Talk:Limerence/Archive 1

message: I added the link to the book review again because I think it is important to have some analysis of Tennov's work. If anyone has another source that is more thorough it would be useful. abexy 21:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book review 

message: Why should "in love" redirect here? This article is about the state we call "in love" as described in a book, as seen by one certain scientist, not as it is widely accepted. "In love" should be seperate.
:Correct you are.  Changed redirect to love.--Sadi Carnot 23:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In love =/= Limerence 

message: The article structure has been moved around, for the better I think. The components of limerence are now under Components instead of Distinctions. I also think moving the origins to a separate section is for the best, since explaining what it is and where it came from in the introduction is a little long. And the basic components belong in the introduction, since they are the basic components. I think the article ought to cover what limerence is before it goes onto describe how limerence theory was developed. abexy 00:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Abexy, I feel your intentions are good; however, the opening section is now too long.  We have to remember that we are writing on a computer screen.  The user is supposed to be able to see the table of contents on the opening screen.  The goal is to make the opening section quick, catchy, and to the point.  We want to get people to read what we write.  If the opening section is too long, it will tend to turn the typical reader off.  See any other Wiki article for comparison. --Sadi Carnot 02:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood, I moved them back to the Components section. I cannot find a better way to present them than in bullet format, but I still think it would be good to have them in the introduction. Seeing those basic components is what makes most people realize exactly what is meant by "limerence." abexy 05:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization of the Article 

message: I just lost the game :( FredTheDeadHead 21:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Game 

message: I feel the page requires something more, though it explains the topic nicely. --Bhadani 10:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More

message: The article on the Christian Passion belongs at Passion (Christianity). This article should be about passion, the emotion, and may include, but not be exclusively defined as Limerance - based on "the research of Dorothy Tennov,[sic - no article?] beginning in the mid 1960s." Apparently she "interviewed and surveyed over 500 people on the topic of romantic love." A regular Kinsey. -Ste|vertigo 01:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But limerence is not passion. Limerence is a specific state of mind as defined by Tennov's research. It may have similarities, it might be a part of passion, and passion might be a part of it, but they are separate concepts. Tennov wrote about the emotional phenomena she called Limerence because there was no other word for it in the English language. I do not even think passion should redirect here, that is not what this article is about. abexy 09:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: concur with abexy.  Shouldn't the move request be decided on by now? Icemotoboy 05:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also concur with abexy. If one chooses to interpret the concept of Limerence as some sort of subdivision of "passion," then that's one's own choice. However, there is very clearly nothing in this article stating that passion and limerence are synonymous, or even related. It's not even SPECULATED upon. I see no reason why such a move would be beneficial or necessary. Rabid Behemoth 04:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another vote for keeping and not moving, largely on the grounds provided by abexy and Rabid Behemoth. --Atemperman 12:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Passion 

message: I KNOW this has been discussed before, but I can't find my way around here anyway. I'm looking to translate this article into Danish. Normally, I wouldn't ask for help here, but "Limerence" seems to be an invented word, whereas "infatuation" in Danish is "forgabelse" and as so I would be able to translate an article on infatuation. Therefore I'm raising the question again since I couldn't understand what was decided last time. Is it possible to write an article on infatuation? --Lhademmor 18:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two reasons this isn't titled Infatuation: 1) Limerence isn't infatuation. 2) This article is about the findings of Tennov's research and any additional information gathered on the topic since then. I do not know Danish, but my suggestion would be just to call it "limerence." Though I'm sure that word would sound different in the Danish context than in English. abexy 00:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if Limerence isn't infatuation then why does infatuation redirect here? --Lhademmor 11:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because whoever made the redirect doesn't understand what I said above. Also, no one has gone to the trouble to write a separate entry for Infatuation. abexy 01:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infatuation 

message: The reason that the book is not titled 'romantic love' but a new word was invented is because of Helen Payne. Payne worked on the project with Tennov and at a certain point after an outburst of Payne it became clear that she had never experienced 'romantic love'. Out of respect for her, and all the other non-limerents (est 10% of the population?) ,a new word had to be found. 
"there was no way around it a new term had to be found", page 15, Limerence (1977)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.188.31.198 (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Limerence: Why not just 'romantic love' : Non-limerents and love

message: The way I see it, the notion of limerence is basically unverifiable. Some people almost unfailingly feel every aspect of it while others are confused by the very thought of its existence. There's really no scientific, medical or legal evidence of its existence, or nonexistence. So, why is the page cluttered with so many banners regarding lack of sources and such? You'd be hard pressed to find a legitimate study on the subject with any sense of proving or disproving the information contained within, unless the information is blatantly unprofessional and written terribly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.151.174.208 (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is the case then the article should be deleted.  This violates both the original research clause and the verifiability clause of Wikipedia's rules... in short, if it isn't verifiable, then it shouldn't be on wikipedia. Pianoguy (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If this is the standard used to determine whether an article should exist or not, about a quarter of the entries in wikipedia should be purged. Be careful what you wish for. William J Bean (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Limerence as a Concept vs. Verifiability