do it in their writings? However, we can use psychological sources that point out how common it is for one-sided attractions to develop within platonic friendships. The unrequited love article is a good place to start. Celera65 (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Celera65

Yes I suppose. The unrequited love article is a good beginning. There's a risk to watch out for as you probably know, that we might interpret friend zone and unrequited love as the same thing (I agree they're pretty close conceptually so it's probably okay to equate the two terms), and accidentally do some original research. One rather easy way I've found to avoid falling into the trap of original research is that each line we add should ideally have a reference, and the reference should have the exact term mentioned in it -- so if the reference is about the subject friend zone, the exact words "friend zone" should be used in the reference. I've found that this is a rather simple way to stay on track. I've had problems where I used references which didn't mention the term, and I had been doing original research without knowing it. There's a risk if we start substituting terms that we might wander. But overall I agree your approach could be fruitful since the two terms have much in common.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Like I said before, the friend zone is a specific type of unrequited love. You and I are both well aware that falling in love with someone who doesn't know you exist is very different (and easier) than falling for a friend. Celera65 (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Celera65

Ease of falling in love -- now there's a subject. Hmmmmm.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that being in love with someone who doesn't know you exist isn't hard but it's not nearly as agonizing as falling for a friend. It was much easier for me to get over my crushes in high school since I didn't know them as well and as long (it also helped that one of them turned out to be a jerk). I've known this guy for 10 months before falling for him. As much as I've suffered, I'm thankful that the co-worker I have feelings for isn't my best friend. That has to be the worst kind of unrequited love.Celera65 (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Celera65

A complex subject. Friendship. Love. Tough to draw the line between the two. Not sure if there is such a thing as the "worst kind" of unrequited love -- aren't pretty much all examples of unrequited love generally not fun experiences? :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Unrequited love is never fun in any circumstance but it's much harder to get over for a friend than it is for someone you don't know very well. Celera65 (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Celera65

Why? Is it because there is more history to the relationship? More shared experiences? Therefore, more things that trigger memories? I do think it can be kind of a sickness of sorts, when love is one-way; but I think it happens to perhaps everybody.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes to all three of these questions. The crushes I had in high school were me being in love with an image of those guys (I only knew them for about a month before falling for them) but for my co-worker, it's not like that. This time around, the puppy love arguments don't work. I really do feel that I love him. One can argue that longing for a person from a distance is a superficial kind of love but I don't know how anyone can say that when the beloved is your friend. Simply put, when's there's more history, you know that person better and you fall more deeply. And there are a lot of sources that say one-way attraction happens to almost everyone who isn't asexual (the New York Times article to name one). Celera65 (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Celera65

Yes I think that is right. We humans are emotional creatures, and falling in love, whether with a friend, whether with someone at a distance, is kind of like falling in a fog of unreality, and it is really great when both people fall in the fog together and it works (the illusions become mutually sustaining?), but this rarely happens. When love is unrequited, or when a person is in the dreaded friend zone, the fog becomes cold and lonely -- it's illusion without any benefit -- quite empty -- and maybe that's the anguish we feel when we're both attracted still to the illusion (like we cling to the hope of love) yet are all alone. Being in the friend zone is heartbreaking. The problem is we feel if we just surround ourselves with a bit more illusion, more fog, love a bit harder or more totally, then somehow it will persuade the other person to do similarly; but this rarely happens. It's humans being humans.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I finally understand why I was so upset when I found out my co-worker was dating someone else (this was a month after I realized I was in love with him), even though I never really believed I had much of a chance. Hollywood isn't very helpful in this department since for the most part, persistence pays off. Or the man would declare his love and the woman would magically realize that she feels the same way. Pretty in Pink is probably the only film I know of that his a more realistic treatment of the topic (although they drop the ball when Andie just accepts Blane's apology so quickly but that's a completely different topic). I'm trying hard to get out of this job (it's a company that doesn't treat its people well so no, he's not the only reason) and I hope the interview I had this week works out. I don't think I can completely move on until I leave. Celera65 (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Celera65

Comments

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)

"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)

I can't understand why so many people assume that the friend zone is male specific when some of the most famous songs about unrequited love are sung by women. Taylor Swift's "You Belong With Me" is about a girl in love with her best friend who happens to be dating a cheerleader. The ultimate song about one sided romance might be On My Own, which describes Eponine's despair of being put in the friend zone by Marius. This article is in serious need of a rewrite, and it's not just because I'm a woman who is currently in the friend zone. Like other people said, it reads like an advice column, not a professionally written encyclopedia entry. Read this and then look at the article for Unrequited love you'll know how this article can be improved upon.Celera65 (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Celera65

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)

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)

it's gender-specific because...

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)

Basically, the reason there's not actually a friend zone is that there's the basic unfairness of life when you're in love with someone and they are simply not attracted to you. It sucks, sure, of course it seems unfair to the person who is in love. However, I think it's fairly rare in my anecdotal memory that women will complain that because they're a nice person, they got stuck in the friend zone and they should at least get sex for putting out the time of being their friend, a conversation I just overheard this morning. (A male friend reports that he's heard female co-workers gloating that they've gotten meals and dates out of guys, which puts them in the category of "user." Or maybe "bitch." That's not quite the same as putting a guy into the friend zone, which is a matter of simply not being attracted to that person or in love with them, which a person can't help, whereas being a user is a mean thing to do to someone who is in love with you. I see that as a much worse crime.)

I have a problem with the whole "in feminism" category, it seems to me that this is true in general, not just for feminists.

Watch out for other signs!

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)

Value in finding a relationship

Its value for helping a man find a secure, loving relationship is uncertain.

The value lies in saving the man from wasted time and unwanted hurt.

Problems

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)

This article needs more than cleanup, it needs heavy cleanup, or a complete rewrite. Klosterdev 18:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Needs a complete rewrite

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)

Agreed. I dislike this article, as it feels like something one can read in a gender specific magazine :-/ Not enough references, and it uses assumptions rather than facts (or proven facts - not facts based on a few people's past history wtih the opposite gender). Kitushi 22:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I was surprised to even find an article for this. This is something you would expect in the urban dictionary not in an encyclopedia. I think the article should be removed. I am nominating it for deletion 65.11.23.219 (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

All original research

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)

crap crap crap

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)

Authenticity

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)

Agree. Yes you can edit stuff if you wish.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In my humble opinion; people who could not be friends, should never be lovers. Erotic love is beautiful when mutual and balanced, but it needs to have a solid foundation to fall back on for when there are arguments, misunderstandings, real slights or lapses in passion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.164.232 (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Pictures

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)

Possible other pictures for consideration:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• 
  Two Lovers by Marcus Stone.
• 
  He can play a flute but it won't cause romance. Painting: Eanger Irving Couse (American, 1866-1936). Lovers (Indian Love Song), 1905.

I agree with the pictures. They represent the subject better than the current pictures, which are specific to a certain popular culture reference, not the main scope of this article.

We also need to remove the links to 'Friends' article, I don't think they are related since they are on a completely different subject --Takizawa hen (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Please make the changes if you feel the urge.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think another picture that could be used would be Eponine from Les Miserables, with Marius and Cosette also in the picture. Eponine was friend zoned by Marius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.186.177 (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

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)

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)

In contrast, the unrequited love article is very good about addressing the pain on both sides of one-way romances. But poems and songs concerning unrequited love are usually from the perspective of the lover so it's kind of understandable that this article isn't any different. Now here's some food for thought: why are women vilified for "friend zoning" their would-be lovers while men are not? To really get a neutral point of view, something needs to be done to address this bias. The reality is that unrequited love is usually an unfortunate situation that happens through no fault of either side. Celera65 (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Celera65

Re-added the NPOV tag that had been removed for two reasons. First, the introduction is clearly not neutral. It describes two view points but clearly comes down on the side of one. Second, the discussion here has not been resolved. Garemoko (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this Article serious?

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)

Agree PPP (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

This article doesn't even do a good job covering straight relationships. I don't understand why women "may also become victims of the friend zone." What is with the word "may"? Why is this article so male-focused (to put it mildly)? Celera65 (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Celera65

Because no one has bothered to fix it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Friend Zone as part of "Nice Guy Syndrome"

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)

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)

Article Problems

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)

garbage

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

Related to ladder theory?

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)

Merge with 'unrequited love'

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)Tzfyr

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)

Awfully Written

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)

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)

Footnote #11 only leads to something called http://www.questia.com/ This article really doesn't belong in an encylopedia; surely there are other articles discussing "platonic relationships." 172.56.37.247 (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

the Newer York Fictional Glossary

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)

Interesting. Some truth in that.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Major problems with the new additions

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)

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)

I agree; too lengthy for what could have been a small paragraph. Λίνουξ (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

wikipedia elitistism strikes AGAIN.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

but again you use biased sources that are just feminist blogs. that is literary just a persons opinion and not varified facts. and is alowed. holding anyone that disagrees with the biased opinion to a higher standard that is nearly impossible to match when we are talking about made up terms. 50.169.33.251 (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC) but you do not alow decanting opinions based on the same kind of sources.

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)

Maybe this article needs to be permanently protected

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)

Good point. I think semi-protection might be a good idea. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

Competing definitions

I feel like there are competing definitions at play here which the article currently simply doesn't acknowledge. The article claims that the friend zone is simply about unrequited love (or whatever) between friends, but that's not consistent with the slightly more specific way I've seen the term used, and the article's definition kind of renders the feminist criticism... weird. How can it be misogynistic to simply acknowledge the concept of unrequited love between friends? It doesn't make sense.

Also I feel like there should be a third definition - I don't agree with the current definition, and I think the feminists who criticise the concept are clearly working based on a different definition, but I also don't agree with the feminists that the concept is misogynistic, and I think they've misunderstood the concept.

I plan to read up more on this subject to get a better sense of what these competing definitions might be.--greenrd (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Core of the Friend zone: Nobody walks away.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Major Ownership/POV issues with this article

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)

This is old news. The users who watch over this page are very close-minded and biased and have made it very clear on multiple occasions that only one viewpoint is to be tolerated. Any additional facts or statements, regardless if they are backed by legit resources, that do not comply to the overall biased view of this article are removed without question. It also is apparent that instead of realizing that the world is NOT black and white and there ARE in fact other views, the users here prefer to lock and protect this article because of their overall intolerance and not wanting their views to be challenged. It also appears that blogs, magazine articles and such are perfect sources to quote, whereas any other page would label this as "original research".

At the end of the day, some pages are better off being ignored and avoided. And this one (sadly) falls under that category. It is very unprofessional, biased and sexist, but nothing can be done to change that. Zerochuckdude