Talk:College and university dating

To-do

To-do list: The structure of our article will start with the intro then lead into each of the following sections:

history of college dating

what was done before dating

origins of the concept of dating

how the concept has changed over the years

in this section, there will especially be a focus on the sixties and the second-wave feminist movement

hookups vs relationships--which is more prominent?--why are hookups so much more prominent than relationships: time, new freedom, meeting more people, etc

differences between college dating and high school and adult dating--hookups, new freedom, types of dates, LDRs etc

how technology effects college dating

LDR (long distance relationships)

prominent spike in LDRs compared to high school and adults: just left high school and want to continue dating past boyfriends/girlfriends who are at other colleges. Technology greatly increases the chances of staying together as compared to earlier times

Meeting new people

how online dating and social networking are being utilized

maintaining a non-LDR by using social networking

legitimizing the relationship using social networking-- i.e. making something "facebook official"

the statistics of college dating--how long average relationships last, how many lead to marriage, how many lead to divorce, etc

what direction college dating is heading? -- will the main method of "dating" still be hookups? etc

conclusion

Bonnie will work on writing the "differences between college dating..." "hookups vs relationships" and "statistics"

Andrew will work on "history" "technology" and "direction college dating is heading"

Both Andrew and Bonnie will collaborate on the conclusion and intro.

Some of our resources compiled so far are: http://teacherweb.com/on/cawthrapark/summerfield/aziz-discussionday.pdf http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105008712 1^ Bailey, Beth L. From Front Porch to Back Seat. Johns Hopkins University Press. 1988. 2^ Wilson, Brenda. "Sex Without Dating: No Sex, No Relationships", National Public Radio. 2009.

BonnieNoel (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC) Andrew also edited the to do list AndrewMozdy (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks good as a starting point, both the outline and the references (reliability, relevance). Keep it up! I would like to see several more references soon. The NPR in particular is not very related to this article, nor - being a mass media ref - is it as reliable as more academic sources (journals and book) you can find. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College dating

Please take note of the comments made in this discussion, particularly about insufficient referencing (for example, the entire definition in lead is not referenced). This need to be addressed as soon as possible. PS. Also, the current content of the "History of college dating" seems irrelevant to this article, as it covers the history of dating in general, with nothing about college dating in particular. Please make sure that information you add to this article is relevant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bailey book, cited as an inline ref, with no page number, appears not to have been actually consulted, since it was mentioned in the other reference from NPR. It is inappropriate to cite one source when it is only excerpted or quoted in another ref. The other refs are not available online. Were they actually read by editors? Edison (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "the other refs", because all but the Bailey book are linked. That book itself can be found online through Google books ([1]), but that section needs rewrite for relevance - and verification. For example, I'd very much like to see how the claim This is typified in the idea of "receiving a caller." is sourced to this book, because a GBook search of this book for this phrase ("receiving a caller") yields no results. PS. The NPR reference focuses more on casual relationship than college dating (a term not even mentioned in it). The editors working on this article cite much better sources above on this page, and I hope to see the article improved with those and other, more relevant sources soon. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The other "refs" may be linked, but no content is available online. Did you or someone else read those books and find content in them which was added to the article? If so, it should have an inline citation to the page whee the information can be found. If not, they do not belong on the main page. It would be more appropriate to list on this talk page books which seem like useful refs but which no one has managed to get access to yet. Edison (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I assume you refer to the "Further reading" section? Those sources were not added by a student, but by one of the online ambassadors. I do agree they should be kept only if they are needed, I am not overly fond of fr/see also sections --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

History of college dating

The section about the history of college dating doesn't currently mention anything specifically having to do with college student life. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, as already noted above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I created the subject, but I didn't have all my sources lined up when I did it. I'll be fleshing it out tonight and tomorrow. AndrewMozdy (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

With regards to the recently added pictures, while I agree illustrating this article is helpful, I am not sure if the pictures themselves are correct. File:Spencer and Melissa.jpg was uploaded without a caption; I am frankly not sure if the image is within the Commons scope of educational images - how can we be sure those people are friends, and not family, or married, or such? Thus the current caption added to our article ("Often, relationships will start with close friends") can be seen as ORish. File:The Gaze.jpg, while at least better as far as technical quality, suffers from the same problems: the original description was "Hoboken, New Jersey, July 2008", and the title, "The Gaze", comes from Flickr. How can we prove our description of "A young couple in love"? Young? Sure. Couple - in love? Perhaps, but those could be actors, friends, siblings... In both of those cases, I'd also add a caution about using photos of people who might have likely not given permission to be in those pictures to be used to illustrate a potentially controversial subject with an incorrect photo (I can just see a media article on "Wikipedia uses siblings to illustrate "college dating" article")... I'll end by linking to commons:Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, in particular, section "Moral issues" ("Those that unreasonably intrude into the subject's private or family life"). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Piotr, I actually asked Spencer about that image before I posted it. You can nix the second one, but Spencer confirmed that they are now dating. If you want, I can send you the e-mail. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's fine then. I'd suggest you add that information to the image page itself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'll ask him to do it though, as it would appear weird if I did it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to whoever added the picture, because it gave us some ideas of what types of images can be added. We will definitely add in some other images! BonnieNoel (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

OA comments

1. The caption of the image states that the couple were friends before dating. There is nowhere in the article where it mentions about students being friends in college before dating. The image needs to be relevant to the article.
2. There are six books noted in the Further reading section. I think that the article can be expanded using info from these books. It's a waste if the article remains this short when it can be expanded!
3. Please, please, please put in reliable sources/references for all the information provided in the article!
4. Is there any reliable source for the paragraph below? Keep in mind that there should be no biased point of views and original research in the article.

Relationships open a new door in the dating world for college students since their lives offer more freedom without as much free time as they had in high school. College students are much more likely to hookup than be involved in a relationship than younger students. Young adults are more inclined to make out not just for the thrill of it but because they do not have the time for a full commitment relationship. Between work, studying, and hanging out with friends, students do not always have the time to squeeze dating into their schedules. However, they still want the excitement of bring intimate without the responsibility of a boyfriend or girlfriend.

Bejinhan talks 09:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Our article is still a work in progress, we are still adding more and more information, it is no where near complete. We will address all of the above points that have been mentioned. BonnieNoel (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Informal Review-Natalie Fisher

Hi Group 1,

Your page looks like it's coming along well. I really think adding the picture was a great idea! It sure grabbed my attention and made me want to read the wiki page. So if there is a reason you deleted it, maybe you can find another one that will work and is related to this topic? As I was reading the information that is currently on the page and going through your to-do list outline, I was thinking it might be interesting if you included a section on the advantages vs. disadvantages of college dating, such as expanding on how it can be rather inexpensive (for an advantage) and how one might lose focus on schoolwork (for a disadvantage); just a thought : ) --Naf24 (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This sounds great! Thank you so much for the ideas. Funny thing about the picture...a random member from the public added it, then someone else deleted it! We'll try to find another one! And I'll definitely add that in! That is awesome--thank you so much! BonnieNoel (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Informal Review: Julie Vandervort

Your group has made a lot of progress on the page; it has really helped to give me more ideas for our page's outline. I also noticed that there was previously a picture and I think you should definitely find a replacement. Having a photograph makes the page more interesting and I know that it would make me more inclined to read it. I'm actually going to suggest to our group that we find a relevant image as well. Good luck with your page, you chose a really interesting topic and I look forward to reading the finished product! --Jmv31 (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! We are definitely looking for a replacement! :) BonnieNoel (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

References

There is a further reading section, but for this to be a good encyclopedic article those books have to be brought in as references. There is some material, see this search for instance. What is completely missing, for instance, is a note on sexual violence, and given how staggering the statistics are on sexual abuse of women on US college campuses, that's a big omission. Another thing, the article (because of who's working on it, and because of the US-centered term "college dating") can do with some serious globalizing. At the very least, if it cannot be globalized, the lead should acknowledge that the article is looking at an American phenomenon. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

How would you suggest we globalize the term? Should we say "university dating" instead of college? And we did not add the FR section, but we are definitely going to completely edit it. We are more focused on finding our sources and adding them into the article first, but soon it should be getting close to being done! And thanks for mentioning the abuse on college campuses! Definitely going to add that in :) BonnieNoel (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Informal Review

I read the article "Grounds for divorce" by the Natalie's and Nicole, and I really liked how they planned it out with headers to show others that it is still a work in progress and to remind themselves what to add. Also, this will definitely keep the article organized, on-track, and adhering to the to-do list. I'm definitely going to add in the sections to keep our article focused! BonnieNoel (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Review

While I was looking over your wiki page I noticed that you need to add cite/ref links, and you should add some internal links. --Nas132 (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

We're trying! :) More citations to come ASAP BonnieNoel (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Review

As I was reading through this wiki page, I also feel you need to add cite/ref links. I was also thinking that under the "History of College Dating," you should do a background of dating in general and then how it has changed. After saying that, I read your To-Do list and noticed this was on there so I'm looking forward to reading this page later when you've added more information.
KazzandraT (talk) 01:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the great ideas! And we're going to add citations ASAP! BonnieNoel (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Review

First off, I thought your outline was great. It really let me know exactly what your page was going to be about. I think one thing you could add (and maybe you were planning on this) but what about the question, "On average, how many sexual partners does a college student have each year?" I think researching that would be a very interesting concept to add to your page. You also mentioned a question in your to do list that I found to be very interesting. "If you sleep together on the first date, are you less likely to get married?" I took a Sociology of Everyday Life class last spring and we had an entire class dedicated to talking about this topic and I will be extremely interested in what you find out about this topic. Mookielynn18 (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea! I'm going to add it into the statistics section! BonnieNoel (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Review

As I started to read through this article I thought it was good that I had the facts, but I feel that it will be useful if you also would find case studies to prove that your facts are not just statistics. I think this would make this article so much more useful if that would be included. But otherwise you guys are doing a great job. Bed28 (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Definitely going to do that! BonnieNoel (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Review

I think this page has the potential to be good, however I would like others said try to find case studies or as much reputable information so that the topic holds important to other users. Maybe you can compare different colleges and locations. Also, you might want to talk about the positives and negatives of college dating and possibly include some information about relationship abuse and such on college campuses. You guys seem very organized. If you get the right information it should be a great page! Rojast07 (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I love that idea! Definitely going to use it! Thanks :) BonnieNoel (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Informal Review - Gina Z.

Hey guys!

First of all, this page looks awesome! I thought it was a really broad topic and was interested to see how you were going to do the research and such. A section you might be interested in adding is a section about dating in Greek life particularly lavaliering or pinning. This is when a fraternity boy gives his letters to his girlfriend as a sort of "pre engagement." You could probably find a lot of interesting information on that, particularly with the hazing the guy goes through when he's giving his letters away. You could also try to find statistics on how many lavaliered couples actually get married.

Hope this helps! Best of luck!

Gina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmz10 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That is an AWESOME idea! I am definitely going to add that in--I just wrote it on a post-it so it has to be done! Thanks for the idea! BonnieNoel (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Informal Review: Group 7: Matthew Sniscak

We really like what you are doing with the topic of college dating. There's so much information that you guys could include; we're very eager to see how this wikipedia page develops. Although brief, the "Distinctions from other types of dating" section could be a very interesting part of your page, keep up the good work! Obviously, try adding more citations with the bulk of your work; our group has so much work to regarding citations. What our group liked the most from this structure of article was the "To-Do" list; it gave out group some more ideas regarding our topic on open relationships. Hopefully we can all become masters at wikipedia!

MatthewSniscak (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes...the dreaded citations! We're working on it, I promise! :) BonnieNoel (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Informal Review - Steve Boser

I really like the topic of this article because it talks directly of/to me. I found the Hookups vs Relationships section enjoyable to read and I agree with it. I think you could benefit by discussing the "friends with benefits" subject, and impacts of it on the overall friendship. Following that idea you could also discuss its recent impact in media, what with the two movies No Strings Attached and Friends With Benefits recently coming out and being very successful.

Stboser (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Steve

That's a really great idea! I'll definitely look into that some more! Thanks for the tips :) BonnieNoel (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

My review of Family honor

I went over to Family honor and checked out how they were doing. Their article seems to be in roughly the same place as ours, but they were able to make each of their headings semi-complete. They didn't go into a lot of detail, but they did put down how relevant each one is to the larger topic. I feel like we need to do a bit of work on those, and once we do, that'll address a lot of the comments we've been getting. AndrewMozdy (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

POV

The article's sourcing is weak (and it lacks in-line sources). Hence, it is impossible to infer that the text reflects anything close to a consensus survey of the topic. Moreover, the one source cited for the only paragraph with claims doesn't give any firm idea of prevalence of the behavior described relative to to others—just an increase. It certainly doesn't purport to be a survey of college dating in general. Until deeper and more clearly balanced sourcing is provided, the {{POV}} template is appropriate. ^Bongo_matic 01:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Valid points, I'll be looking forward to them being addressed. When the editors working on this article think that the issues are resolved, please post here and ping Bongomatic on his talk page so he can review the article again. If he agrees the issues have been fixed, we can remove the POV tag. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

We are in the process of working on it now. Which parts of the article did you feel were biased? I assure we did not mean to write a slanted article, but we are completely open to changing anything that you felt was inadequate. BonnieNoel (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As over 10 days have passed without a clarification, I am removing the POV tag. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the question. The article fails to have a neutral POV in that its exploration of the subject is limited and that it cites or summarizes no sources that purport to be a general examination of the topic. The main source (NPR) is a feature piece that while identifying a "major trend", cites only one researcher on the specific topic, and doesn't give any indication of its prevalence. Moreover, the term "hookup" itself is described as being very "vague".

In fact, this article (notwithstanding the recent and only tangentially-related addition of the purported information on lavaliering) would be better titled "Hookups", but there isn't even sufficient information on that topic in the NPR source (or elsewhere in this article) to make an unbiased encyclopedia entry on that limited topic.

This article really merits deletion as it is misleading and would need to be completely rewritten to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. ^Bongo_matic 23:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The community has already disagreed with you once, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College dating, with regards to whether this article should be deleted. I am also afraid you misunderstand the purpose of the POV tag and NPOV policy. The tag would be applicable if the article was biased towards a particular POV. This is not the case; the article is just incomplete and poorly developed. There are other tags for that, check Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. You are welcome to tag this article with a relevant template, or if you think I am misunderstanding the NPOV policy, take it to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. If you can convince another editor there that this article is non-neutral, I won't oppose reinstating the tag. For now, however, I am removing it, as you have not proven that the article is biased towards any POV. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

In order to avoid editwarring, I have followed your advice and posted at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#College dating. As suggested there, I think you, not I, misread the policy if you think that being "incomplete and poorly developed" to the point of completely misrepresenting the topic is consistent with the basic tenet of the NPOV policy that an article needs to represent "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". ^Bongo_matic 03:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand your concern, we are about to develop this article much farther this week, when we both can spend the adequate time to make this article more complete. If your concern is still apparent after we have further developed it, please feel free to offer any specific suggestions that you see need to be changed. However, I do not understand how we are biased at this moment, our article is just very underdeveloped currently. BonnieNoel (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added some specific criticisms to the discussion at the NPOV board. Perhaps you can use these as fodder for development as you work on the article this week. If I can help you at all, or clarify my thoughts, please feel free to ask me! Regards, LadyofShalott 16:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is dire, it's just a ragtag collection of POVs, virtually no sourcing and no clear direction. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify which POVs are collected here? And which are missing? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Date rape

OK, two separate people have now removed my "see also" link to date rape. Date rape is known to be a common occurrence on college campuses, and it is directely relevant to the topic of college dating. Please explain your objections to this link. LadyofShalott 17:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Prove it. ElKevbo (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You have got this back to front - please provide evidence for it's inclusion. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The article Date rape includes the statement "Colleges and Universities, settings in which date rape is considered a common problem...". If this wasn't true it presumably wouldn't be in the article. On the other hand the statement is unsourced, so hmmm. Herostratus (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll find sources, fine... but since when do we have to source a "see also" link whose relevance is obvious? LadyofShalott 17:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Obvious to whom? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

As this seems so blatantly obvious to me, I don't even know how to answer that question. Anyone who listens to the news occasionally? Any female who lives in a college town? LadyofShalott 17:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You've provided a source, so the question is now irrelevant to me (although might not be to someone else). --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied. You've cited one article from an unknown journal. Please find additional sources or justify why this one article by one author is sufficient. ElKevbo (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

And the cited article is about "acquaintance rape," not "date rape." ElKevbo (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Two terms for the same thing (acquaintance rape redirects to date rape here, after all). Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Some dates are blind dates and not with friends or acquaintances, I suppose. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on finding more. LadyofShalott 18:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Date rape is definitely a relevant, salient component of college dating story. Virtually every U.S. college has a program/center that focuses on it. Here are two pieces from ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/college-campus-assaults-constant-threat/story?id=11410988) and NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124001493) that address it. Amy (@sengseng) (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice finds. It would be good to cite the DOJ study discussed in the ABC report, too. You could also find more if you look into the Clery codes and their origins and controversies. ElKevbo (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you guys serious? Next you'll be asking for a citation that the sky is blue. I can give you about 100 citations for the fact that date rape is common on college campuses. But since I'm having a hard time believing that you aren't just trolling, I'll give you two:

• Koss, Gidcyz, and Wizniewsky (1987) estimated that approximately 20% of college women experience date rape.
• More recently, Ward, Chapman, Cohn, White, and Williams (1991) reported 15% to 25% of college women are date raped.

Is 20% common enough for you? If you need more citations, just do a Google Scholar search for "date rape" and "college". There are plenty of papers devoted specifically to the prevalence of date rape on college campuses. Kaldari (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added these two studies as citations to the article. Kaldari (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

LadyofShallott-thank you for adding that. I really appreciate it. I am right now gathering enough information to put it together for the article. Just to let everyone know what is planned to be added to the article by myself by Friday: Distinctions of college dating: the practice of lavaleiring, college campus rapes and sexual abuse, prominence of long distance relationships (couples that go to different colleges, etc), and the prominence of hookups. I know there was a discussion earlier about how the term hookups was too vague, I have now found sources from google books, and have a proper definition for it. My partner is going to add the history of college dating, technology's impact on college dating, and what direction college dating is headed. BonnieNoel (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being labeled a troll. If you're going to level accusations of violent crime and moral impropriety at a large group of people then you damn well better have better proof than "everyone knows this!" I am not denying that there is an association, merely demanding a high level of proof and professionalism to include the association in an encyclopedia article. WP:V is not negotiable. ElKevbo (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Let's keep the discussion civil and friendly, and abstain from personal attacks. We are all trying to help here, so let's keep in mind WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and, keeping in mind this article is edited by students, WP:BITE. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

They get treated like any other editor - nothing more, nothing less. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I imagine the disconnect is due to different cultural perspectives and experiences, rather than trolling. However, I would like to point out that you don't need to cite that the sky is blue and you would have to be hiding under a pretty big rock to not be aware of the issue of campus date rape (at least in the United States). Kaldari (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

we are not all americans, that why wikipedia relies on reliable sources not "let me tell you" and things that people consider to be common knowledge. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Kaldari (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

rename/reposition

As far as I can determine, this article and the concepts within are dealing with university dating (college means something different to us brits) exclusively within the USA. Does this mean to be renamed to highlight that or is there some other way to flag this up and deal with the worldview tag I've placed on the article? --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what does college mean in England? And I have no objection to renaming the article. I will change it shortly. BonnieNoel (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This could get confusing but generally, we have school (secondary education), then you go to college (further education) and depending on how well you do there, you then go to university (higher education). So if you mention to most brits that you go to college, they will think you mean further education. It's gets slightly confusing because some universities are made up from (higher education) colleges... --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, the article could also be renamed "College dating within America." Does anyone have any views on this issue? BonnieNoel (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

How about "College dating in the United States?" Some people are offended or bothered when "America" is used to name the United States. I'm not one of those people but they have a reasonable point. ElKevbo (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This is how we disambiguate every other article focused on the USA, e.g. Prostitution in the United States, Bankruptcy in the United States. Daniel Case (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? Is that the best solution to deal with the issue, I don't do much renaming. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What about University dating in America, makes it less confusing for the brits and aussies, and clarifies what the article is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millertime246 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I think that makes it even more confusing since it uses the Canadian/British convention to name a U.S. phenomenon. ElKevbo (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Without being for or against the suggested move, I wanted to mention that we usually use "United States" in article titles rather than "America", as it is less ambiguous. Kaldari (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

First, is this an article on college dating in America, or the one globally? I think that it has been intended and structured to be a description of a global phenomenon. In that case, what is the name of that phenomenon in international, English language literature? "college dating" on GBooks gives 10k hits. "university dating" gives 4.5k. Can somebody propose a different name to be looked at? For now, I think the name is fine, although if another alternative name (or names) are estabilished, we can have a note in lead (also known as x in UK and y in continental Europe), for example. Here is a ref that uses the term "college dating" in a Canadian context; note also the phrase "university/college dating". A potential name to consider could be, within Wikipedia's naming guidelines, university and college dating. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the naming issue, this article had no context. It needs to link to its parent articles which really are "dating", preceded by "courtship". It is not comprehensible if you do not know of what it is a subset. It also needs to make sense to someone who is not an American collegian (or even a native English speaker). A reader ought to be able to follow from the general to the specific with some sense of coherence, I think. So I extended the lead paragraph to try to give it some context and show where it sits in the global/historical scheme of things. Changing the name to university and college dating would still be a good idea - it would support this attempt to contextualise and globalise the article. Whiteghost.ink 00:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you feel placing internal links to "dating" and "courtship" would be enough? BonnieNoel (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources on University dating in Europe, apart from the uk? If not, and if it doesn't look like anyone will add much to it, I propose renaming it to College dating in the United States. As I've said, this has little or no connection with life at universities I know, and the immaturity of American teenagers when it comes to drinking certainly does not present a worldwide view. DS Belgium (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see the feminists have arrived here as well, never mind. another article not worth bothering about. DS Belgium (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI

I forgot to sign in (because I just finally got my coffee for the day and it's almost 9 at night) and if you have any suggestions as to edits I am making, please don't hesitate to comment. All of the edits that were previously made with the "64. ..." IP address were mine. I am going to try to finish off (or at least get a majority more of the info in) on hooking up and hopefully polish off lavaliering tonight. Also, what are your thoughts on changing the title of date rape to college campus rape because it relates more to the topic? We can definitely include more on how date rape plays a part, but also place focus on other types of rape on college campuses, and not just ones that occur on dates. Opinions? And I just wanted to thank everyone for their inputs, it has been UNBELIEVABLY helpful!! BonnieNoel (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

How about 'rape on college campuses', I agree that date rape is not all inclusive, but is def a sub section of some sort. Great job with this page.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! It definitely is a lot of work, but it is very rewarding :) BonnieNoel (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Same-sex dating

For this article to be comprehensive, it will need to also discuss same-sex dating, not just opposite-sex dating. LadyofShalott 01:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Great point. In what aspects do you think we could add it in? This was the only article I could find on books.google.com for "same sex dating" in relation to "college dating" "http://books.google.com/books?id=Z_QYkPZsuYEC&pg=PA89&dq=%22same+sex+dating%22+%22college+dating%22&hl=en&ei=IWCnTvvqBYft0gGb3OiaDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22same%20sex%20dating%22%20%22college%20dating%22&f=false" and I don't know if it applies enough to what you were suggesting. Do you know of anyway we could narrow it down to a specific of same sex dating on college campuses instead of just in general? BonnieNoel (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting find, and one that may be worth referencing, but you're right that it is far from sufficient. We may have to play around with the search terms some. Google scholar may be more helpful than GBooks for that as well. LadyofShalott 01:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• "Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, And Relationships On Campus" in Journal of College and Character looks like it might have something on this as well as some of your other sections - if you have access to the whole article. LadyofShalott 01:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Predicting Self-Protection against Sexual Assault in Dating Relationships among Heterosexual Men and Women, Gay Men, Lesbians, and Bisexuals. Journal of College Student Development, v40 n2 p132-140 Mar-Apr 1999 LadyofShalott 01:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• A Subcultural Study of Gay and Bisexual College Males: Resisting Developmental Inclinations Robert A. Rhoads, The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 1997), pp. 460-482 - hard to know how much it has about dating specifically, but probably worth a look. I can't pull up the whole article here, but can probably look at it tomorrow. LadyofShalott 02:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

These look great! I'll definitely look more into them tomorrow :) BonnieNoel (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am going to add in whether or not a statistic/section relates to hetero vs homosexual relationships. Thank you though for all of the information! BonnieNoel (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

References format

I was trying to correct one of the references when I noticed something... The citation template should be placed at the sentence being cited. For example, <ref name="google">Harper, Shaun. [http://books.google.com/books?id=MlYHxLp1ieEC&pg=PA268&dq=lavaliering&hl=en&ei=DqeUTuPcMqrg0QHqnOCkBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=lavaliering&f=false], ''Google Books''. {{title missing}} {{year missing|date=October 2011}} {{pn|date=October 2011}}</ref> should not be placed in the References section, but rather at the end of this sentence - One young woman elaborates, "Several brothers came to my dorm room and blindfolded me....My blindfold was eventually removed, and I could see the room was filled with with brothers all wearing their robes used for fraternity rituals. The only light was from lit candles around the room. At first I was a bit nervous, but then I saw my boyfriend and knew that everything was going to be alright." This goes for all the other references as well.

Also, can the word "elaborates" in the above sentence mentioned be either changed or the whole sentence removed? It's awkward-sounding and more fitting for a news article rather than an encyclopedia article. Bejinhan talks 03:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the article is using a perfectly valid referencing format. The footnotes go where they areupposed to; it's just the templates are in a different (but acceptable, and, to some, preferable) location. See WP:LDR. LadyofShalott 04:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say much preferable, because less code in the articles = less scary code for newbies to deal with. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Intro

Hi! Whoever wrote the intro--it looks great! However, there aren't any sources, and I have no idea where to start looking to add them. Whoever wrote it, would you mind responding to me with some links to where you got the information so I can add them in? Thanks! BonnieNoel (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Intro should only summarize the information present elsewhere in the article, and thus should not need any citations, per WP:LEAD. Thus the current intro needs further rewriting, to satisfy the above criteria. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 14:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe I fixed it--I deleted the part that was not related to the article. Thanks! BonnieNoel (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the fix. The article is still peppered with uncontextualized statistical inferences not supported by the sources. If a 20% phenomenon is described as "frequent" without another 40% phenomenon being mentioned at all, it is misleading. ^Bongo_matic 20:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean...do you mind pointing out the exact circumstance this occurs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.241.34 (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Please don't delete the subsections that are blank underneath...my partner is supposed to be adding in his share tonight, and I want him to see where I am suggesting the info goes. Thanks! BonnieNoel (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Request move

I propose this article be moved to College dating in the United States, since it clearly does not represent a worldwide view, and there's little chance it ever will. For example:

Factors frequently associated with campus life, such as widespread availability of alcohol and other drugs, and the close-quartered living of potential romantic partners.

Three points of little relevance for let's say the KULeuven in belgium. The university is spread over the town, most students rent a room or a house in the town, sometimes with friends, drinking is something they have been doing for years already, and close-quartered living, if you can afford it, you rent an appartment, so...DS Belgium (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC) nevermind, who cares DS Belgium (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I think that this is a global view; where the above factors are not present, they do not influence college dating. See also discussion at #rename/reposition above, where some better titles were suggested. For moving the article, please use the WP:RM procedure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

College dating → College dating in the United States — As discussed above (and there seems to be consensus, I think). ElKevbo (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. No consensus for that name. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

So how about some discussion of why you are opposed to the move? Or, conversely, why you believe the current name is the correct one? ElKevbo (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• What would you propose happen to the College dating title, then? Powers ^T 02:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I assume that it would simply be empty, a non-article. Maybe if this article were developed a lot more it could represent more perspectives than just the U.S. one but I am skeptical that will happen because (a) I doubt anyone is interested enough in the topic to do so and (b) the topic may not exist in many non-U.S. countries where higher education, social class, and dating rituals are very different (indeed, this is changing in the U.S., too, as demographics change and higher education continues to become more heterogeneous and accessible). ElKevbo (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It would redirect to the new name. At some future time it could made into a disambiguation page. Herostratus (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't have time to elaborate few hours back. Let me do so now: I support a move to university and college dating, a better title that retains the global perspective. I think that some of the issues discussed in this article are non-US specific, and as such I strongly support retaining the global perspective. While specific customs may differ, throughout much of the world young people engage in various romantic activities in the context of higher education, with several key characteristics (many of them live away from their parents for the first time, for example). I can most certainly attest that in Poland we had residence halls, many people lived far away from their family, and there was dating going on :) PS. Here is a source on college dating in China. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all of the sources in the article discuss U.S. students. If this phenomenon extends or extended (I contend that this is largely a historical phenomenon but that's a huge digression) then please provide some sources. If there are enough sources to extend this article beyond the U.S. then I will happily withdraw my objection! ElKevbo (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we are looking at the same sources then. This, for example, makes no claim it is for US only, and most of the claims there, if not all, seem to have a global relevance. I suppose some of the numbers can be US only; there is a sad tendency in English literature to assume US is the default, even through academic should no better, but first, you have to prove this is the case, and second, even if it is, I again believe those are just fine details of a much wider phenomena. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

All of the sources I've looked at so far that are cited in that encyclopedia entry are U.S.-specific. It's original research (and just poor social science) to assume that other countries are just like the U.S. and share the same culture. ElKevbo (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Please prove to me (quote) why do you think the sources in question are applicably only to the United States. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Another editor has already done so below. Besides, it's not my job to prove that they are irrelevant - it's your job to prove they are relevant. ElKevbo (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that would be OK, but I can't really support it at this time because here's what I don't know:

• 1) Is "college dating" a phenomena such that there is a common core of material, to which could be added "In country XYZ" sections (breaking these out into separate articles as the need arises)? In this case the article could be recast -- given the current material, the bulk of it would be in a "In the United States" section and there wouldn't be any sections for other countries just yet.
• 2) Or is "college dating" so different in each country that it makes sense to have just a disambiguation page pointing to each country's article?
• 3) Or does "college dating" not even exist outside the USA -- that is, if as the editor above suggests they don't have residence halls and the concept of "going away to college" and so forth in foreign parts, so the very idea makes no more sense than say Dating amongst 27-to-32-year-olds?

If #3 is true, I'd say keep the current title and just change the lede to "College dating is a phenomena of United States society...". If #1 is true keeping the current title works, and is more likely to attract material on other countries. Only if #2 is true should the title be changed, I think. Herostratus (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that #3 is the case. If so, I am also amenable to your suggestion. ElKevbo (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, it's up to those editing this article to provide sources establishing that this is a global phenomenon with sufficient material to support an article. So far, they have not done so and the article is U.S.-specific. Unless that changes soon, the article should be edited to reflect the fact that it is specific to the U.S. If that changes later, we can always move the article back or otherwise edit it again to reflect its (then-)newfound global coverage. Ultimately, all I am asking for is that the title and lead of this article match its content; right now that is not the case. ElKevbo (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about all that. What I would support is any of these three solutions:

Move the article.

or

Change the lede to indicate that this is USA-only phenomenon.

or'

Make two major sections: "In the United States" and "In other countries". Write a short (maybe just one sentence) lede for tha article as a whole, demote all the current sections one level and put them under the "In the United States" section, slap a {{Empty section}} tag in the "In other countries" section and and {{Globalize/US}} tag on the article as a whole.

If there's any reasonable chance that college dating in other countries has anything of interest to be said about it, the third might be best. Is it really true that, outside the USA, they don't much have people living in residence halls, and being away from the supervision of home for the first time, and don't have some issues and phenomena arising from that? I'm also thinking Tokyo University etc. etc. as well as Europe... Herostratus (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you perhaps heard of a place called Canada? Powers ^T 12:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you perhaps heard of things called reliable sources? Please provide them. ElKevbo (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If sourcing is an issue, renominate it for deletion. My point is that the claim that college dating is somehow unique to the U.S. is dubious given the similarity between U.S. and Canadian university cultures. Powers ^T 15:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. If there is a problem with this article being too limited in scope, then expansion is the solution, not renaming. Deleting college dating after the rename is silly, because it would make this (renamed) article harder to find. Redirecting it to the new title is also silly, because redirecting a shorter name to a longer one is evidence that the longer one is over-precise. Powers ^T 12:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to your contributions expanding the article beyond the U.S. context! ElKevbo (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who does it; a scope-limited title is inappropriate unless there is a more general article either in existence or ready to be written. Powers ^T 15:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I WP:SOFIXIT'd it based on my earlier remarks, is this acceptable to all? Herostratus (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I still do not understand nor have I seen sufficient proof that this topic does not effect students going to college in Canada, England, or other such countries. The only situation I have seen in this article is related to lavaliering. The first line says in the United States. Frats and sororities do not generally exist outside of the US. BonnieNoel (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's been contended that its USA-only, and looking just at the section "Hooking up", I see seven refs. But it's really only two refs, with different page numbers. One is the "Institute for American Values", The other is book (by Bogle) published by New York University. So that looks American. And in the body, Howard University and Rutgers (both in the USA) are mentioned, and no other institutions. So to make it refer to other countries, we'd need more international refs. (And if this is done, the "Hooking up" section could be promoted up a level and moved to above "In the United States", I would say.) BUT... since the USA and Canada are, in some aspects, similar to each other different from other societies, it'd also possibly be OK to rename "In the United States" to "In the United States and Canada". I don't have an opinion on that and it'd be OK with me. Are there any objections to that? Herostratus (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, OK, I wrote that before I saw that you (BonnieNoel) had restored the previous version. I would say, this is not OK. Certainly "Hooking up" as well as the "Lavaliering" sections belong under a separate USA section (this is assuming that the entire article isn't moved). Regarding the "Date rape, sexual violence, and harassment" section, let's see...

• The Encyclopedia of School Crime and Violence. Finley is a USA academic (Columbia) and the publisher's description says "the encyclopedia spans the full spectrum of school crime—not just the high profile cases like Columbine [USA] and Virginia Tech [USA], but..." so I wonder if its USA-centered, but it also says "Coverage includes information on some cases outside the United States". So some cases.
• Another ref is Family Relations, published by the National Council on Family Relations where I suppose National==American.
• Another ref is the Journal of American College Health
• Another is the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
• But the book Bullying, Victimization, And Peer Harassment, heavily cited, is published by the British publisher Routledge and the description says "Several of the studies address middle school issues and multi-ethnic populations, including those from the United States, Canada, and Europe". So don't know about that, since it says "middle school" and looking at the book it seems to be about high-school students and younger, don't know why its even being used in this article.
• Campus Violence: Kinds, Causes, and Cures is also published by Routledge, but the description begins "This timely book shows how the rapidly increasing phenomenon of violence in the U.S. is invading college and university campuses". It was orginally published by Haworth Press of Binghampton, New York, so don't know where Routledge fits in. The authors are Americans and the preface begins "The United States has become an increasingly violent society..." and the first chapter begins "College campuses are part of American culture...", so.... it looks to be pretty much USA-centered.
• "alt.net" is another ref, and I have no idea what that is, but I doubt it's an acceptable source and should probably be removed.
• Another ref is the New York Times, and the article ("New Policy Is Aimed at Preventing Date Rape on Campuses") is only about the USA.
• The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology is cited; it's published by the American Psychological Association.
• The College Students Journal is cited. In that article, all of the refs are American (all or almost are the United States Department of Justice), and the online article is apparently hosted by the American Academy of Experts in Traumatic Stress

I think that's it. So that section is very USA-oriented -- all-USA-oriented, except for one that has "some cases" from foreign parts and one which is international but seems to cover high-school students.

I would still say this is the best configuration:

• In the United States
  • Hooking Up
  • Lavaliering
  • Date rape, sexual violence, and harassment
• In other countries
  • (currently empty)

But its possibly arguable that this would be acceptable:

• Date rape, sexual violence, and harassment
• In the United States
  • Hooking Up
  • Lavaliering
• In other countries
  • (currently empty)

Possibly arguable, but not an argument I would agree with. At any rate, it has to be one of the two above configurations, or the article should just be moved, absent some other argument. "Just leaving it as it is" is not an acceptable solution, I would say. Herostratus (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this throughout review, it is very much appreciated. Let me address the various issues raised. 1) as you note, some sources do cover college and university dating outside US 2) assuming that sources discuss issues relevant only to US based American or such in the title is wrong, for example American Sociological Review publishes many works that focus on global or non-US issues, so assumption that Journal of American College Health is non-global is not valid. Focus on the content of the publication, not a name. 3) It is perfectly valid for this article to use US-specific sources for the discussion of US-specific elements of college dating; I do agree that the article should have a US-phenomena only section, though. 4) Don't trust blurbs; a quick review of the Bullying, Victimization, And Peer Harassment source shows numerous instances when it discusses college-related issues (sample page discussing college fameles experience: [2]). 5) I agree numerous new references are badly formatted; alt.net is one example, and all the others that mention books.google.com are similarly badly formatted. I highly recommend using this tool to reformat them into proper cite books. See for example joint custody for another student article that has well formatted references 6) I like your suggestion for the article structure. Note that this is not needed for DYK (start class), but certainly for GA class (which is what is the goal of this assignment). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I still do not see any specific examples of our article that are contradictory to practices in other countries. Are you saying students in other countries don't hookup with each other?BonnieNoel (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed refsBonnieNoel (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It's up to you to establish that, especially if the sources you are citing are almost all limited to the U.S.! I don't understand why so many of you believe that it's ok to shrug your shoulders and assume that every other country is the same as the U.S. without bothering to provide any evidence. It's not ok and it needs to stop. If you think that these practices are the same in other countries then you need to provide evidence. WP:V is a core policy and it's not negotiable. ElKevbo (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Who here is assuming that "every other country is the same as the U.S."? Powers ^T 20:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Everyone who is asserting that all of these sources that focus exclusively or primarily on U.S. students can be generalized to non-U.S. students. ElKevbo (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Certain issues can be generalized. Once again, are you arguing that there is no student dating outside US? This is getting repetitive. We are discussing global issues, although certainly, as I noted above, we can and should note specific local phenomana. Anyway, here is a useful source: [3]; the International Dating Violence Study sounds like a helpful resource here. Pay attention to the first sentence: cross-cultural research on such issues is limited, and often not translated into English. As much as we strive for globalization, we have to deal with the fact that some research simply does not exist (or does not exist in online/English, which often is of little difference). Few more worldwide studies for inclusion: [4], [5]. Last issue I want to bring up is that the article needs a section on attitudes towards professor-student dating, and why it is discouraged/illegal in some if not most places. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Great! Please add those non-U.S. sources to the article. But stop generalizing research and media reports to subjects and contexts that are inappropriate. If research does not exist on a subject then it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. (And I recommend you place your suggestion - an excellent one - somewhere else so it doesn't get lost in this discussion of a different topic!) ElKevbo (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You've stated a tautology instead of answering the question. Who says that "all of these sources ... can be generalized to non-U.S. students"? I, for one, make no such claim. The problem is that moving the article would leave a void at the base name. The "college dating" article should include all available information on college dating; if all of the available information is U.S.-based, then the article needs expansion -- but moving the article to a new title and leaving nothing behind is counter-productive. Powers ^T 13:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I supported such move for some student projects (grounds for divorce->grounds for divorce (United States), joint custody->joint custody (United States), but for this article such a move or even split seems to make much less sense. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, that is why their is a discussion about renaming it to be specific to the U.S. That way there is no issue with comparing the US to other contries.MilkStraw532 (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

To whom are you replying? Powers ^T 13:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Support. As it stands, the article is entirely about the United States. I assume that, if college dating in the US is notable as a topic, then college dating in at least some other countries is, too, and the term is therefore applicable outside of the U.S and the proposed title is not overly precise. (If neither are notable, please propose the deletion of this article.) I also support redirecting college dating to the new title if this move is agreed upon. However, since the article is relatively new, I am not strongly opposed to waiting a little for editors to widen the article's scope. —  AjaxSmack  01:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sources

Here are some more "global" sources and US-centric ones. Students: your library should have full-text subscriptions to most of the journal articles.

• Sex Differences: Summarizing More Than a Century of Scientific Research [6], compilation of research on multiple topics, some of which are dating.
• College Sex: philosophy for everyone : philosophers with benefits [7], Western world oriented, but useful
• Differences between Jewish–Israeli and Arab–Israeli college students in attitudes toward date selection and sex relations: A research note [8]
• “Hookups”: Characteristics and correlates of college students' spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences [9]
• Mate selection across cultures- college dating in China [10]
• A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Mate Preferences among University Students; the United States vs. the People's Republic of China [11]
• University Students' Uses of and Reactions to Online Sexual Information and Entertainment: Links to Online and Offline Sexual Behaviour [12]
• Whales tales, dog piles, and beer goggles: An ethnographic case study of fraternity life [13]

Dating violence specific:

• Binge drinking and violence against dating partners: the mediating effect of antisocial traits and behaviors in a multinational perspective [14]
• Prevalence of Violence Against Dating Partners by Male and Female University Students Worldwide [15]
• Experiences With Dating Aggression and Sexual Coercion Among Polish College Students [16]
• Eastern European universities [17]
• Perceptions of dating violence [18]
• Neglectful Behavior by Parents in the Life History of University Students in 17 Countries and Its Relation to Violence Against Dating Partners [19]

There are many more. Froggerlaura (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, very helpful. International Dating Violence Study probably is notable and should be stubbed. (goes off to read the Polish article). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I added in a couple of the international date rape articles into the college rape section. BonnieNoel (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Reference help please

Hi, I was wondering if anyone could find any articles or books on hooking up with international references in them. I can't seem to find any that explicitely say that they are international. Thanks! BonnieNoel (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• The term "hooking up" seems to be exclusive to the US, but the concept "short-term mating" is universal

• Big Five Traits Related to Short-Term Mating: From Personality to Promiscuity across 46 Nations [20]

• I'll include this one, but it's probably more info than one would ever wish to know about sexuality in 48 nations... [21] And US centric [22][23] Froggerlaura (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• For the professor-student dating angle brought up in the discussion above:

• Opinions of Zagreb University students on professor-student dating. [24]
• Profile of the Ethical Professor: Student Views [25] Froggerlaura (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The term hooking up seems to be used with regards to Canada:

• Margaret Ward; Marc Belanger (November 2010). The Family Dynamic: A Canadian Perspective. Cengage Learning. p. 82. ISBN 978-0-17-650200-3. Retrieved 10 November 2011.
• Daniel Reimold (1 September 2010). Sex and the University: Celebrity, Controversy, and a Student Journalism Revolution. Rutgers University Press. p. 102. ISBN 978-0-8135-4806-7. Retrieved 10 November 2011.

It is, however, rare in this context, and I couldn't find anything for UK. I'd therefore suggest focusing on more general terms such as casual relationship (also, hooking up does not even have its own Wikipedia article). Also, here is a ref that states hooking up is popular in US, with the implication it is not elsewhere:

• [26] (reftag just went down, so it is not formatted)

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Adding these in today BonnieNoel (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2

I'd like to move this article to college and university dating, per discussion above (to globalize the name, without changing the focus of the article). I think this would be an uncontroversial move not needing a RM procedure, so unless there are any objections...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought my move request was uncontroversial, too... :) ElKevbo (talk) 07:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Done! BonnieNoel (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Good job moving the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Preeeliminary review

Since I see a lot of work has been done over the past few days, here are few issues from a quick overview about issues that need to be addressed before GA (a more detailed review will follow within a few days).

• the article does not seem comprehensive yet (for example, where is the professor-student dating section?)

• per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, lead should be a comprehensive summary (abstract) of the rest of the article, and should not contain new information. Your lead seems not comprehensive

• references need cleanup, per tags present. Some of them are also missing an url to the article or book (on Google Books). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Further comments:

• The article is too light on blue links, please add more links to relevant concepts
• While the history sections gives a good overview of the history of dating, it does not give us much that is relevant to college and university dating. It could be added straight to the normal dating article, save for the last paragraph. What is missing is a description of how women entered the higher education, and how college and university dating begun. The issue of mixed-sex education (coed) education seems quite relevant here, and lack of discussion of it leaves a big gap in the history. You have a good general history section. Expand it to make it more on our topic (college and university dating).
• For the lavaliering section, I'd suggest adding a referenced and brief mention that fraternities and sororities are also a primarily US-centric phenomena.
• I believe there is scope for the Technology section to be expanded. You do not need to do as much here as for the history section, but there is scope to investigate further. Here are some related references, see what works they reference and you may find an interesting and relevant body of literature.

• College Students' Facebook Stalking of Ex-Partners
• College Students' Perceptions of Intimate Partner Cyber Harassment

Good job, I think you are quite close to a rather comprehensive overview of the subject. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I added in 5 more blue links and found a reference for lavaliering. Does this look ok? BonnieNoel (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Nomination

I just nominated us for GA. I'll be tightening up the history and professor-student sex sections for the next hour or so. If anyone has sources for professor-student sexual relationships in university, I'd really appreciate a bit of help. Most of the journal research I've been able to find so far focuses on middle and high school settings. AndrewMozdy (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:College and university dating/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Buggie111 (talk · contribs) 12:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Hello. I'll be reviewing this article. As I have a rather busy schedule, I'll get to it in the coming days, at the most by Saturday. Buggie111 (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This is just a note that I've informed students that Good Articles reviews have been posted for some articles and they should reply to them ASAP. Thank you for taking up this review! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good :) Thanks for reviewing it! BonnieNoel (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note I've posted further comments at the #Preeeliminary review section. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	relationships--even, what's with the double hyphen, "Scandalous", way too sharp, minor spelling errors (drunkeness)	Undetermined
(b) (MoS)	Way too many quotes in the article. I know that ordinary essay formats focus on quotations, but Wikipedia doesn't. In the Date rape, sexual violence, and harassment section, don't start each paragraph with a link.	Undetermined

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(c) (original research)	Don't make so many mentions to other people's studies. I might just be alien to this realm of the 'pedia, but it would be better if, well, they were trimmed down.	Undetermined

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

Result

Result	Notes
Undetermined	Good progress so far! Just a bit to fix, see above. Buggie111 (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Indeed, there is no need to attribute people by name unless it is a controversial claim. Few fixes, including my comments from the preeliminary review above, and this should be good to go! :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ha, yeah sorry. I got paranoid after the debacle when we first put up the page and got slammed for not citing things properly, so I wanted to be clear that it wasn't my opinion that I was writing. AndrewMozdy (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify: attribution is not the same as citing with footnotes. By attribution we often mean saying directly in the text who is the author ("John Smith, professor at X, states that..."). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this! I'll get to it as soon as I can. I saw in the additional notes section that you said a picture is not required, but if one is available, it should be used. How do we find a reliable enough picture to add to our article? BonnieNoel (talk) 09:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I.....wouldn't know. Also, that was the template's default writing. Don't worry about it. Maybe at FAC, if you take it that far, will images be a concern. Buggie111 (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You can try the Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial. The easiest solution, I think, would be to find a picture of a large number of students and just illustrate the article with that, without any mention on whether they are all dating and such. A picture of "target population" should be acceptable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I added an image and I fixed the blue tags in the date rape section. BonnieNoel (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, I fixed "scandalous" and double-hyphen, and fixed the spelling errors BonnieNoel (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Good job find a free image. I expanded the caption to justify relevance to this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice job. That leaves the quotes and the over-mentioning of other people's studies. Then you're done. Congrats with the image. Buggie111 (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My partner should be doing that soon! Thanks for reviewing :) BonnieNoel (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if my partner wasn't receiving my emails, or what was happening, but you didn't deserve to wait so long. I'm sorry it was over a week. I removed all but three quotes, and I left only two studies (each in a separate sections). If you want anything else changed, just let me know! BonnieNoel (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That's nothing, I've got plenty of time on my hands. One of my article took about 2 months to go through this process, a week is a drop in the bucket compared to that. I can only find one that stands out and looks sort of ugly, that one being the Rutgers quote in the Hooking Up section. After that, you're done. Buggie111 (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Done! Thank you :) BonnieNoel (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Passed. Good luck with your later classes, I hope you stay on Wikipedia. Until next time, Buggie111 (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! :) Have a fantastic day!! :) BonnieNoel (talk) 05:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Relevance of Sparsholt College image

I dispute the relevance of this image in this article. A photograph of a dozen white people smiling on a hillside adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the article's topic. The caption currently indicates that "They represent the demographic cohort that commonly engages in the college and university dating." but I don't even know what that means unless it's trying to say that only young white people enroll in college and date one another. I'm not at all opposed to images in this or any other article but they should be relevant and add to the reader's understanding of the subject; this photo fails both tests. ElKevbo (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, but I feel that they are representative of the cohort at this college. Please note that seeing that this is a country other than the United States, they do not have a high population of people from races other than white. Please scroll to the Ethnicity section and note that 90% of the population of UK are white. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/United_Kingdom_Census_2001 BonnieNoel (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Can't we find a photo of a college age couple on Commons instead? Kaldari (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There was an image of a couple that looked to be college-aged added before, but it was deleted because to could not be proven that the couple was in fact college-aged. Also, there was no way to prove that the couple weren't brother/sister or just friends. BonnieNoel (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You'd be much better off finding images of the specific activities described in the article than trying to find nebulous "college students dating" images since that is such a vague concept. ElKevbo (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

First, this article is not about Sparsholt College. Second, please explain how this image adds to the reader's understanding of this topic. ElKevbo (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a representative image of the population in question (i.e. college and university students). It adds to the readers understanding by reminding him "this is how average students - the people involved in the activity discussed here - look like". Our FA yesterday was the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division. Second image shows just a few soldiers from this unit (population) engaged in one of their traditional activities (warfare). This is the same principle. It is not easy to even imagine a perfect image for an activity. Should we try to illustrate all activities of a dating couple, college age? ;P PS. Please note that the image was positively commented on by the GA reviewer. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

GA status

I see this failing the focus criteria. The History section only mentions colleges or universities briefly in the very last sentence, why is there a whole section dedicated to an obscure American frat boy ritual, the technology section, and most of the others, do not relate to the topic of the article. To be honest the only section that is really relevant is the Professor-student relationships, most of the rest applies to any dating among young adults. Other issues are the headers not being particularly useful and the description of hooking up as a phenomena. Broadness (tricky to judge as there is no definition given on what this article covers, it appears to be a hodgepodge of various dating customs) could be a concern too as it seems very American centric. There should be at least some mention of the culture of college life to differentiate it from dating in other environments. There is probably more as this is quite a superficial review, but the lack of focus is enough to reassess this article. AIRcorn (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:College and university dating/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Will just copy what I put on the talk page a month ago.

I see this failing the focus criteria. The History section only mentions colleges or universities briefly in the very last sentence, why is there a whole section dedicated to an obscure American frat boy ritual, the technology section, and most of the others, do not relate to the topic of the article. To be honest the only section that is really relevant is the Professor-student relationships, most of the rest applies to any dating among young adults. Other issues are the headers not being particularly useful and the description of hooking up as a phenomena. Broadness (tricky to judge as there is no definition given on what this article covers, it appears to be a hodgepodge of various dating customs) could be a concern too as it seems very American centric. There should be at least some mention of the culture of college life to differentiate it from dating in other environments. There is probably more as this is quite a superficial review, but the lack of focus is enough to reassess this article.

I see focus as the big GA concern. If that is addressed then I will look at the other aspects more closely. AIRcorn (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the article has a pretty good focus. I am sure it can be expanded further, and if you show me sources discussing the issues that are no covered here, I'll see if I have time and will to expand them. At the very least they'll be useful for the next editor to take this topic up. Just saying that something should be in the article is not enough - there is no guarantee reliable sources exist on this topic. I agree it would be interesting to discuss how college dating differs from non-college one, but what reliable source discusses this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

To be honest this looks like one of those articles that combines two essentially unrelated situations and then makes an article out of it. Saying that I think these can work, but it needs to talk about dating more in the context of university/college, not just dating in general. For example, the history section talks about practices of courtship, technological advances, and marriage, but the whole college aspect of it concerns a man with a car or fraternity membership having more potential to find a mate. That is what I mean by focus. The history section should look at the history of dating at college. The writing style is too essayish too, but that is an easier situation to solve. I would think that that section would have to be re-written anyway if this was to be kept. The Lavaliering section is incredibly undue and exasperates the problem. There is no history on college dating, but a whole section is devoted to a bizarre fraternity ritual. There is no critical commentary of the ritual either, which if it is common enough to deserve a section then there should be (I don't imagine to many women's rights or basically most groups would ignore it). Note that I could not find anything in the ref supporting the claim that it is a common practise either. There is a section on hooking up, but this is hardly something unique to college and it doesn't differentiate it from "hooking up" in any other setting. The opening sentence says that "It is common for college students to seek sexual encounters without the goal of establishing a long-term relationship, a practice commonly referred to as hooking up.", but the cited reference says "Marriage is a major life goal for the majority of today’s college women, and most would like to meet a spouse while at college" so there are some contradictions. If there are no reliable sources on this topic, then I struggle to see why this article exists (although at the afd enough reliable sources were produced to have it kept - although not every article can or should be a GA). I found it quite American-centric too. It mostly focuses on fraternities (when it is focusing on college/universities), but barely mentions other aspects outside of the US (one short paragraph is all I found). The last two paragraphs are much better in terms of focus, so I think it is possible to write a decent article on this subject. However, especially after a closer look at some of the sources mentioned above, I think this one is a long way off Good standard. AIRcorn (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The article is just a mish-mash of unrelated topics, many of which have little or nothing to do with the title. Frankly an AfD nomination would make more sense than a GA nomination. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It was snow kept Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College dating, and in much worse shape at the time [27]. Ironically it had better focus. AIRcorn (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The original title also made more sense given the range of topics discussed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Delisting Concerns remain and confirmed by another editor. AIRcorn (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on College and university dating. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111018071301/http://www.americanvalues.org/Hooking_Up.pdf to http://www.americanvalues.org/Hooking_Up.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111018071301/http://www.americanvalues.org/Hooking_Up.pdf to http://www.americanvalues.org/Hooking_Up.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111018071301/http://www.americanvalues.org/Hooking_Up.pdf to http://www.americanvalues.org/Hooking_Up.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111018071301/http://www.americanvalues.org/Hooking_Up.pdf to http://www.americanvalues.org/Hooking_Up.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal: [Stanford University] Marriage Pact

There exists an article, Marriage Pact on the phenomenon of "matchmaking surveys" (for lack of a better term) at US universities, although the article primarily seems to revolve around one such survey conducted at Stanford University. In my opinion, that article is either an overly detailed article on a not very notable event, or an incomplete article about a general phenomenon. I think a general overview of that phenomenon could be included as a section in this article, which would make more sense than having the marriage pact article in its current state. Arecaceæ2011 (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that matchmaking surveys should be mentioned in this article (they seem to be pretty widespread and school newspapers write about them a lot), but I disagree that the article should be merged. I'll include my comment from the AfD you opened here as well, just for perspective: Keep. Some googling shows that the Marriage Pact is probably notable, and is much bigger than what happens at Stanford University, although it started there. For notability, it more than satisfies the requirements of the General Notability Guideline: it has significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Dedicated articles by The New York Times, Vox, CBS, and NPR's Planet Money were among the first articles I could find. Those articles mention 5 universities by name (Tufts, Middlebury, Vanderbilt, GWU, Stanford), but various articles report it being at 51 colleges, 55 colleges, 55 colleges, or 56 colleges, depending on date of publication. The article could probably be expanded with more sources, but the subject is notable and the article is sufficient to be kept as-is. —Shrinkydinks (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Closing, with no merge, given the uncontested objection with no support with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)