Talk:Interpersonal relationship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2018 and 2 May 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Leibnesc.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mckeandrp.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Star Trek reference from article[edit]

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)

This article does seem to be lacking in sufficient, reliable sources. The overall article would be much improved if more applicable sources were added. That is a weakness I found throughout the article.--Vdavies16 (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Friendship[edit]

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[edit]

'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[edit]

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!

Any female call 9723248876 Ved1592 (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added expansion notice[edit]

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

Adding information to the Neurobiology of interpersonal connections section. claudialoyola11 01:24, Apr 10, 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 05:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

common law[edit]

Need a section on common-law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.112.22 (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lover[edit]

"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[edit]

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)[reply]

Improvement drive[edit]

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)[reply]

Removal of "Attention" flag[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Definition of friendship[edit]

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)[reply]

The Christmas Effect[edit]

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)[reply]

The word relationship[edit]

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)[reply]

Totallydisputed template[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Stages of formation section[edit]

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)[reply]

Fix needed[edit]

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)[reply]

Quite a statement[edit]

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)[reply]

Improvement of introduction paragraph[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Capitalisation[edit]

quote: People often turn to others to share their good news (termed “capitalization”).

I miss an elaboration on the modern capitalisation of IR in the pecuniary sense... (eg. Facebook, phone companies, dating services etc.) 87.51.147.41 (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

image[edit]

This article just needs an image of a family tree with all names of the seperate relationships in it. Could someone please either make it or tag the article with the correct tag? Joeytje50 (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Define[edit]

Interpersonal relationships are not defined in this article. Please make this a proper article.

Interpersonal conflict[edit]

Interpersonal conflict points here, yet it is not addressed at all in this article. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

satisfied[edit]

Hi everyboddy. I m men. Who female needs satisfied with me . 9723248876 Ved1592 (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Sources for Information Regarding Pathological Relationships[edit]

  • Abusive

Dutton, D. G. (2006). The abusive personality: Violence and control in intimate relationships. Guilford Press.

Strube, M. J. (1988). The decision to leave an abusive relationship: empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psychological bulletin, 104(2), 236.

Emery, R. E., & Laumann-Billings, L. (1998). An overview of the nature, causes, and consequences of abusive family relationships: Toward differentiating maltreatment and violence. American Psychologist, 53(2), 121.

Herbert, T. B., Silver, R. C., & Ellard, J. H. (1991). Coping with an abusive relationship: I. How and why do women stay?. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 311-325.

  • Codependent

Granello, D. H., & Beamish, P. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing codependency in women: A sense of connectedness, not pathology. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 20(4), 344.

Cowan, G., & Warren, L. W. (1994). Codependency and gender-stereotyped traits. Sex roles, 30(9-10), 631-645.

Cowan, G., Bommersbach, M., & Curtis, S. R. (1995). Codependency, loss of self, and power. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19(2), 221-236.

  • Narcissistic

Brodey, W. M. (1961). The family as the unit of study and treatment: Workshop, 1959: 3. Image, object and narcissistic relationships. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 31(1), 69.

Brunell, A. B., & Campbell, W. K. (2011). Narcissism and romantic relationships: Understanding the paradox.

Campbell, W. K. (1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction. Journal of personality and social psychology, 77(6), 1254.

wow, what a pile of nonsense[edit]

I blanked almost the entire Flourishing, budding, blooming, blossoming relationships ==> Romantic love subsection, with multiple motives.

  1. There's a previous subsection, namely Types ==> Intimate relationships ==> Romance (love).
  2. If it's already covered in Romance (love), then there is no good reason to repeat it here in any depth. If it's NOT covered in Romance (love), then it's not notable enough to cover it here in any depth.
  3. Given the article's title, this is an undue weight problem, and likely synthesis a well for shoehorning (coat-racking?) it in here.

I am interested in reading any rationalization that might be offered to preserve the content.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, to hell with it. I have now cut the ENTIRE bizarrely-named Flourishing, budding, blooming, blossoming relationships section. It made its intention clear with the opening statement

Positive psychologists use the various terms "flourishing, budding, blooming, blossoming relationships"

and after running about like a caffeinated gopher dodging a hawk fetches up with

Positive psychologists argue that

so I call it marketing if not outright propaganda, amons its sins a blatant vio of WP:SOAP. Seeing as there's plenty of room in main article Positive psychology (presently 50K), the 29K of logorrhea can go there.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request of Help[edit]

I was looking for some small help. I created an article Valentine's Day in Pakistan. While article subject orientation is related to Romance relationships and festival, but in some parts of the world it touches serious issues like violations of women's rights & Human rights At this stage looking for help in better chronological order within article, and continued copy edit help in times to come.

Thanks in advance.

Bookku (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SOCIAL MEDIA[edit]

Maybe add some more research behind the effects of social media and relationships? The only platform example that was discussed was FaceBook. There is now Snapchat and Instagram and other social media outlets that are even more relevant. Mmallen3 (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add a new section[edit]

Jessie0131 (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC) I think it will be a good idea to put a new section that discusses the study of interpersonal relationships from different perspectives of social sciences.[reply]

Could you put your content in the body of the text? The lead is strictly for summarizing pre-existing information in the body. Also make sure you're using more than one source, don't rely just one, especially not for four paragraphs. You also can still improve the tone quite a lot, this reads like a blog in places as opposed to an encyclopedic entry. Sentences like "Gossip is also detrimental for interpersonal relationships because some people might think others’ sensitive things are interesting to talk about, but they don’t understand how powerful the gossip can be. People could twist the fact of what happened and turn them into different stories. The person or people who have been gossiped about might be tortured mentally because of the gossip" don't really belong on Wikipedia.--Megaman en m (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

four ways in which ones acceptance of resonsibility can influence effective communication[edit]

1. family 

   when takeing responsibility at home ur the only on who support and provide, not because your are forced  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:32FF:15:0:0:FACE:B00C (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2022[edit]

185.24.153.229 (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Put the Wiki page link for this word : Oedipus complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex

 Done Cannolis (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Communication Studies[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 2 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taliyyah, KNHUNT (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Proudbahamian242johnson, Chri.Konstantinou.

— Assignment last updated by CommDocBDS (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The antithesis of a personal relationship[edit]

is a business one. In fact in many cases there are prohibitions on mixing the two and it is generally considered ill advised to mix the two. The occurrence of business sublist under other kinds is in conflict with this. On a numbers basis the vast majority of business relationships aren't even between individuals and when they are they still are only personal to the extent they deviate from their business purpose. 98.4.112.204 (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interpersonal_relationship&oldid=1194048136"