Talk:Dating/Archive 1

Dating in Religion

Can someone add a section or explain the effects and where religions stand in terms of dating: say Christianity and Islam and Judism etc etc....It would be useful to have and the only reason I don't or can't contribute is because I know very little of this subject. For SJDKFg From a biblical perspective dates turn out badly. The classic scriptural example of dating occurs in the life of Samson (Judges 14-16). Samson pursues relationships with women without parental consent and supervision. This results in fornication or pre-marital sex, which is prohibited in the Bible. It also results in a loss of spiritual power incurred when Delilah convinces him to cut his hair. This allows the Philistines, Israel's enemies, to abuse him to the point of suicide. For the most part, in the Bible, we find good matches made when spiritual parents are involved in supervising and advising youth as they seek their life's partner. This involves prayer for God's will and respect of scriptural principles. One important scriptural principle is the matter of not placing oneself in a situation that will create a conflict between passion and principle. Many times passion will win out, and the youth's future is tarnished irreversibly. "Dates" therefore, in the strict definition, are not permitted, because this means that the two youths may find themselves in a situation where, without supervision, they are tempted to inflame physical passions before they are married. An added, principle is reliance on parents for advice in compatibliity because youth tend to overlook important differences especially spiritual when their mind and hormones are driven more by the physical than the intellectual or spiritual. If the youth submits to his parents who have his or her best interest in mind, he will be able to control his passions and immature thinking processes. This is simple wisdom. The ideal case scenario in the Bible is Genesis 24, where Abraham's servant actually picks a bride for Abraham's son Isaac. Although today, this is seen as completely archaic, and perhaps barbaric, the fact is it worked pretty well then. And, it can work well today, as long as all parties have a say and are striving to please God as well. Donald Heinz, Baptist missionary in Chile —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.82.164.66 (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Dating isn't a sin. However, fornication is one (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). 96.21.185.101 (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Dating is an American Activity

This article has been written to describe the phenomenon of dating as it occurs in the United States (and perhaps Canada). In my experience, whenever this topic comes up in conversation with an international audience (Europeans, British, Irish, Australians, to a lesser extent Asians), everybody agrees that 'dating' as portrayed in US popular culture does not occur in other parts of the world. It isn’t common that people ‘date’ more than one person at a time. This would be seen at best as not being interested in the first person, or at worst, cheating. In most other (Western/English speaking) countries people tend more to ‘go out with’ or ‘go steady with’ one partner. Things progress from ‘dating’ after a few dates (perhaps somewhere between two or five) and turn into something more exclusive than the ‘casual dating’ that seems to happen in America. If anybody is aware of any comparative studies that have been done on this then they would be worth referencing. This article should be expanded to reflect that dating as it is described here is an American phenomenon. (Hitched australian Guy - 136.153.2.2 06:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

I grew up and live in Britain and I can say that the above comment certainly does not apply to Britain. From the Australians I know, I think you underestimate the diversity of practices even in your own country. Perhaps it is because you mainly hang out with a certain type of person... who knows? Zargulon 09:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I grew up and live in Portugal, and I've always had trouble wrapping my mind around the concept of dating. Usually you get together with the woman you're interested in at school, college, work, wherever you met her, simply because it's inevitable. Or maybe you start inviting her to attend social events as part of your extended network of friends. When you finally invite a member of the opposite sex for "dinner and a movie" with you alone, it's usually pretty obvious what (or who) will come next ;)

87.103.94.89 09:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Really.. what if someone else likes her too? Or, in Portugal, do you only go for people that you are sure that no-one else would like? Zargulon 09:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Then it is her choice who to pay attention to! The above comment is correct and holds for most of Western Europe. It would be seen as duplicitous for somebody to 'date' several people at once. You go out with somebody and if this does not work well you then look around for someone else. One at a time! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.35.31.33 (talk) 22:41:15, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

What if she does does not feel she has enough information to make a choice? Would all Western European people commit based on inadequate information, rather than gain more information on which to base their decision? Zargulon 07:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You can still "gather information", as you put it, 'one at a time'.

Some people would see that strategy as more proper; some would just see it as inefficient. In every society different individuals have different approaches. It is unclear how anyone could believe otherwise unless they were very sheltered. Zargulon (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is going towards, what is more efficient/better moral. This is not relevent to this wikipage and should be done somewhere else. More interesing is the fact, that dating has a special meaning in the US and is different from the rest of the world. This should be reflected in the articel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.3.160.79 (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I was born and grew up in England and live in the US. 'Dating' in the US doesn't match anything I experienced in Britain (never used the word there - we were 'going out' with someone or 'seeing someone'). I have yet to meet any American who can clearly explain exactly what 'Dating' is. This is the first time I have seen it defined as assuming that the goal is sexual activity. Maybe this is because Americans are so prudish about sex (they blank out body parts on TV and bleep 'fuck' etc). I'd be very careful about providing a definition outside of a cultural context.

I live in the US, in New York and if someone goes out with more that one person it is considered cheeting. All4music2010 19:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)all4music2010

Lol by whom? Zargulon 01:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The difference in the definition and standards of dating varies among individuals, not geographic areas. Fuzzform 02:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur absolutely. Zargulon 13:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My two-cents, from a European and non-native English speaker perspective: To me, "dating" means two very different things: "Formalized courtship of the American type", and "doing something as a couple with an actual or potential partner". It seems to me like much of the article uses it to mean "formal courtship by means of doing some activity as a couple". My suggestion would be to have this article describe the former in much more detail, point out that it doesn't happen this way in most countries, and move the country-specific stuff to other articles or delete it. 66.208.241.170 (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's tough, conceptually, to distinguish "courtship" and "being together" -- how does one draw the line here? And in my research, I didn't come across a widespread view that people all over the world look at "formalized dating" as some kind of American invention. However, I do somewhat see American-type dating as being at one end of the spectrum, that is, along an axis of arranged marriages versus self-chosen or self-initiated activity. I think the lede paragraph reflects that there are varying senses of the term. Last, I do not think the article has too much American emphasis, but covers the world well at this point. If you wish to contribute, please research material, add references, and I suggest getting a WP account, learning the rules, etc..--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

how to act

This is written to describe protocol in dating —Preceding unsigned comment added by All4music2010 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It may actually be quite useful to include some set of guidelines here. I just went through one first date that -- well -- didn't turn out too great. Naturally, sources and citations are required regarding this material to prevent WP:OR. KyuuA4 (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Useful, maybe, but Wikipedia is not a How-To Guide. It shouldn't be written in that kind of style, but if there are any scientific studies which say anything useful about dating, they could be cited in a neutral way.—greenrd (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, indeed. Silly of my suggestion, despite being involved in video game articles. In that case, OK. Research material indeed. KyuuA4 (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This article (currently) really doesn't seem like it belongs in an encyclopedia. It reads more like a how-to. I'd like to do better, but am not sure where to start. --VW Waggin (talk) 05:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

info?

I'm surprised to not see many asking for pointers here on the talk page. 98.230.221.68 (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

missing buzzwords?

• "Rendezvous". --Jerome Potts (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong focus

The articel focuses on special and i think rather uncommen (rare) dating methods. The focus should be more on "normal" dating (i.e. what dating usually means). That dating has a different significance/meaning in the US compared to other parts in the world (Europe) is also missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.3.160.79 (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Name of article

Is there any type of dating that can't be considered an "activity"? If dating is just going to redirect here why do we need anything in brackets anyway? Richard001 (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought that dating should really be a disambiguation page with links to things like carbon dating. But you're right, "activity" is a vague and meaningless word here. Barnabypage (talk) 10:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A couple ideas

I had promised Tomwsulcer that I would make my way over here, so I've finally followed through. I have a couple of ideas for this article. First off, a lot of other articles have a "History of" section; if we can find documentation of the social concept and of what dating involved in different time periods, we could add that in. Also, it might be a good idea to include a worldwide perspective; dating in the Middle East is vastly different from Western Europe, and in some places (southern India, Hasidic Jewish communities) it's completely up to other people. There's a start by talking about the SDI, and there's mention of some of the arranged dates in the first paragraph, but that could definitely be expanded. If anyone has some specific ideas, that would be very helpful; this is a little out of my realm, so whoever is here already probably knows more than me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Great! I'm keen on fixing up this article and I think your suggestions are first rate. I'm working on other projects at the present but I'll try to get around to this one soon. If others work on this article regularly, please tell us your thoughts. If others would like to help revamp this will perhaps we can work oin a sandbox -- so people get to see and agree before we swap it in -- would this be okay? This approach worked on the revamp to the United States Congress. I think we'd keep the good stuff that's already here but expand it, add more perspectives, the history section. I'm not sure where to get good sources (particularly on patterns around the world) on this, but hopefully there's stuff out there. I'll be working on a revamp of Behavioral economics soon. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great. The article as it stands focuses pretty much on what might be called "stranger dating" so I would think a good place to start would be to see if there is any research on the frequency of the different types of dating, e.g. introductions by friends or parents, use of formalised systems like online matchmaking services, less formal advertising, dating someone you meet randomly, etc. Obviously, as mentioned, this is going to vary considerably over time and place but it would be a good indication of the areas we ought to concentrate on, and maybe help provide some structure. I'm on multiple deadlines right now but once those are out of the way I'll be happy to pitch in and lend a hand, so please do keep us updated on progress here. Barnabypage (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Great! Will do. I'm on other stuff too for the next week or so. What I can't conceive quite yet is where I'll find stuff but hopefully it will exist when I look. About the frequency of different types of dating -- cool angle. It would be great to get market research stuff about this if it exists in published form somewhere, maybe census stuff if we can tolerate a few primary sources with the secondary stuff. Totally agree about "stranger dating" being what the article is now, and that new perspectives are needed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but I suspect there's been quite a bit of study of the subject by anthropologists and sociologists. "Courtship" is probably the search term of choice! Barnabypage (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Will use, good idea, thanx!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed revamp of dating article here

I'm working on a revamp and it's still in progress, and I'm seeking feedback. It's in the sandbox User:Tomwsulcer/sandbox. Based on these talk pages, I got that more of a worldwide perspective was needed, plus to work on the angle of "courtship". I added pictures. I kept almost all of the existing material (but reworded some of it occasionally to fit better). I like the idea of the warning about external links which we should almost definitely keep. I added a history of dating section which somebody suggested. Any other suggestions? Please, if interested, click on the link above, and offer comments. I expanded the stuff about the different senses of the term dating and wondering what people think, particularly what the sense is in different countries.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been working on the revamp with BarnabyPage. I swapped in the revamp temporarily to compare drafts; the new one is much longer of course. Comparing drafts, it's hard to see that I kept almost all of the original material, but since it's been moved about (and occasionally copyedited) it may not be visible, but it's there, generally. IF people have comments or suggestions please give them now; I'll try to swap in the new version in perhaps Wednesday.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments

(moved from talk page)

This is a vast improvement on the current article and mostly very well-sourced - congratulations.Barnabypage (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You have excellent taste in writing. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll do a more detailed read and a copy-edit in due course but just a few points that jump out:Barnabypage (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think the second paragraph of the lead is much too long and very confusing - it's basically a way of saying "different terms are used in different countries, and different things are meant by dating". So why not just reduce the second para to something like: "The protocols and practices of dating, and the terms used to describe it, vary considerably from country to country" - and then let the country sections do the work? Barnabypage (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed.  Done.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• In particular, "most likely have not yet begun having sexual relations" strikes me as U.S.-centric, particularly because you go on immediately to say that in China people who are dating probably are having sex.

• Agreed.  Done--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• IMHO the British usages (I'm British BTW) going out together and hanging out are not quite equivalent to dating. The former can mean dating but can also mean being in a relatively long-standing and sexual boyfriend-girlfriend relationship although not cohabiting. The latter could imply a couple are dating casually but could also just mean they are friends.

• Fixed. (is the new wording better?)  Done--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• The term has an entirely different meaning in archaeology - not sure we need this, as the disambiguation page provides that info.

• Agreed.  Done--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• In Britain there is less familiarity with the term dating than in America - actually I think the term is probably universally understood by all but the very young or very unworldly, but that's thanks to American movies and TV! There's certainly much less use of the term but I wouldn't call it unfamiliar.Barnabypage (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• American movies & TV. Sheesh. Fixed. Done --Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Advice and strategies - not quite convinced this section is enyclopedia material. Barnabypage (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes let's think about whether to include this section. I think it's interesting but I too wonder whether it belongs. (or maybe a separate article in WP?) or maybe toned down. I don't think the stuff in this section covers it by any stretch, but it can go on and on.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to edit the draft in the sandbox as you see fit.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions

Wondering about some things...

• Format -- the country-by-country is more balanced but I'm wondering whether having each country have its own subsection is a bit much; could it lead to people from other countries insisting that their country have its own dating section too -- such as "Dating in Zimbabwe" or "Dating in Uzbekistan" etc. So I'm thinking maybe it would be better to just break up this "Dating worldwide" section into continents, making specific countries less prominent. Or is there a better solution?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Academic input -- this helped with the United States Congress revamp. I'm thinking more needs to be put in here; any suggestions of good sources? I don't have JSTOR.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The answer may be to split the sections along cultural lines rather than being rigidly geographical. For example, dating practices China and India seem to be quite different so it could be confusing/misleading to lump them together under Dating in Asia. OTOH I suspect that (for example) the situations in Libya and Jordan are rather similar although they're on different continents, so they could live together under Dating in the Arab world. Barnabypage (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. I don't remember if I put "Egypt" under Africa or the "Middle East" but it probably should go in the Middle East, or like you say "Arab world". But what I'm trying to avoid is a situation where every country wants to have its own section and the article grows needlessly long, but I don't know if this will be a problem.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to this, but I think that it should be based on what countries are particularly notable for having certain systems of dating. If we can add a "Spanish-speaking section" of sorts to South America, that would probably be sufficient as opposed to having every single country there (Brazil seems to be the only one that's notable among those countries anyways). The other sections look great, but I do have one idea. In many of these countries, there are indigenous populations with vastly different practices from the rest of the country (Japan has the Ainu, Vietnam (and increasingly the US) has the Hmong, Egypt has Coptic Christians); it'd be good to see if we can fit those in. I've snuck in a reference to the Karen (couldn't resist) in one section, and I figure these other groups are at least worth a mention. In the case of the Hmong, there was a huge kerfuffle in the US over a dating ritual that led to the poor guy spending 3 months in jail; I still have the book, and I'll dig that out if you think it'll fit. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool if there's stuff about people like the Hmong, Ainu, etc. Did you see the movie Walkabout? My sense is if you come across stuff and it's interesting to you, put it in. My concern perhaps others might agree is that the organization scheme almost entices this to be about a country-by-country comparison of dating patterns -- a competition almost -- or that encourages people to add sections on specific countries just so their country is represented, regardless whether it's interesting or informative. So far I don't think that has happened yet but it's possible that it could. I think we should start thinking in the longer term about spinning off related articles, and what we want the "main" article of to be about, and how it fits in with related articles such as "courtship" and such. It might be that the subject of dating, worldwide, deserves its own spinoff article? And maybe one about dating advice and strategies -- separate ones for men and women? I also have a highly POV-oriented piece on frank dating advice -- you can find the link by going to my user page and searching for "Dating and mating..." if interested but it's subjective stuff. Another thing, taking a step back and looking at how the article has progressed, is that there seems to be very little about what people actually do on actual dates, what they talk about, what happens, etc. The focus seems to be on the peripheral aspects of dating. I'm wondering what people think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Article tagged with OR, synth, etc

Generally when tags are placed on an article, there should be some explanation on this talk page to explain what specific things are bothersome. That way, specific problems can be addressed. But to have global tags on an article of this size and caliber, in my view, without explanation, is overkill. Please make a case for each tag with specific arguments, thank you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

A quick read-through of this article indicates that there are still significant problems with OR and SYN-- particularly for the "Dating etiquette" section which is permeated with opinion, nebulous claims and questionable sourcing. I've tagged it for Original Research because of this. Much of the content of the section seems to have been made up of bits of random claims-- possibly based on personal experience or cultural expectations-- with sometimes a single, less-than-ideal citation, such as individual's online opinion, or an advice column. Other claims extrapolates a general principal from a single incident.

To wit: the very first sentence is a quote from "Kira Cochran" a features writer for the UK Guardian, taken from a single opinion piece based on her experience "dating" at the University of California-Davis. Hardly appropriate.

And nearly every single sentence afterwards is problematic. The lede reads "...there are considerable differences between social and personal values." What does that mean? Then, a claim is made that "For example, when an activity costs money (such as a movie or a meal), the man was expected to pay, particularly on the first date, in countries like the United States." with a citation to an About.com post whose writer's credential is "more than a decade of experience using the Internet as a means to meet people." [1] (In this case, she's also Canadian, so "in countries like the United States" would be SYN, too.)

In short, this entire section needs to be nixed as unencyclopaedic. Transwiki it to WikiBooks where such material is more appropriate, such as here --HidariMigi (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The subsection Dating etiquette may not be perfect, but to claim the entire section is original research and synthesis and should therefore be deleted seems way too extreme.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The section deals with many facets that are integral to the subject of dating: where people meet; flirting; men vs women; possibility of violence; advice and strategies. This information is necessary for a person to understand the subject of dating. If they're left out, the article suffers. The article's job is to describe dating -- this section describes important parts of this subject. There are numerous well-referenced points of view from a diverse group of experts that have been added by numerous Wikipedia contributors besides myself. It is a worldwide perspective. It meets neutrality guidelines.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it perfect? Of course not; but nothing is; why not add contrasting views if you believe it is wrong. I always believe it's good to add more references -- it will make the article stronger and better. About the line '...there are considerable differences between social and personal values. I agree that I don't know what it means either. But why not try to improve it? or reference it? or reword it? Or why not tag particular lines as needing to be referenced better?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Dating is a tough subject since it varies considerably around the world. It is evolving rapidly. It is bound up with culture and values and institutions such as marriage. And we're dealing with multiple cultures around the world. The article in the current form does a fair job of describing it -- much better than a year or so ago -- but of course it could use improvement. If you're complaining that there is too much of a North American emphasis, please note that there are sizeable sections devoted to dating in places like China and India and Europe and even the Middle East. To propose nixing an entire section which most readers would see as being clearly relevant to the subject of the article -- nixing this entire section seems extremist.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you chop out these lines which are currently in the article?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Each culture has its particular patterns.
• Flirting is generally part of dating.
• Dating advisers distinguish between the first date and subsequent dates.
• There are numerous ways to meet dates, including blind dates, classified ads, dating websites, hobbies, holidays, office romance, social networking, speed dating, and others.
• Heterosexual men often seek women based on beauty and youth.
• There is disagreement about how much of a financial role men should play in dating. One view is that men should pay for the dates, particularly for the first date; a contrary view is that paying for dates is equivalent to trying to "buy your way into a woman's favor" and is counterproductive.

Do you feel these statements are "permeated with opinion" as you charge? Are they "nebulous claims"? Are they "made up from random claims"? I think they are fair mainstream neutral statements that represent what dating is all about and I see your criticisms as borderline bizarre.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If you have problems with the Kira Cochrane quote, there are ways to put it in better context. In its current form, the Cochrane quote is not suggested as if it's the only view; it is indicated to be only one opinion. And I think it is highly appropriate because it describes a mainstream position today about dating, namely, that there are ultimately "no rules" about dating. Numerous sources say essentially the same thing but with different words; Cochrane's comment captures the essence of this view. Cochrane is a respected expert at The Guardian -- a highly influential British newspaper which is an excellent source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

About the sources -- there are academics represented here, poets, and advice columnists. In an article about the geology of the moon, we'll of course need to cite astrophysicists or geologists. But this is an article on dating: the experts for this subject include advice columnists who sometimes refer to data from the PEW organization and newspaper accounts. There are academics represented here too. The standard is not on the same level as a scientific paper. Dating is more of an art not a science, more anthropological than chemical. About the man being expected to pay on the first date -- this has been a cultural pattern in many cultures (not just the US and Canada) generally although this is changing with the empowerment of women -- the About.com I agree is not the best reference but one can find numerous other references that this dating practice had been the expected norm and that it is changing too.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional thought -- thinking about this a bit more, and rereading, there is a problem which bothers me a bit about the current wording, and it's this -- somehow, there are parts of the article which slip into advice mode rather than encyclopedia mode -- in the sense that it sometimes reads like a piece presuming as if the reader is needing dating advice. And this is a problem with tone and emphasis and can be fixed with a rewrite perhaps. Is this what people are objecting to? I think the subject of what dating advisers suggest is relevant at times to the article, but Wikipedia should not of course be dispensing dating counsel. If people agree this is a problem, I may rewrite it, but there are other things occupying me so I won't get around to it for a bit. Plus I'd like to get more pictures of people actually on a date -- not easy to find slogging through the Commons.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Wowsers, you did have a lot of thoughts on the topic. Here's the core issue with the section: it's not encyclopaedic. It's an "etiquette" guide, which is specifically contrary to What Wikipedia Is Not. Such material is better served in Wikibooks -- it simply doesn't belong here.

From your comments, it seems you have a certain emotional interest in the section, which may be considered tiptoing into WP:OWN. Please understand that the goal is to improve the factual nature of an encyclopaedia, not simply to document what is believed to be useful. Any cultural discussions could be moved into their appropriate areas in the following sections. But if you wish to keep the "advice" and guide-type content, your best bet is to merge it into the Wikibook on Dating which covers similar ground. This material is actually an improvement on what's at Wikibooks, and would be a good way to grow that guide. --HidariMigi (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Your condescending and sarcastic tone (wowsers and emotional interest) may be considered as tiptoeing into uncivility. Please understand that many people have added many viewpoints to this article and have worked hard to make this article as good at it is, and that we're all trying our best to make it even better and we realize that there is always room for improvement. We're all volunteers. Please keep your comments focused on how to improve the article and avoid making personal insinuations (certain emotional interest). Overall, you need to make a better case other than sweeping generalizations about why an entire section should be nixed because of your problems with a few sentences or issues with tone. If you feel material could be useful at Wikibooks, feel free to add it; but before you single-handedly decide to nix an entire section, you'll need some kind of community consensus; based on what the community decides, I may choose to rewrite the section at a later point, but frankly it is not much fun to work in a sour atmosphere of abrasiveness.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There's little other way to describe the overly-excessive reaction to the notion of removing an inappropriate section-- for which you were the primary editor-- than "emotional." When you use language like "way too extreme, bordeline bizarre, extremist" and claim a quote from an opinion piece as being from a "respected expert" (in making quotes?) at a "highly-influential" British newspaper, one can only read this as an Appeal to emotion. I've already pointed out the specific reason the section needs to be removed: it's contrary to WP:NOT policy to include have an "etiquette" guide, ala a how-to or advice column. As specifically stated there:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook.

Wikipedia articles should not read like:

Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. If you are interested in a "how-to" type of manual, you may want to look at wikiHow, How to Wiki or our sister project, Wikibooks.

It's not necessary to have "community consensus" to remove content deemed contrary to Wikipedia -- it's enshrined in the WP:BOLD principal to make changes, even when sweeping, to improve the quality of articles. In this case, the section is as a whole, unredeemable. Some of the content might be moved into other parts of the article. I'm not, however, going to highlight every single sentence to explain why it is poorly written, based in original research or synthesis. If this section were split into its own article on "dating advice" or "etiquette," it would be deleted as non-encyclopaedic. Likewise, as a section, it should be excised. Sorry; I know you must have spent a lot of time working on it, and it's apparently stood for the last 9 months without anyone raising a fuss-- but there are far fewer editors than there once were who recognize material that shouldn't be here. Wikipedia is suffering from a dearth of quality editing, and this section is unfortunately a prime example.

In addition, on the use of images: it is perhaps unclear that images should not be included merely to be decorative, as it appears some of the ones here are. As noted at WP:IMAGE, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." Images of a downed airplane and the woods, as in this section, are purely for decoration -- and in the case of the latter, includes a caption that inserts additional OR: "First dates should be in public places, generally, according to some advisors, particularly if the couple doesn't know each other well."

Now, if you do not feel my view is in keeping with Wikipedia policy, please ask for a third opinion or bring it to the Request for Comment board. --HidariMigi (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree there are issues with this section in terms of tone and emphasis as I've suggested in earlier posts. I do not agree that the entire section is original research and should be axed. I continue to think that excising the entire section is extreme, and that it makes much more sense to flag specific lines with specific tags, to rewrite the section, to improve it, to add more or better references, and such, since in my view the subject of "dating etiquette" is essential to understanding what "dating" is. An article about the subject of "animal" would need a section on "animal behavior" -- it is part of what being an animal is. Similarly, dating etiquette is part of what dating is. It is necessary for understanding. I agree that the tone morphs into being "advice" and this needs improvement. In terms of length, the section is longer than most articles here in Wikipedia -- so in essence chopping it like deleting an article while bypassing the normal give-and-take procedures of AfD. When a section is blanked, a bot notices this and tags it as "section blanking" and others who read this article may consider such an action to be vandalism (that is, if they didn't read our discussion here -- I appreciate that we're hashing this out first so I do not think axing it at this point would be vandalism). Overall, fixing things takes work and time, takes much more time than the minimal easy-way-out of chopping it, and I urge you to consider doing that rather than chopping. I thank you for helping me become aware of problems. I may fix them at a later time or maybe others will fix them too. And I agree that there are fewer contributors here at Wikipedia (many reasons for this); perhaps you and I are some of the few ones remaining.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

About the pictures -- I realize there are differing views about this. Ideally I would have liked to have pictures of people around the world in dating situations -- couples (gay & straight, mixed race, all kinds, different places) -- but what I found was that it is difficult to comb through the vast Wikimedia picture databases to get the best ones. Overall, what I want to achieve is readership. I want people to read this article. My sense as an amateur writer is that most "readers" of Wikipedia may just read a few lines of text here and there, but that the pictures can help draw people into the subject and spur them to read more. So, that's the purpose behind the airplane-on-the-water picture -- it's unusual -- it causes a picture-only reader to wonder why is there a plane on the water in an article about dating -- and they may read the text to find out. Perhaps people could argue that the downed airplane picture appears unencyclopedic but my sense is that there is a benefit to having articles in Wikipedia be interesting, readable, informative, and that part of our task is to avoid being dull and drab. One might argue that all of the pictures here were irrelevant and one might argue that all of the pictures here were relevant (what relevance is is highly subjective, isn't it?). Or, suppose the article had no pictures whatsoever. Would anybody want to read it? See, I do not think many people would read it or if they did, they would not enjoy it as much. If you look at articles where I have done revamps, including this one, you'll notice that readership tends to go up after the revamping, such as Equal opportunity -- that readership tends to climb higher than normally. In the future, I hope to find better pictures of people on actual dates, and when I get them, I'll try to swap them in for the pictures that are less relevant. But what discourages me from contributing is trying to work in an atmosphere where everything must be 100% perfect and if it isn't, it gets chopped. Last, if you chop it, I won't revert your chop, since I just don't do that kind of stuff much any more. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Again, a section (or article) on "dating etiquette" doesn't belong in Wikipedia. It's prescriptive not descriptive -- in other words, what is here is not equivalent to "animal behavior" (ala ethology) but to a "how to guide." It may seem useful, but it's not appropriate here. Save it and incorporate the content into WikiBooks, or some Wikia site. As for the use of images, Wikipedia articles aren't improved by sprinkling in "unusual" pictures just because one is hoping for increased readers. They're improved by having accurate, neutral and concise information. Articles certainly do not have to be 100% from the git go -- but they shouldn't be used as opportunities to express personal opinions, beliefs or ideas about what makes for "interesting" reading. I'm going to go ahead and add this for a WP:THIRD to get some more eyes on the issues. --HidariMigi (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Dating and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

I'd like to begin by commending both editors for keeping this on the talk page. As to the section, there is indeed a great deal of information which is useful there in reference to the sociology of dating but there is also a great deal which is manual-like and unencyclopedic, at least in the context in which it is now presented. (A subtopic about the etiquette of dating as a subject, not as a guide might well be appropriate and useful.) I'm not sure that adding either OR or SYNTH tags to the section is, however, entirely appropriate since the rules which those tags rely upon do not really seem to be the issue here. A much more appropriate tag would be {{Importance-section}}, but since that tag does not categorize the article into any cleanup-categories to bring it to the attention of other editors (not that it might do much good; many of those categories are hugely backlogged), the question then becomes what tagging would hope to accomplish. The best advice I can give is that the editor wishing to tag the section would be much better served editing the parts of the section which he finds to be troublesome, rather than just tagging it; if he does not wish to do so, then another path would be to make a request on the talk pages of any or all of the subject-matter project pages listed at the top of this talk page for editors to come in to work on the cleanup (an additional request might also be made at the miscellaneous section of the Village Pump). If all else fails, an RFC might be proposed, though that process is more for assistance in dispute resolution than it is in recruiting editing help. It would be well to remember that there is no deadline. Articles which have partially-defective material such as is included in this section eventually get cleaned up in the due course of events; tagging or asking for help can move that process along more quickly, but it will almost certainly eventually happen without that. Finally, let me note that the use of 3O and other dispute resolution processes are more for just that, settling disputes, than for attracting editors; the suggestions I made a few lines back are much more suited to that purpose than is dispute resolution.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 18:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Generally I agree with the sentiments of TransporterMan. Thank you for your review. And thanks to HidariMigi for pointing out problems. I will try to get around to revamping this section along the lines suggested but it may be a few months from now, so I urge others, if interested, to have a go at fixing it, or removing it, whatever is felt may be best to improve it. I've been neglecting other writing projects which I need to focus on.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

This article as has questionably relevant/factual pictures and captions. "Indian weddings are colorful ceremonies." "Romeo and Juliet dated, but it didn't end prettily." A diagram of womens panties. There's probably more. Somebody who cares should fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.210.250 (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. --Robertbayer (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm somewhat agreeing but what I ask is that if people wish to delete pictures, they replace them with better pictures. By all means fix the captions. Please realize it takes time to hunt through Wikimedia Commons for relevant, acceptable pictures. Here's the link: Wikimedia Commons. And long sections of nothing but text is visually unappealing (imo). What I wanted was pictures of young people from different countries on dates but there wasn't much -- maybe I wasn't searching using the right keywords. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Heteronormative

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals are virtually invisible in this article. While some of the article does use some gender-neutral language, much of the underlying premises of the article are based on heterosexual couples. For example, most of the quotes and explanations of etiquette are premised on the exclusive existence of heterosexual couples (ex. most of the quotes use phrases such as "the woman" and "the man"). Moreover, there is not a single picture of a same-sex couple, whereas there are four pictures of heterosexual couples. --Robertbayer (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

meaning/origin of the term "dating"

Something that this article lacks, right at the beginning, is an explanation of what the word "dating" actually means, and where it comes from. As I understand it (being from a non-American, English-speaking culture, where the term isn't prevalent, but is of course known), a "date" necessarily involves some kind of "appointment", defined by time, place, and activity - for example, seeing a movie together this Friday night, or the beach on Sunday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.128.26.169 (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

As well as when it began to have its current meaning. I have a letter (ca 1945) talking about a 'date' to a football game, and it's not the current meaning of the word (I hope - if it is, the writer was cheating on his fiancée..) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.232.121 (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

These are good questions. I urge people to add this information to the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Julie Andrews as Mary Poppins/dating

With all due respect, the image of Julie Andrews as Mary Poppins doesn't show any additional humor of the anecdote referenced.

The humor was in courting Julie Andrews in real life, using references to her fictional characters. Her fictional characters were not humorous in and of themselves to dating.

Having Mary Poppins' image there makes about as much sense as having a logo for the University of Michigan in the dating article, because research from Michigan was mentioned in the article.

shrugs

99.27.179.217 (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I somewhat see your concern but still I disagree overall, and I think Julie Andrews' image is appropriate and relevant in this instance. It was an instance in which humor was used by Blake Edwards to court her in a dating setting -- it worked (the couple got together). Your comment that the "fictional characters were not humorous in and of themselves" is right (in and of itself) but in every case where an actor plays a role, there is a rub-off effect as you know -- that is, it's hard to separate images of Mary Poppins from images of Julie Andrews -- the images blur in the public mind. In this case, what Blake Edwards was referring to in his joke was essentially that Julie Andrews' purer-than-pure image in the public mind (created by her playing "pure" characters like Mary Poppins) was unrealistic; he said it with a beautiful joke which Andrews herself found amusing. Edwards was poking fun at this image in courting Andrews. It was dating humor. And it illustrates the point that humor can be a powerful way to woo a potential partner, and therefore in my view it is relevant to the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be remiss in ignoring the bias that I have, namely that there's some articles on wikipedia that have too many frivolous/irrelevant pictures, especially the military and comic themed pages I frequent. Still, I don't think my opinion about the Poppins picture is that biased. Another example of what I would consider a frivolous picture is that picture of Shu Qi. Why is she there? Wouldn't it be more pertinent to have a picture of the controversial game show instead of some random person. 99.27.179.217 (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Rather than criticizing what we've got -- and the article is fairly good so far -- why not try to improve it further? Go to Wikipedia Commons and sift through pictures -- try to find ones you like better, that illustrate these points better, that help readers understand what dating is all about, that attract readers rather than repel them (such as having long boring swaths of text-only); and add in good pictures. It's easy being a finger-wagger, harder being a contributor -- there are places for both sorts of activity here at Wikipedia but it is my belief that we need more contributors. I struggled to find pictures of couples dating -- there are pictures in the database but they can be difficult to find (since they're not labeled as "dating" per se). Still, why not take that tack? And why not open a free user account too, with a user page, user talk page, and handle, and learn Wikipedia's conventions (eg indenting each new comment, etc)? --Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

German-speaking countries

About the part about German-speaking countries: Of cause you can meet people without any "Oktoberfest" or "Love Parade", people meet at (birthday) parties, in bars and discos, in sport/music/society/... clubs, at work/school/university or maybe just on the bus. The word "rendezvous" is a bit old fashioned (but still used sometimes), "tête-à-tête" instead can't be used without irony at all. Influenced by US-movies most young people will call it a "date" or just use the German word "Verabredung" (or "Einladung" for an invitation to dinner/cinema/...). "Verabredung" and "Einladung" are also the common words used by older people. Greetings --StefanWesthoff (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not amend the paragraph on German-speaking countries along the lines you suggest?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Gary Robinson.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Gary Robinson.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

French term

I learned in university that there's no direct translation for the term "dating" in French. I don't have a proper citation for this, but it is something that could be mentioned in the article eventually. Shawnc (talk) 06:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps our best bet is to wait for somebody fluent in both languages to weigh in on this. But I doubt there's any country in the world where what we think of as dating doesn't exist even though they may not call it "dating" as such (there is a French word datant). The issue of translations of specific terms is fuzzy and subject to interpretation. I think we're better off focusing on dating as a social behavior -- what people do -- what happens -- with less focus on the terminology or translations.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not related to France, but it should be pointed out that dating and courtship are not synonyms. Dating is one form of courtship, but dating is not practiced everywhere, especially in the past, outside of western countries. "In cultures where dating is not prevalent, arranged marriages perform a similar function—bringing together people who might otherwise not have met." (Arranged marriages). An example: "Dating in the Western sense of the word wasn't really practiced in Japan until 1950s. Before that boys and girls were kept separate in school and had few opportunities to socialize. Marriages were mostly arranged."[2] Shawnc (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. You might consider adding this information where you see fit. The sense of what constitutes dating varies considerably by culture and by time. And I think you're right that it's essentially an institution tied to modern times and to western-style countries; it evolves with changing social patterns the same way that marriage does. And the sense of what constitutes dating vs courtship, yes perhaps this should be brought out more. This article needs to be updated.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

File:South Indian wedding ceremony.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:South Indian wedding ceremony.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing all the dating advice

Wikipedia isn't a dating guide. This article has lots of totally random dating advice that has no place in an encyclopedia article. Like advising women to hug their knees "to mimic buttock imagery"(?!!) and suggesting that "dating at a movie is advisable only if followed by a drink afterwards." Just because some newspaper columnist gives some opinions on dating, doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia. I really think the entire advice section should be deleted from the article. Kaldari (talk) 05:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, others have pointed this out. You are right. You might wish to read the discussion above first. I have been planning to redo entire sections but haven't gotten around to it. And remember that some of the material is still valid and good, but needs to be couched in the right encyclopedic language. The best way to improve it in my view is to get more information, perhaps from anthropology or sociology texts or elsewhere, and redo the tone.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It also appears to be the straight peoples guide to dating. There is one small section about gay men, but little else. SarahStierch (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

:) Yes, perhaps true, but the whole idea of not having any guides is I think applicable, and it takes work to re-do this, and I encourage people to work on it if they feel so inclined; I have other stuff on my plate at the moment.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done revamped the etiquette section, removing or recasting the dating advice so it is less advice-y. Hopefully better.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a huge improvement. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It still (as always) could use further improving.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

File:New York Dating Coach Chris Luna, from Craft of Charisma, at the Standard Hotel in New York City 2.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:New York Dating Coach Chris Luna, from Craft of Charisma, at the Standard Hotel in New York City 2.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:New York Dating Coach Chris Luna, from Craft of Charisma, at the Standard Hotel in New York City 2.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Article needs a revamp?

Does anyone else think probably the best thing would be to rewrite from the ground up? This is terrible uninformative and misleading at present. Turkeyphan^t 17:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Wondering what you find uninformative and misleading, and why?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"Last century" --> a term to avoid

The term "last century" has been used on this page.

I think that the terms like "this century", "our century", "last century" and similar should be avoided in written material, at least a written material which is deprived of any contextual information which would clearly indicate in which century it was written.

The article has probably been written in the 21st century and, therefore, the term "last century" should be probably understood as "20th century". However, this term might have been simply copied from a book written in the 20th century without rethinking its meaning. (We don't have a way to verify if something like that did or did not happen.)

88.207.1.16 (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Damir Dukic

Good catch. Fixed it.  Done--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing about "Operation Match"

The early computer dating service "Operation Match" opened in the Boston area in 1965. It is well-linked by Bing at least. --71.174.166.180 (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Additions in the "Technology" section of this article

Recent additions about the use of smartphones, texting and such with dating -- there is some good information, particularly a good reference from the NY Times article, but much of the rest of these new additions strike me as original research almost to the point of an essay, going beyond the topic of this article, ie Dating, to discuss how relationships in general are changing because of new communication technologies -- an example of too much weight being given to a part of the article. The reference to the abstract is an example of a primary source and should be removed. My suggestion is to please trim the additions down substantially or else the new additions should be reverted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

how was the day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.205.56 (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC) In our contemporary time, technology has change the way people find a future husband or wife. For example, in today's height's technology (the internet) and social media some people choose to meet online rather than to meet someone through a friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piramide100? (talk • contribs) 16:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Evaluation

Second paragraph makes no sense. Danielle Crittenden agrees with herself?

Notes

The Notes section is garbled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.255.22 (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Tone

The tone of this article makes it very hard for me to take seriously.

"In The Guardian, British writer Hannah Pool was cynical about being set up on a blind date; she was told "basically he's you but in a male form" by the mutual friend. She googled her blind date's name along with the words "wife" and "girlfriend" and "partner" and "boyfriend" to see whether her prospective date was in any kind of relationship or gay; he wasn't any of these things. She met him for coffee in London and she now lives with him, sharing a home and business. When friends introduce two people who do not know each other, it is often called a blind date."

Just one example. This is not an acceptable style of writing for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.177.24 (talk) 05:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Please explain further what is meant by your sense of "appropriate". The example above, regarding Hannah Pool, was about a blind date, which is clearly relevant to the article's subject, which is dating, and how she went about trying to remove some of the 'blindness' (ie googling her date's name ahead of time). I think the tone is appropriate to the subject, and appropriate to Wikipedia, and the article is well-referenced and covers the subject well, but of course could always use further improvement. Would you prefer the entire article to have an academic-sounding tone (eg, "Studies show conclusively, based on double-blind comparative analysis, that first dates tend to last 2.3 hours, on average") ? A research-y tone (eg, "X% of women on a first date received a followup contact Y days later, with Z% probability of it turning into a second date") The tone of the current Wikipedia article, in many respects, picks up the same tone as used by newspapers and magazines, which treats the subject as a human-interest type story, a study of social customs and behaviors, which it is, often with anecdotes and mini-stories, which works in this context. My sense is trying to make this article too clinical, by examining dating with some kind of scientific microscope, is headed in the wrong direction. In many respects, dating is a light topic, needing a light touch, mirroring how dating in real life should happen, that is, a person on a date, taking the date too seriously, won't do it properly. Dating, as well as studying dating, or writing about dating here in Wikipedia, should not be done too seriously, if you catch my drift -- seriousness and dating are antithetical, mutually exclusive almost, in the sense that trying to be too serious about dating gets it wrong, while treating the light topic of dating in a light way, gets it right, if that makes any sense.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

"Dating" as euphemism for "sleeping with"

The article accurately describes the phenomenon known as "dating". But as I am sure most readers are aware, at some point in history, at least in coverage of celebrities, the term "dating" morphed into a synonym for "sleeping with": a story about a celebrity previously thought to be heterosexual but who now reveals that he or she is actually bisexual will be worded : "X admitted that (s)he has dated several [members of the same sex as the celebrity] in the past". Or an article about a celebrity's recent love life will say "After being in a relationship with so-and-so for ten years, Y has now been dating Z for the last six months".

Can anyone expand on this change in the sense of the term? Partnerfrance (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Considering "sleeping with" as used here is moreover a euphemism for "having sex with," any clarification should be more precise, and not merely imprecise but in a different way.2600:1:D338:BB5E:AB07:4362:C8C1:A013 (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep

Dating. Am I right?

In many cultures around the world, dating is a serious family matter, which is based on its culture and social values; where parents believe in arranged married or at least to make sure that their children get marry at certain age.  In contrast in the United States, individualism theory plays an important role in how singles value and date others.  In America, whom to date is mainly a personal decision rather than parents’ influences. Parents expect their children to get married though, but is their son or daughter’s whom choice when and who they want to marry.  Middle class tend to priorities other goals before consider dating someone for a serious relationship, such as: to get a college degree, get a job, and then date their future spouse and settle down.  Before the internet era, some American would meet their prospective husband or wife in college, through friends, at work, etc.  But now is very popular that singles are trying to meet people on websites and from cell phone applications.  Dating people online can create other social issues.  For example, some individuals might get in the illusion that there are so many singles out there looking for a mate, therefore they can get in to a bad habit of constantly meeting new people, because they have so many choices, might think that would meet the perfect someone when is real life there is no perfect person. http://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/Rosenfeld_How_Couples_Meet_Working_Paper.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piramide100? (talk • contribs) 02:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)