Talk:Interpersonal relationship.html



WikiProject Sociology      (Rated Start-Class)

Sociology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

WikiProject Anthropology      (Rated Start-Class)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

==Removed Star Trek erence from article==

Characterising his relationship with friends as based on a dependency that stems from a sense of familiarity that is caused by frequent contacts, physical and visual, the android Lt. Commander Data of Star Trek: The Next Generation explained that his "mental pathways have become accustomed to your sensory input patterns."

Of all humanity's literature on personal relationships (which covers the overwhelming majority of humanity's literature) we have to quote Star Trek?

More seriously, surely there is a better way to make this point. --Robert Merkel 05:22 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Friendship

This page- which "Friendship" redirects to- contains some relevant info, but seems to discuss romantic relationships more than it does normal friendship; there's nothing here on the formation of friendship, what defines a friendship, the typical emotional dependance of humans on friendship, how friendships drift apart, and so forth. I'm sure Wikipedia can do better than this in an issue so fundamental to society. (And I'd try to do something myself, but 1. I'm not sure on whether to edit "Friendship" into its own article or edit this one, and 2. I'm... tired... X_X so this may have to wait a bit.) --AceMyth 01:50, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

About normal friendship: there is some relevant material in Affection, however there is a note that it is really out-of-date.

moving

'interpersonal relationship' is probably slightly more correct. (Most psychology textbooks and references tend to use 'interpersonal'. plus interpersonal is more exact than 'personal', which merely implies people are involved) Anyone oppose moving this article to 'Interpersonal relationship'?

--Johnkarp 11:10, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think friendship deserves its own page. Letting it be a sub-category under "Interpersonal relationship" dont seems right. But that would require that someone actually wrote something about friendship, of course. Kasper Hviid 11:23, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

friendship

i think there should be an article on friendship too, but in any case i find it frustrating that friendship is underlined, suggesting that it's a link, when all that happens is you get directed back!

Added expansion notice

This friendship situation needs serious help. I've placed an expansion notice on the page. - RedWordSmith 18:32, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Lover

"Lover is a village in Wiltshire between Fordingbridge and Whiteparish."

Is this really necessary? It's not even like "Lover" redirects to here. Maybe a disambiguation page at Lover is necessary. sars 10:16, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Needs Attention flag

I have done some work on this page as invited by the "Attention" note above it because I believe this is an important entry that links many other entries. I would hope for continued revision of this entry to hone it to precision. A sociologist's perspective would be helpful. drboisclair 23:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Improvement drive

Flirting is currently listed to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. You can vote to support the article if you are interested.--Fenice 09:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Removal of "Attention" flag

This article seems to have been revised enough to have the "Attention" flag removed. Perhaps an administrative editor could remove it if she or he thought that it would be appropriate. drboisclair 02:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Is the stub tag on this article still necessary as well? It seems to be quite long and in-depth. Toofishes 17:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Definition of friendship

According to the article friendship, "consists of mutual love, trust, respect, and unconditional acceptance." This seems to assert far more than is normally meant by the term, and I think it needs a rewrite. It is used all the time for people who simply like to socialise together. In fact I would say that is the primary meaning. Sumahoy 04:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The Christmas Effect

The recent insertion of The Christmas Effect is not a complete sentence, nor does it link to an existing article with more information. Since it does not actually say anything about a Christmas Effect, I will remove it from the article. The Rod 17:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The word relationship

I do rather feel that this article should state then summerise the meaning of the word relationship, as in the relationship between two "things", mainly two people. As in a teacher student relationship, marital relationship, friendship, intimate, coworkership and all that. It should seperate relationship as in a "couple" (intimate) and state it firmly and clearly as interpersonal (it just so happens that intimate also comes under it too). I'm not sure if this makes sense, but it is summat that it should do. It should also clearly say the names for it, like if you say the relationship you had with your teacher, and they look at you funny, and you explain "Oh, I meant interpsonal relationship" or summat.202.191.106.170 18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC) (JayKeaton)

Totallydisputed template

Where are the references for this article? Who wrote this content? Joie de Vivre 21:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the "totally disputed template" as I am not familiar with wikipedia content management system. I have begun to add content to this article with references and I am identifying myself with signature. Does this address JdeV's some of concerns. I would appreciate comment.--Ziji 01:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The article still is made up of original research? Who came up with the "stages of formation", for instance? This article is entirely unsourced. Joie de Vivre 16:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why hasn't anyone deleted this yet?--

Because it's worth fixing and read WP:DP. Does the unsigned above want to help to FIXIT?--Ziji 03:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Stages of formation section

This seems to be a series of notes about adult relationship based on an unspecified model, which is not referenced and so one has no means of placing it in context. I am proposing to completely delete the contents of the section and start again. To thoroughly explore the stages of formation one would have to begin in the Pre- and perinatal psychology matrix of relationships with the parents and social milieux. I think that developmental psychology may be beyond the scope of this section but it is not impossible to refer this and related articles within wikipedia to convey the enormity of the subject: 'formation of interpersonal reationships'. What do you think? —--Ziji 05:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ziji (talk • contribs) 01:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC).--Ziji 05:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Fix needed

Search for a string "((fact}}" in the article and please fix it and then delete this comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.8.126.240 (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite a statement

Quoting the article: "Meaning itself derives from interpersonal interactions." If you mean human to human, then what if somehow a human baby could be raised by wolves or whatever, never contacting a human being. His/her mind would probably create meanings. He would communicate with other creatures, etc. Lisa the Sociopath 21:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Improvement of introduction paragraph

I came onto this page and started reading and felt lost within moments. The simple definition of "Interpersonal Relationships" was left out. Not everyone is proficient in English enough to fully comprehend that the meaning of those two words actually makes up a bigger meaning. I recommend at least a starting sentance stating what it is. In fact, I'm still not sure enough on what an "interpersonal relationship" is to even attempt to define it here. Note; I read the first two or so paragraphs before giving up. It also reads poorly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.40.221 (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I just revamped the introduction, along with much of the rest of the article. Please comment or edit further as you see fit. I'm going to make an effort to have all substantial statements referenced in this article, so please don't add anything without a reference. I'm still not entirely sure on the definition though. Should we define relationships as being made of "two or more" people, or just two people? Most of the research focuses on pairs of individuals. If we consider three friends, is this a single "relationship" or three overlapping relationships? And if a relationship includes more than two people, what's to distinguish it from a "group"? Surely clubs and other groups of people are sets of multiple relationships, not just one big one. --Jcbutler (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)