Talk:Breakup

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Family and relationships (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships articles

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TierraLamore (article contribs).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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): Maryamattar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quality

IMHO, this article isn't written in a very good way. It's written very bias and from one perspective, as if one who is bitter from their own troubles. 92.1.183.181 (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article, in my judgement, is very poor. As such, it is in need to expert help. --StevenL 03:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the quality has been improved since these comments were made. If you have further comments please detail the problems you see. Arbalest Mike (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the link to The Psychology of Breaking Up is not usefull at all. it links to a page to buy an ebook.

joslloyd

I removed all of the "further reading" content as it was out of place in this WP article. Arbalest Mike (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Phases are not necessarily correct

These phases seem to be the ideal of the way separations should work, rather than capturing the essence of the way these breakups actually occur. In a separation there are natural processes which most people go through. Some are similar to the loss of a loved one as though through Death, including grief, fear, anxiety, depression, bargaining, hope, desperation, anticipation of real or imagined events, anger, resentment, guilt, embarrassment, feelings of low self worth, etc. These intense emotions can be simultaneous and experienced by one or both of the partners. Most people know that the way we should do things, are often in conflict of the way that they are done, and especially so in any type of relationship. And the long lasting relationships recognize this, and learn ways of relating. Yet the ideal way of relating and the actual way of relating are often diametrically opposed from the actual circumstances. I do agree that this article needs much more in relation to how people deal with the levels of emotions, what they should do: and what they do in reality: Any relationship is a difficult task, and there is no one answer to solve these dilemmas.

Is this comment still relevant? Also please sign your comment so that other editors doing clean-up can see the date they were made. Arbalest Mike (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement/Spam

I am opposed as to the links that are advertisements. There should be links to educational resources, rather than links to guru type e-books. If you want to refer to one of these e-books, do so within the article, specifically detailing what the author "believes", referencing the title just like any other book. Wikipedia is not a book-store, it is an encyclopedia. Chado2423 14:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and removed. Furthermore, the only links should be to citations of claims or WP articles if they are mentioned in the text. I only came to this article after removing spam from another article then following that person's user name to his/her other contributions. Arbalest Mike (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedia or online self-help?

Can someone please explain to me how it is relevant to have an article concerning "relationship breakup[s]" in an encyclopaedia? I am truely amazed when I see that such articles are allowed here when others can't even "live" for more than a minute Amhantar (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article might have been very different when you posted this comment but (as I am visiting to do editing) it seems like an academic/psychology treatment of something appropriate for the WP. However, a self-help type article on the same subject would not be appropriate. Arbalest Mike (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Authenticity & Reliability

There were three things that caught my attention.

1. Lack of references in general
2. The lack of evidence/references regarding the "Portelli-Wagel breakup" makes it hard to believe its authenticity.
3. No links or again reference to "Lee (1970)".

Victoria jwp fang (talk) 09:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These issues seem to have been addressed. Just commenting to leave this talk page with all comments addressed. Arbalest Mike (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phases of grief

I am removing this section from the main article but want to leave my comments about it here in case others feel that it should be re-added, perhaps with some adjustments.

The content is not encyclopedic and seems to exist to promote the author cited.
The text includes a link to the author's own WP page and cites her own blog.
The blog promotes the author's book(s), among related content.
The section introduces the author as an authority (Grief counselor and breakup expert) but her WP page mentions that she is an author and lawyer who has made a business of the topic rather than a licensed counselor.

Arbalest Mike (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Consequences Section

Hey everybody, I just wanted to inform you guys that I'm working on adding a section to this page that focuses on the consequences following a breakup, as the entire focus seems to be on the events leading up to it. There will be an exploration of both positive and negative effects, as well as the mitigating factors that either minimize or amplify the extent of these consequences after the dissolution of the relationship. Would love to hear your feed back once I put it up. Thanks. Maryamattar (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions to be made

In the beginning section, I think it should say more than just the definition of a breakup. It is very short and just takes a general definition from dictionary.com and that is not very informative. I think it should also talk about a few more situations that would be considered a breakup and not so much on what wouldn't be considered a breakup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TierraLamore (talk • contribs) 21:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Critique of Article

The first thing I would work on in this article is the lead section. I feel it is not descriptive enough as far as defining breakups, as there are different types, platonic and romantic. I would remove the talk about Susie Orbach, Kamiar-K. Rueckert, and Donald Winnicott, and move that to its own section that discusses different theories on break ups. The stages section is very short and non-descriptive. I think maybe it should give examples of what this may look like. It also focuses on just one person's stages of a breakup when there are multiple, as it states, so I think either more should be added, or a description explaining why that specific one was used. Was it the most reliable? Was it the most accurate? Maybe prove credibility. I would do the same for the cycle section. It is very short and nondescriptive. It is also one-sided, as not every break-up looks like that. I think that section could possibly be removed altogether. The same advice goes for the next section. It doesn't add anything to the article and it is very one-sided. There are more factors in ending a break up than that and, on top of that, this one just focuses on breakups before marriage, which seems out of place. There are platonic break ups, as well, and this should be included. Lastly, I don't understand why the "Conscious uncoupling" section is included in this article. It seems out of place. What does it have to do with breakups? Maybe it could be correlated to breakup and kept in there, but the relation needs to be more apparent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TierraLamore (talk • contribs) 23:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Interpersonal communication relationship dissolution into Breakup

The distinction of scope is unclear to me. § Duck's topographical model is about causes or kinds of breakup. § Duck's Stages of dissolution is about stages in the breakup process. § Grief is entirely about psychological processes within a person, and not at all about interpersonal communication. Daask (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The first article is overly technical and poorly written, and should be covered as part of the general article. Sdkb ^talk 19:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]