Talk:Limerence/Archive 2

message: Just another say on why this article doesn't make much sense at all. I do not know what limerent means. I do not understand at all. It looks like this is describing the effect of some drugs... I don't have a high standard of english but I usually get the general gist of what the article is saying, and understand some words from past usage in familiar text. But, forgive me, I can't make out a lot of words in this article, and it's painfully hard to read. I think the article should be made a lot clearer, maybe add a simplified example or something, because it's not just super smart people who read Wikipedia, y'know. Just had another read, yes, on second thought, this looks like an article about love and etc in general, and it pretty pointless. Forgive me if I have lost the point completely. Leemorrison 18:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, if you really want more insight into what Limerence is, do a web search on the term "oneitis," which you can consider unrequited limerence.  Highly analytical people not in touch with their emotions will not at all understand this article or the concept of oneitis, even though being prone to experiencing the emotion first hand.  Doolin 20:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If, in order to understand an article, one must be in a subjective "in touch with their emotions" state, then comprehension of the article is grounded in POV.  Australian Matt 04:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of Understanding

message: Unilaterally removing dispute templates before any consensus has been reached or any revision even attempted is an egregious violation of wikipedia policies.  Refrain, immediately.  The bulk of the article can stay, it merely needs to be made clear that this is an obscure point of view based on the research of one woman, that is subscribed to only by an extremely small and uncredentialed (if quite persistent) minority. Keep in mind that in all fairness this article should probably be AFD'd outright:
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
204.161.5.200 01:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of hits on search engines for Limerence.  Where is the evidence that this is "obscure" and only "subscribed to only by an uncredentialed minority"?  I feel that way about Flat Earth Society, but it's still interesting and informative. Fermium 22:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots, i.e. ~83000 or 6.5% as many hits as noted cultural phenomenon sweet zombie Jesus.  Dorothy Tennov, on the other hand, turns up under 1000, about as obscure as it gets.  And the "evidence" you is ask for is that the burden of proof is on the one claiming that an article is accepted in academia and meets the criteria for being encyclopedic.  Obviously.  So where are the reputable, peer-reviewed journals?  Where is the mention in major newspapers?  Without those, this article only avoids AFD only by the grace and generosity of any sensible person who has the misfortune of being redirected here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.161.5.200 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to know what brainiac came up with the idea of using search engine hit count to win an argument?  Is this some kind of WP disease?  I'm seeing more and more of it and it's weak, weak, weak.  Jaguara 03:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Templates 

message: #'"Limerence" is a view held by a tiny minority, and almost none within relevant fields in academia.  83,000 hits on google is very, very few.  No genuine scholarly articles discussing the concept have been provided.  Thus limerence barely qualifies as noteworthy, if at all (perhaps as the "ancillary article" in the wikipedia policy concerning the views of small minorities).
# There is zero evidence supporting the "theory" of limerence.  There easily could be.  A simple study comparing the behaviors of so-called limerent individuals and those with short-term infatuations, for example, would suffice. Yet none has appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, indeed, none has even been attempted. Thus "limerence" does not qualify as a serious psychological theory.  Anecdotal experiences cannot possibly establish limerence as a distinct emotion, and that's the only form of "evidence" that has been offered here.
#'The original article was completely unacceptable.  Exceedingly dogmatic in tone, it failed even to acknowledge the idea that limerence could be other than proven fact.  Moreover, infatuation and romantic passion, established emotions, redirected to this unstable, unsubstantiated neologism.
:Conclusion: the article will be heavily revised to bring in to accordance with wikipedia regulations concerning NPOV.
::You are correct. This article depends too heavily on the work of Tennov and does an injustice by attempting to characterize the whole of inquiry into romantic/passionate love and infatuation under the title Limerence. Looking deeper into the issue than when I originally wrote the article it would have been best to focus on the psychological research done since Tennov's book was published. Since I do not presently have time, and people seem to think it is a pressing issue, if someone would like to update the article and move it under a more appropriate heading perhaps, here are references to a few article taken from psychology journals dealing directly with either the concept of limerence, defining it by a different name, recognizing as an distinct emotional reaction, and/or addressing its effects:
::Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 9, 383-410.
::Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.
::Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1994). Sex and the psychological tether. In D. Perlman & K. Bartholomew (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships: A research annual (Vol. 5, pp. 151-177). London: Jessica Kingsley.
::Money, J. (1980). Love and love sickness: The science of sex, gender differences, and pair-bonding. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
::Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (1998). Passionate and companionate love in courting and young married couples. Sociological Inquiry, 68, 163-185.
::Weinrich, J. (1987). Sexual landscapes: Why we are what we are, why we love whom we love. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
::Peele, S., & Brodsky, A. (1975). Love and addiction. New York: Taplinger.
::Steffen, J. J., McLaney, M. A., & Hustedt, T. K. (1984). The development of a measure of limerence. Unpublished manuscript, University of Cincinnati.
::Hatfield, E., & Walster, G. W. (1981). A new look at love. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
::abexy 09:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, this has been a heated discussion – I’ll refrain from complicating it with my two cents worth, except to say that I find limerance a useful term.  But I got to this page on the following link from ‘Eros’:  “Limerance, an English term for this emotion”.  This is, in my view, incorrect – limerance is NOT identical to Eros, although there is some overlap.  I think the link is appropriate, but the way it is worded makes it sound as if limerance is all there is to Eros, whereas Eros includes all sorts of other shades of meaning, including (but not limited to) sexual attraction and joie de vivre. Genieinred 19:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary