This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Interpersonal attraction article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
![]() | This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following sources:
|
![]() | Merges | ||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Jmutt18,
ELA75808,
Cwilsonbahun,
Madalineeck,
CinderellaAriel12,
ChosephChocifer,
Bluejay94,
Jschmaus,
Babybluejay,
For.my.information,
Always learning1,
Belizwill354,
MattSeikel,
Ajc01036,
Psychologysydney,
Has84474,
Mnpackfn85,
ShortKort,
Jwilson808xo,
Human Capital 2016,
Seyer Lat,
Khm23183,
Ihatesnow402,
Begira12,
Jay4312,
Dreuu.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Better clarify/correct the following: "Interpersonal attraction is related to how much we like, smell, dislike, or hate someone." H15 H16N355 | K1N6 M3 (T47K) 22:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed that these links are kind of stupid? Ladder theory? Is that mainstream? It smacks of original research. Kultur 01:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's definitely some POV in that Ladder Theory article. A focal point of the theory revolves around so-called "nice guys" attempting to garner a female's attraction by appealing to her through supplicating gestures, typically through which the man appears weak, becomes a doormat, and is likely fated to stay "just friends" with the woman forever.
Reword or destroy. -- Knightskye 04:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I just came across this article for the first time. While it is very interesting, a lot of it is extremely clumsily written. I have come across several sentences that do not scan grammatically, and in some cases the intended meaning is not even clear as a direct result of the faulty sentence structure. Also there are some references to concepts that have not previously been defined or introduced - for example 'the result' where no experiment has been introduced, and there is too much jargon that is left undefined either in this page or in another. I think this article needs some major reworking to make it read in proper English. Philip Graves ( talk) 14:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
A dose of grammar and minimal proof reading would not go amiss in this article. 212.159.59.5 ( talk) 17:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I didn't take the liberty of actually editing this out, but the book referenced in the section "Increased female attraction to men in relationships" (reference 11) cannot be found anywhere online, or even on the publisher's website. (Johnson, Claudia. Names and Your Future. Random Publishing House, 2010.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedWasp ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, my comment has nothing to do with a strange reference, but I really don't know how to create a whole new subject line. Interpersonal attraction means an attraction between two people. It says it ranges from friendship to romantic relationships. Should sexual attraction be included? I know there is an article completely devoted to it, but sexual attraction is part of interpersonal attraction. Or is sexual attraction and romantic attraction the same thing? -Ryan (RyanDanielst@gmail.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.176.232 ( talk) 19:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The page Chemistry (relationship) should be merged into this page as it duplicates the topic. This page should remain as it is more detailed and has been here longer. The other page seems to be better referenced with footnotes but is mostly written in quotes. Moving or replacing some of that content here might improve the problems with lack of footnotes and possible original research. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 14:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
i do not think it should be merged. The two are in no way the same thing, and simply because one does not get viewed as often s not sufficient reasoning to get rid of it. Also, just becuase it is mostly quotes does not mean that the information is not there. The point of an article is to give the information, and regardless of how it is presented, the information is still being presented. i think that more information should be added to chemistry is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.57.120 ( talk) 22:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Why is that picture included? Doesn't seem necessary. And it takes up a lot of real estate. And although it appears in the measurement section it has nothing to do with measurement. My vote is to remove it. -- 1000Faces ( talk) 17:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi all! I propose to merge Attractiveness into this article, Interpersonal attraction. Both refer to the same subject, attraction between people. The attractiveness article does also refer to a handful of other concepts, but those (to me) seem to be due to poor writing. Regarding the direction of the merge, "attractiveness" could also refer types of attraction so it isn't appropriately differentiated, whereas the name "interpersonal attraction" is specific to the psychology/sociology concept. Also, while we're here anyway, if anyone has any opinions on the merge proposal from 2012, comment on it because we might as well wrap that up too. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 11:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Attractive and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 19#Attractive until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
06:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
This article is not very generous to asexual perspective which could give some more informative substance to it. Pingijno ( talk) 14:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Interpersonal attraction article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
![]() | This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following sources:
|
![]() | Merges | ||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Jmutt18,
ELA75808,
Cwilsonbahun,
Madalineeck,
CinderellaAriel12,
ChosephChocifer,
Bluejay94,
Jschmaus,
Babybluejay,
For.my.information,
Always learning1,
Belizwill354,
MattSeikel,
Ajc01036,
Psychologysydney,
Has84474,
Mnpackfn85,
ShortKort,
Jwilson808xo,
Human Capital 2016,
Seyer Lat,
Khm23183,
Ihatesnow402,
Begira12,
Jay4312,
Dreuu.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Better clarify/correct the following: "Interpersonal attraction is related to how much we like, smell, dislike, or hate someone." H15 H16N355 | K1N6 M3 (T47K) 22:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed that these links are kind of stupid? Ladder theory? Is that mainstream? It smacks of original research. Kultur 01:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's definitely some POV in that Ladder Theory article. A focal point of the theory revolves around so-called "nice guys" attempting to garner a female's attraction by appealing to her through supplicating gestures, typically through which the man appears weak, becomes a doormat, and is likely fated to stay "just friends" with the woman forever.
Reword or destroy. -- Knightskye 04:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I just came across this article for the first time. While it is very interesting, a lot of it is extremely clumsily written. I have come across several sentences that do not scan grammatically, and in some cases the intended meaning is not even clear as a direct result of the faulty sentence structure. Also there are some references to concepts that have not previously been defined or introduced - for example 'the result' where no experiment has been introduced, and there is too much jargon that is left undefined either in this page or in another. I think this article needs some major reworking to make it read in proper English. Philip Graves ( talk) 14:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
A dose of grammar and minimal proof reading would not go amiss in this article. 212.159.59.5 ( talk) 17:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I didn't take the liberty of actually editing this out, but the book referenced in the section "Increased female attraction to men in relationships" (reference 11) cannot be found anywhere online, or even on the publisher's website. (Johnson, Claudia. Names and Your Future. Random Publishing House, 2010.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedWasp ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, my comment has nothing to do with a strange reference, but I really don't know how to create a whole new subject line. Interpersonal attraction means an attraction between two people. It says it ranges from friendship to romantic relationships. Should sexual attraction be included? I know there is an article completely devoted to it, but sexual attraction is part of interpersonal attraction. Or is sexual attraction and romantic attraction the same thing? -Ryan (RyanDanielst@gmail.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.176.232 ( talk) 19:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The page Chemistry (relationship) should be merged into this page as it duplicates the topic. This page should remain as it is more detailed and has been here longer. The other page seems to be better referenced with footnotes but is mostly written in quotes. Moving or replacing some of that content here might improve the problems with lack of footnotes and possible original research. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 14:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
i do not think it should be merged. The two are in no way the same thing, and simply because one does not get viewed as often s not sufficient reasoning to get rid of it. Also, just becuase it is mostly quotes does not mean that the information is not there. The point of an article is to give the information, and regardless of how it is presented, the information is still being presented. i think that more information should be added to chemistry is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.57.120 ( talk) 22:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Why is that picture included? Doesn't seem necessary. And it takes up a lot of real estate. And although it appears in the measurement section it has nothing to do with measurement. My vote is to remove it. -- 1000Faces ( talk) 17:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi all! I propose to merge Attractiveness into this article, Interpersonal attraction. Both refer to the same subject, attraction between people. The attractiveness article does also refer to a handful of other concepts, but those (to me) seem to be due to poor writing. Regarding the direction of the merge, "attractiveness" could also refer types of attraction so it isn't appropriately differentiated, whereas the name "interpersonal attraction" is specific to the psychology/sociology concept. Also, while we're here anyway, if anyone has any opinions on the merge proposal from 2012, comment on it because we might as well wrap that up too. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 11:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Attractive and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 19#Attractive until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
06:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
This article is not very generous to asexual perspective which could give some more informative substance to it. Pingijno ( talk) 14:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)