From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Last century" --> a term to avoid[edit]

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

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

Nothing about "Operation Match"[edit]

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

Additions in the "Technology" section of this article[edit]

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 (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? (talkcontribs) 16:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


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


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


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 (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"[edit]

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)


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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piramide100? (talkcontribs) 02:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Double dates[edit]

Double date redirects here, but the article doesn't mention them. Someone should explain what the purpose of them is. Jim Michael (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. Jim Michael, thank you for volunteering to add this section.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I know we try to discourage external links, but I came upon a YouTube video which is highly instructive about online dating. Check out this video. It's not selling anything that I can see, just it's a smart approach to "hacking" online dating, using smarts and math and figuring out what one wants. I think it belongs in an external links section.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)