Talk:Popularity

Dispute Over Tone and Neutrality

I feel like the section about "Strategies" that links to "The Popular Club" website is rather irrelevant/underdeveloped. Perhaps this link has been added by someone who has a vested interest in "The Popular Club," because it looks to me like somewhat of a scam website.99.8.14.20 (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture?

The picture featured in the articles doesn't really have anything, or show anything, to do with popularity. And it kind of makes me sick looking at it (Because of the swirling effect.) does anyone else agree it should be removed? Ohhaieveryone (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Developing Workplace Popularity

This article needs to be increased in two ways. First, the definition of popularity could be developed to really incorporate more than adolescents like the citation points to as the resources for the given information.

There are a few ways to develop this information though besides just better defining popularity. Popularity has a lot of side effects, especially in working environments, whether in school academic environments or workplace productivity. Popularity is developed among coworkers due to certain, sometimes identifiable, characteristics that can be explored. Additionally, some debate has been given to the idea that popularity induces social loafing vs. popularity actually leads to more productivity. Additionally, popularity isn't just about how others view you, but how you view yourself. Both of these aspects prove to be important for productivity in the office and should be explored more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kate Kupiec (talk • contribs) 00:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Confusing lead

The first line is simply vague and imparts no information whatsoever:
Popularity is a complex social phenomenon with no agreed upon definition.
Then it bizarrely ends with this:
To be popular, you must be good-looking, well-liked, fashionable, and all-together positive and kind-hearted to others.
Both are problematic opposites. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, guess I'll be changing it myself then. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Overly vague section in Gender section not supported by source

"Since boys possess competitiveness, popularity can be seen as a negative aspect for their development. Because aggression is correlated with popularity, many researchers fear the long-term effects outside of the immediate social content. Additionally, because perceived popularity is partially characterized by emulation, some worry about the development of antisocial behaviors in peers." "Seen as a negative aspect for their development" by whom? "many researchers fear the long-term effects outside of the immediate social content" which researchers and what long-term effects? "some worry about the development of antisocial behaviors in peers" Who worries? These statements are weasel words. In addition, none of them are supported by the source cited (reference 5) at least, not as far as I can tell. So, I propose that these sentences be either removed completely, or edited to be more specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sewblon (talk • contribs) 04:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)