Talk:Dating

Muslim paragraph in North America
It seems kids of random?? - There is a lot of progress in "dating"/match making in muslim sphere, from apps, to aunties, to mosque centered services, to nonprofit services, to startups like halfourdeen.com - i don't know how to be NPOV with this coming from a conservative muslim background. The other perspectives (like Pakistan) does exist explored in The Big Sick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedz 7 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I’m a Muslim woman my name is shabana 2600:4041:58EB:4C00:9447:5172:3729:6E34 (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Desirability


"A man’s desirability was enhanced in the presence of positive cues (i.e. when he was described as a “good” partner and his former relationship ended mutually). In contrast, a man’s desirability diminished in the presence of negative cues (i.e. when he was described as a “bad” partner and/or his former relationship breakup was female initiated)."

Not sure where this belongs. Benjamin (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Mmm, it's a primary source of a study just published today. Maybe give it some time for reviews and reactions, see if it gets cited by others. (I can only read the abstract, but it sounds rather duh'ish.) Schazjmd   (talk)  22:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Article desperately needs editing and rewrite
In a few words, one of the worst-written articles on Wikipedia.
 * Suggest article is split into two articles: "courtship" and "dating".
 * References before late 1800 America should be moved to courtship. Most recent text describing female independance in choosing a mate, by themselves, would be in the subset article on "dating".

Criticisms arguing for a rewrite:
 * There isn't a single citation in the entire two paragraph lede. Completely opinion.
 * A more accurate title would be "courtship" as the term "date" was not coined until 1896 in America and only as a slang term. Lazy linguistics should not hijack 300+ years of documented human courtship should not be hijacked into a newer American terms.
 * There is currently no Wikipedia article for courtship, which has a much longer history globally.
 * Rather than being written concisely, as an encyclopedic reference, this reads more like a magine opinion piece about modern dating with a kitchen-sink approach.
 * Mashing together all courtship as dating does a disservice to the reader. Courtship is a more formal process of finding a mate for marriage. American dating however tends to be a stage before marriage is discussed, which may serve to provide compansionship o sex, and once a couple decides on marriage, they are no longer "dating".
 * 2016 book by Moira Weigel, PhD contains research on the American term "dating" and "date" which can be used for the lede and other references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eturk001 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed: as several have pointed out, the term 'dating' is American in origin—certainly not in general use in Australia—rare in other English-speaking countries. The article should be titled 'courtship,' be given a through rewrite to carry that through the content and with a redirect from 'dating.' The etymology of 'dating' might be explained in another, shorter article 'Dating' and with a link to this as the main article on 'courtship'. In regard to citations in the lead ('lede' is another Americanism), see WP:LEAD particularly MOS:CITELEAD Unless there are objections, I will undertake that rename and split into 'Dating,' incorporating those details specific to dating above, and 'Courtship' which would contain the bulk of this article. Jamesmcardle(talk) 21:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There is already an article on Courtship. (It has a brief section on "dating" and links to this as the main article for that topic.) Schazjmd   (talk)  21:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, just discovered that in my attempt to rename. So, should this article append to 'Courtship' or should there by a separate article 'Human courtship.' Advice please. Jamesmcardle(talk) 21:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be to identify the portions of this article that are more properly on the topic of "courtship" and integrate those into Courtship. Then look at what's left, specifically about "dating", and determine what rewrites are needed at that point. Schazjmd   (talk)  22:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Good idea Schazjmd, though 'Courtship,' which is already big, will become massive. Would a separate article 'Courtship (Human)' work. Have other editors got an opinion on this? Jamesmcardle(talk) 22:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Having looked at Courtship, it looks like the latter half of it was just tacked on (not even mentioned in lead) and should be split off into "Courtship (animal)". Its talk page is full of concerns and criticisms as well. Schazjmd   (talk)  22:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That seems a sensible way to do it I’ll make a draft start on that approach. Jamesmcardle(talk) 00:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

No mention of Waller
Article should mention the work of Willard Waller, whose work on dating was very influential. Waller, 1937, The Rating and Dating Complex. See also. The article should also cover a variant form, "treating". 24.155.130.236 (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Waller is discussed in Going steady, but I don't see any sensible place in this article to bring it up as this article doesn't really address the history of dating/courtship patterns in the United States and Waller's research was on a narrow niche in history. Courtship doesn't really have a place for it either. History of courtship in the United States might be a good stand-alone article; it'll take some research to do it justice. Schazjmd   (talk)  16:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe Waller etc are too "meta". Not about dating as much as the history of dating scholarship. Still a window on a moment in the evolutionary history of dating American-style. There's been quite a noticeable evolution during my own lifetime. 24.155.130.236 (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)