User talk:Repku/Archive 2

22 February 2008 to 19 December 2008

XXXenophile
Hey, I'm not familiar with this work but noticed that some of the stuff you marked as needing improvement can be sourceable from the external link nearby. If you've ever heard of it and believe that you can keep your expression straight while doing so, can you try to fix the article? --Kiz o r  17:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Genie (feral child)
Please list your specific concerns on the Talk page so we know what needs to be fixed. For An Angel (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Halloween
It was careless of me to word my statement in the article's lead so vaguely; I was drawing upon the already-sourced Religious Perspectives section and should have been more thorough. However, it gave me the opportunity to find an editor that appears to care about this article being accurate and encyclopedic. WP:BOO has made the elevation of Halloween to a good, and hopefully featured, article by Halloween in 2009 a top priority. You are cordially invited to both join the project and earnestly improve the article. I hope you do one, the other, or both!--otherlleftNo, really, other way. .. 22:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

What do do with the "proteans" article?
So, I've noticed you have some doubts about Proteans (body language). This is an oldie but a goodie. It's from the days when WP was more of a "Hitchhiker's Guide" ( revision history goes through a disambig page ), and has been pretty quiet since then. I think something more could be done with it; here's what I think:
 * No, it's not unsourced original research. The inline cites are right there, and even the idea that males will follow with a premature chat-up attempt is written in the news articles.
 * 1) The article sourced to the Daily Times of Pakistan appears to be from the London Times Online.  The London Times doesn't host the article on their website anymore, but an excerpt appears on SIRC's "in the news" page that's an external link in the article.  Perhaps both should be cited.
 * So, this isn't some POV concept that is only popular in Pakistan. The organization that conducted the study, and most of the papers that reported on it, were in Britain.
 * 1) And no, it isn't sexist.  Men and women are different.  That's the way it is.
 * 2) Most likely the Sunday Times article was chosen because it appeared to be the first one.  It's too bad the primary source doesn't appear on SIRC's site.  Ideally the facts would be sourced to the study itself, and the different news articles would be cited for phrasing and opinions and to show notability.  The other news articles looked pretty similar, and likely they are all pretty faithful to the original press release.
 * 3) Other than a number of articles that came out over the next few days, the idea of "protean" body language hasn't appeared in many other places.  Other than the inevitable blogs, it did show up in some lifestyle magazine-type sites, but that's about it.
 * 4) Perhaps it should be merged to the main article on flirting.  It could become simply a densely-sourced paragraph on a particular study, following Mead's studies in cultural differences and Watzlawick's thirty steps.  In addition, the SIRC is unusual in being a think tank that often studies flirting and it could be used to flesh out other parts of the article.
 * 5) My hopes for the flirting article would be that the "densely sourced paragraph" section would eventually absorb the "list" section.  There are a few of us who watch the article to keep the list free of nonsense, but it is a difficult topic to keep an article on.  Just like with music genres, everybody knows a little bit about the subject, and being something that everybody knows a little bit about, there's some truth to most of the good-faith edits.  But it's not easy to do an academic-quality overview of the entire subject. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)