Talk:Romance (love)

message: All the pictures in this article feature white people. There's not much discussion of romance in non-western cultures other than so-called "contemporary primitive societies." (By the way - the practice of describing societies as "primitive" has roots in white supremacy/imperialism - therefore no article for a general audience should use the word "primitive" to describe societies). There's no discussion of romance among non-white people in western countries/societies (Roma, Indigenous Americans, Black Americans, non-white immigrant groups in the West, etc). Most if not all the philosophers, artists & scholars cited in the article are white. Non-white cultures have been producing visual art, dance, music, literature, philosophy & theology on romance for centuries if not millenia. This article will be neither comprehensive nor accurate until non-white experiences of romance are included in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:4601:C053:6846:B0A5:1E60:D947 (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is very Eurocentric

message: Just a suggestion, I am no expert but when I read the intro it seemed a bit closed off. It contradicts what is mention later in the article about how romantic love can be more than just sexual appeal. The first sentence seems to imply that sexual appeal is the main definer of romantic love. This is not the case and yes this article does supply good examples of romantic love beyond this. Which is why I feel the intro should be more direct and indefinite. 
Also be careful with words like most! I like the anonymous quote but if it has no source that is linked correctly and is unknown I feel it shouldn't b part of this article.Beverlysvasquez (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinion

message: These must be the old comments--sorry.Cdg1072 19:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fantasy against reality

message: Flirting is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested!--Fenice 20:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: I think this is a very well written article. -- James26 11:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice work 

message: I don't believe the concept of romantic love didn't exist prior to the middle ages (whether it was documented or not). It seems like this article hasn't been paid much attention by scholars. This article is linked from the St. Valentine's day article, and is in dire need of improvement. It would be useful if anyone who knows of any work that has been done on exploring the history of the concept could add the reference to this article. Donama 06:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  romantic love before middle ages 

message: Changed 
"Properties of romantic love purported by Western culture that might or might not appear elsewhere include:"
to:
"Properties of romantic love purported by Western culture include:"
due to dictionary-definition quality redundancy.  I can't imagine a phrase with less meaning. Drewson99 05:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit 

message: What about how fast does it take to fall in love? 瀬人様
:Actually, that is a disputed conclusion. I mean, of course, it could take anywhere from an second (as some claim) to several (possibly not till your death) years. But, it all depends on the person and this has never been revealed. UnDeRsCoRe 23:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: You forgot something:

message: The problem with that statement is that before the 19th century most marriages in the West were arranged, and the idea of marriage based on romantic love only came into being in the early 19th century.
Roadrunner 10:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a misconception, actually.  Even in the middle ages, arranged marriages were only practiced with the nobility.  Peasants were free to marry as they pleased.  So marriage based on romantic love is at least as old as the middle ages.  12:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added dubious tag 

message: Or other art? 
This is kind of a big one. wiki can be a lot more awesome if this page is inspiring rather than middlin' and descriptiveThechosenone021 15:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photography? 

message: Romantic love needs not take someone by surprise. All relationships (romantic or not) begin with a "random encounter" of some kind, so saying this is pointless. Also, it can slowly become obvious that two people are interested in each other -- their attraction can develop slowly, predictably and unsurprisingly out of a friendship.
Romance can be easily controlled. Saying it cannot is a sweeping statement that is extremely difficult to prove or even strongly suggest. I'm sure many people have considerable ability to control their romantic interests (especially in the name of culture, politics or religion, for example). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.160.45.248 (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why must romantic love take one by surprise? 

message: Article has been requested for semi-protection due to vandalism by anonymous accounts and new users. Zuracech lordum 07:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for protection

message: The introduction to this article is wordy and confusing. It should be revised for easier reading.70.174.154.188 03:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: Here is what I am questioning... "Romantic love is a form of sexual love that attempts to either partly, or in some cases entirely, transcend mere needs driven by looks, sexual desire, or material and social gain."  --- Romantic love is a form of sexual love? This is not necessary untrue, but it also not necessarily true.  It can be misleading causing the reader to assume it means "love involving phsyical sexual intercourse."  Secondly the word "looks" should be translated as "physical appearances."  Sexual desire is not always the cause for romantic, in some case REAL LOVE is, which is quite another factor.  I am not saying to delete this, but it needs cited at the very least.  Where is this information coming from?  Certainly my own experiences have told me that you do not need to try to attribute material or social gain in order to be romantic.  And if you've ever been in a relationship you'd instinctually know that you can look like **** and your partner see you as a wonderful romantic partner.  Part of what in the article is lacking is the human emotional appeal toward what, why and how partners react romanctically.  69.245.172.44 16:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: THE INTRODUCTION... POSSIBLY INNACURATE?

message: Whoever put that tag on there missed the whole reference section!  It does cite references, yet this artcile still retains a whole lot of unverified (and possibly even unverifiable information.)
The correct tag would be this one:  This article may contain original research or unverified claims.  69.245.172.44 16:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DOES NOT CITE REFERENCES?

message: In the introduction there is a citation problem.  While on the surface the quote seems to be verified by source material it lacks in actual credence.  Sorry to be a poo-poo head again... I don't always like to be negative nelly.  Yet, I think the referenced material should be more specific.  This statement "Shakespeare in his plays, and Tolstoy and many others in their novels show this.[1]" is in fact not a citation, as though it would appear.  And here is why, let me dissect the sentence for you...  "Shakespeare in his plays... show(s) this." (Although this may be true, Which ones?, Which plays?  Which particular plays display this particular idea?  What portions of the play actually state so?  Does the play state so directly, or is this idea based solely upon implication, or individual perception by audience members?  Also, are there direct quotes within the play that make a similar statement?)  Tolstoy in (his) novels show this.  (Which novels?)  And many others in their novels show this. (Who are the many others?  What are their names?  What books have these "others" written that attribute material to the claim?) 69.245.172.44 04:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Problem 

message: Yes, I am to blame for the formatting fault in the article... please shoot me.  No, just kidding, I want to live.  My computer froze while I was qdding information to the article.  If you can correct this problem, please do.  PLEASE DO! 69.245.172.44 07:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Messed Up Article Format

message: ... the oldest form of this article was simply:
"Romantic, in the sense of romantic love is often used as a contrast to sexual "love," or lust, as the case may be." (Revision as of 07:42, 31 July 2003)
Boy has this article really expanded, thanks to some wonderful editors. I did not originate the article, however this is a subject that I am highly interested in, and would love to see what else wonderful information everyone finds and incorporates. I will also do my best research.Chado2423 02:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In Case you want to compare oldest and newest revisions easily

message: Is the bot correcting a vandal?  Or is it mistaken?  If you have citation regarding the accuracy of the beings with spherical torsos, two sets of human limbs and two faces back to back, also having two sets of genitalia, this should be included.  Sometimes the bots do clean up work that is really more equated with cencorship than cleap-up.  Please let me know if you have reference material to back up this claim 68.11, because I will contact an administrator or other bot equivilent if the case warrants it.  The administrational purpose for this is to save the editors from some editing time, but sometimes they falsely accuse, which may have been the case here.  Just let me know if we should re-incorporate the genetalia aspect (if it is indeed referenced), and I will try to contect the necessary party to allow such usage.  Chado2423 03:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot problem

message: There are still a couple of areas that need citations however, but I believe that the original has been limited in scope that the article may almost meet the wikipedia's standards, with just a little more work.  Once the article is more complete, I will contact a friendly administrator for review of the page.  Chado2423 05:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Original Research Tag

message: I moved Romantic love to Romance (love). Term Romance (love) is per cambridge online dictionary, see . This article is the top link in disambiguation page Romance. I had proposed a move in Wikipedia:Requested moves, see discussion in talk:romance. But this move is not related to that move hence moving without consensus. Im afraid wikipedia had no article titled exactly "romance", in five years. Lara_bran 04:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article does not have a Wikipedia:Lead_section. That is first paragraph, not existent at all. You cant take too long to conform to style, as this article is visited during time of edit. Its fine you reverted my edits. Lara_bran 05:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: i have reverted to version that has lead section, i need not write lead section myself. There are many other editors other than me, let them enter the scene. I could not get what exactly going on, otherwise i would have reverted again, now waiting for a third party. Lara_bran 05:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: Aftter my move request, maybe as a result, this article has gone extensive work by one ip and one new user both seem to be same individual, in just 3 days. 
See earlier stable version, i have reverted. Feel free to revert back. version for reference is:
 Lara_bran 05:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article does not have a Wikipedia:Lead_section. That is first paragraph, not existent at all. You cant take too long to conform to style, as this article is visited during time of edit. Its fine you reverted my edits. Lara_bran 05:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: i have reverted to version that has lead section, i need not write lead section myself. There are many other editors other than me, let them enter the scene. I could not get what exactly going on, otherwise i would have reverted again, now waiting for a third party. Lara_bran 05:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh gosh

message: I have added old lead section back from this version. Cleanup article if same sentences repeat. Article should be good version all the time, you cant spoil it for long term to edit. Or editing should be such that article is usable condition all the time. Lara_bran 05:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: The idea of gender bias, even in psychology is a major problem, and especially so involving romance... I am often reading Males do this, Females do this, but yet understanding that these generalizations are only based upon the author's personal experiences rather than actual truth.  For instance in The Idiots Guide to Intamacy, there is a distinction between men and women, but these distinctions are not true per se:  For men "A typical man will blame the woman for being too demanding, needy, or unappreciative."  Yet I have seen examples of the opposite being true, even in my own relationship I was usually classified as the needy one, and I am male.  Also the book suggests: "women are still raised to be more relationship focused than men."  I would love see documentation proving these assumptions.  Chado2423 19:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diffficulty with finding articles without Gender Bias

message: there is article romanticism any relationship can be established in historical definition? and exaggeration or flaunting or making it rich are the words somewhat connected to romance, any idea? Chado really nice work, you deserve appreciation. Lara_bran 03:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will cleanup article when it reaches little stable state, i will have time by then. "exaggeration" or "show off" seem to be common things in arts and current usage in context of love. Lara_bran 07:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  romanticism and exaggeration 

message: It exceeded 32kb, shorten article and introduce images, each image is worth 1000 words. Thanks. Lara_bran 11:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  trim article 

message: This is technically an inadequate source... none of these definitions given adequately show the idea of exagerated or decorated expression:
^ http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=68503&dict=CALD
Chado2423 05:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (i deleted quote as link is enough, copyright etc.) We are not supposed to copy sentence, so i tried to put in my own words, it was little misleading, now i tweaked it a little. Lara_bran 06:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Delete sentence if not seems proper, I could not research in detail. Put one more reference. Somebody trim the article also. Lara_bran 07:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your interest and effort on article, i will give a go for cleanup, but not in near soon. Lara_bran 03:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inadequate Source

message: Like the time I took her to the botanical gardens, and later that day we had a picnic. But then two weeks ago she dumped me for Brett Ellis. Man, I hate that Brett Ellis. Anyway, I came here for answers, and all I got were the philosophical rantings of some basement dweller who obviously has no knowledge of the subject. 
76.227.204.230 20:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there nothing on here about Jeanette Kritsky? 

message: somebody reverted move from "romantic love" to "romance (love)", without even mentioning in talk page. Term romantic love is not found anywhere in cambridge/oxford dictionaries. i have put fact tag, and article needs heavy cleanup. Wikipedia does not have article with title "romance", i dont understand why. Article dablinks to love, but mentioned in dab of romance. Lara_bran 06:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Romantic love" google search gives 1.5million hits, with this article on top :D. "romance" gives 116million hits with nowhere wikipedia. Lara_bran 06:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved it since nobody provided citation for fact tag to "romantic love". Lara_bran 15:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Romantic love" is used 25+ times in this article! -- maybe you should change all those as well? "Romantic love" is far less ambiguous: "Romance (love)" could easily be confused with e.g. a Love affair ("a romance") or Courtship ("to romance") as evidenced by the conflation already present in this article. Ewlyahoocom 08:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  move 

message: The section on defining romantic love within a relationship is mostly a discussion of one particular professor's view of romantic love. As Lisa Diamond is not preeminent enough to have a wikipedia page devoted to her as of yet, or to turn up a great many hits in a cursory Google search, perhaps this discussion should be clipped or even removed? It seems strange to have 2/3 of the definition section devoted to one author's view particularly one who is relatively obscure. 140.247.165.56 (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lisa Diamond? 

message: The edit notice for this page is currently subject to a deletion debate.  The edit notice is the message that appears just over the edit box whenever the page itself is in edit mode.  If you love this notice, hate it, or just would like to comment on it's existance, please come and join in the debate. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit notice debate 

message: I have removed here the following sentence bcz its intention is to vague to fix.
: Romantic love might be requited emotionally and physically while not being consummated, to which one or both parties might agree.
The article it Rdrs to acknowledges that the term is use loosely, but it is about the issue of whether sex takes place in a marriage, and a lk to it is not helpful. If someone knows what its supposed to communicate, it should be rewritten or just replaced. --Jerzy•t 00:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed content 

message: I have created new material to augment the "Psychology of Love" section of this article. I plan to post it to the article in a few days, but would appreciate comments in advance. The draft of this proposed insert can be seen on my talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:4Xanadu/workspace
Thanks for your help!
4Xanadu (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Material for Peer Review 

message: I just finished tackling this absolute beast of a topic. Here are my thoughts:
1. Added the sections for romantic love's history as well as the popularization thereof. I feel this will benefit the reader who is skimming the article best.
2. If you are a beginner or notice editor, please familiarize or refresh yourself on Wikipedia's wiki markup before making a reference link. This goes especially for those who are referencing philosophers, artists, authors et cetera with only their last name. Not everyone has the same education as you, so please write the person's full name initially, then follow with only their last name throughout the rest of the page. It also is not necessary to link the same word more than once in an article, so please check the rest of the article before doing so. This sort of care will make the page on romantic love an excellent read.
3. Topics unrelated specifically to romantic love were being brought into this article. Please go to the topic for love to contribute there.
4. Changes in grammar were made to reflect consistency in this article. Because there are multiple authors and voices, I felt it was necessary to make the wording consistent for everyone's benefit.
5. Please remember not to inject words like "perhaps," "maybe," and your personal opinion on topics. It's also important to be as clear and concise as possible in any wiki page.
That said, the article has been improved and I hope another editor will take on the new challenge of culling away unnecessary data. I would love for the author(s) who wrote specifically on philosophical topics referencing Nietzsche to move their paragraphs to the article on love.
Thank you!
mheart 14:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major overhaul of page structure, grammar. 

message: What is the origin of the word "Romance" or "Romantic" is there a connection with monogamy?  
Has is something to do with the fact - or is it not a fact? - that under the Roman Empire the monogamy became law (although concubines were kept by the male upper class)  to preserve property in the same family line?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.156.91.252 (talk) 07:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romance and the Roman Empire 

message: In my opinion, Based on sexual dimorphism, an undisputable scientific fact; Romance , in its christian sense , is nothing but an ideation on part of the female of all the vagueness and psychological manipulation the male has to offer as part of his sexual advance.  212.80.5.212 (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romance and sexual dimorphism 

message: Romance also has a great deal to do with the social norms and what women perceive as "The greater good". For example, the common saying a couple of years ago was "Get a life!" meaning that a "man" should have a job or some other activity that stimulates the economy in a way; one could easily wonder if it's the same these days with the recession. 
81.90.159.233 (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romance and social norms 

message: Sexual dimorphism in fact explains a lot when it comes to romance; as in some mammals like the smaller breeds of dogs, where the male and female are almost equal in physical strength, sex is done without any pursue and hassle while among other mammals like wild horses rape like behavior has been observed. 84.241.20.45 (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romance and sexual dimorphism 

message: new link
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/romance?rskey=gEbSc9&result=2#m_en_gb0716780  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.145.124 (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxford dictionary broken link 

message: I don't understand the meaning of the sentence "There may not be evidence, however, that members of such societies formed loving relationships distinct from their established customs in a way that would parallel modern romance." 
Even with the help of the context, this convoluted sentence is still undecypherable to me, because some negations added to each other in an unpractical way lead to an ambiguous situation. 
86.76.72.178 (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  One complicated sentence 

message: * Sorry, but I'm quite sure that the original (and sometimes still used) meaning of romance,is not necessarily anything to do with relationships. I think the original meaning was used in the same way as 'story' or fictitious novel. Personally I still use it in this way. The use of 'romance' as it is more often used now, i.e. as in relationships is not really accurate. I'm fairly sure I'm right about this, & it really does irritate me to see words misused in encyclopaedias or by supposed scholars.
(58.179.206.40 (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of"romance". 

message: As someone who has done some moderate study into the history of domestic violence, it's obvious that the idea that chivalry did anything to help women's rights is a ridiculous myth conceived in the 19th century. There are many resources from the period which show this. For example, in "The Book of the Knight of La Tour Landry", a chivalrous knight is described as doing the following: "smote her with his first down to the earth; and then with his foot he struck her on the visage, and broke her nose; and all her life after that she had her nose crooked, the which shent and disfigured her visage after, that she might not for shame show her visage, it was so foul blemished." Of course, there are other examples- Friar Cherubino of Siena wrote a book called "Rules of Marriage", in which he recommends for husbands to soundly beat their wives with sticks. In one medieval tale, King Arthur rapes a young girl, and her father, upon finding out, says that she hopes she has become pregnant.
I remember that one particularly good timeline for some of this stuff is included in a book called "Domestic Violence: A Reference Handbook".
Also, while it was technically illegal for a knight to rape or kill a noblewomen, peasants were fair game. It was extremely common for knights to assault female peasants, all the while being considered chivalrous. Chivalry was largely about regulating violence from knights so that it primarily affected peasants, instead of other nobles. Books such as Chandos Herald's The Black Prince and Froissart's Chronicles do a good job of describing what chivalry back then was really like.
In other words, the section of this article which describes chivalry as helping empower women is seriously off-base. If nobody has any objections, within the week I will remove all reference to it, but just in case there are any objections, I will give people time to explain them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazypalindromeemordnilapyzal (talk • contribs) 22:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Misrepresentation of Chivalry

message: Portions of this article make me want to cry. There are several sentences that are so unclear, they have resisted all of my attempts to clean them up. For instance, "Within an established relationship, romantic love can be defined as a freeing or optimizing of intimacy in a particularly luxurious manner (or the opposite as in the "natural"), or perhaps in greater spirituality, irony, or peril to the romantic relationship." According to the syntax, this sentence claims (among many things) that "Romantic love can be defined as a freeing of intimacy...in greater spirituality...to the romantic relationship." Really? What exactly does that even mean? And what is the significance of "the 'natural'"? Why is it italicized and quoted? Again, what does it even mean?
I don't want to just excise sentences like this (of which this article has many) because I sense that there is actual content hidden within them, desperate to be heard. But a greater mind than mine will be needed to unlock some of this. Portions of this article read as if Google Translate spat them out after being fed excerpts from an academic journal written in a non-English language. Yes, I'm complaining without providing a fix. Maybe when my brain stops bleeding from earlier attempts I'll make another run at it.
Mac (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL!! Yes, do fix that horrible grammar when you get good time to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: English Grammar

message: Is it really appropriate for a Wikipedia article to have a conclusions section? This is not a research paper. It should be presenting facts, and not forwarding an argument from which "conclusions" can be finally drawn. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Timothyjosephwood, go ahead and remove that; this article has, from what I can see, been the subject of WP:Student editing more than once, much like the Gender role article you are currently working on (but not to as great of an extent as that one). Flyer22 (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Or rather than delete it, merge it into an existing section of the article. Well, except for its first sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusions?

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Romance which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 14:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Dating is an essential part of growing up when it comes to teens. It definitely contributes to growth and strength, and it is a milestone in every young person's life. (Vednidhi Teeruthroy and Uma Bhowon, "Romantic Relationships among Young Adults: An Attachment Perspective", International Journal of Humanities and Social Science (May 2012,vol. 2, no. 10) Luce Fonrose (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The PROBLEM being that this article — that is to say Romance (love) — is kinda obviously NOT THE SAME as Dating. This unsteady heap of garbage will not be improved by piling more garbage upon it. As I say below, there's no rationale (or even clear reason) to conflate Romance with love with courtship with relationship.Weeb Dingle (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Young adults and romance 

message: Asking Regular editors if taking this article to the GA can be one?⭐FORCE RADICAL⭐ @ 11:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article nominations

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Romance (love). 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/20100123205411/http://www.astro.umd.edu/~marshall/chivalry.html to http://www.astro.umd.edu/~marshall/chivalry.html
*Added  tag to https://www.psych.utah.edu/people/files/diamond54a1.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've removed a Further reading entry: Brad Hayden, "falling in love" ... Made possible by Cora-lee Reid. The ONLY place such a "book" is mentioned is (was) this article, AND every site (of which there are dozens) that takes every trollish WP brainfart as sacred Truth. Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone thought I was kidding about this. Today, Google has 95 hits for ""Made possible by Cora-lee Reid" that all point straight back to Romance (love) for verification. Welcome to crowdsourced Truth.Weeb Dingle (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  why Brad Hayden is gone 

message: One hurdle I've encountered is that the article seems somewhat schizoid about its base terminology. In particular, it MUST either be about 
* the feeling (&/or emotion, depending on definitions) of romantic love, as differentiated (per Love) from
** familial love
** friendly love or platonic love
** guest love
** divine love
** unrequited love
** infatuated love
** self-love
** courtly love
*XOR about the activities that have become such a major facet of expressing love, courtship, infatuation, sexual predation, limerence, puppy love, stalking, narcissistic personality disorder, and so forth, dozens of which behaviors are listed in the Romantic practices column of Romance (love)#See also. From those ritual behaviors we obtain odd concepts such as "romantic films," "romantic music," "romantic restaurants," "romantic vacations," etc., none of which is actually linked to the concept love yet none is properly explored here in context.
(Apologies for dashing off after mentioning "XOR." By that I mean "one or the other, no overlap or compromise.)
The word romantic makes 77 appearances here, of which 46 pair up in romantic love. The bulk of the present article seems strongly parallel to Courtly love and therefore perhaps ought better be slugged something like Romantic love, with the various accreted expressions and fantasies left here (though really then needing a better title).Weeb Dingle (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The longer that I "back burner" this, the more it seems to me that all content of this article nattering about love-per-se without clear and strong "romance" context ought to be removed as much better served by the Love article.Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's usually not hard to improve Wikipedia articles with WP:Reliable sources. Cutting material is not always improving an article, and should be done with caution per WP:Preserve. Romantic love is obviously not the same thing as platonic love. That is why it has a Wikipedia article. If you want to retitle the article, it's easy to start a WP:Requested move discussion; just follow the instructions there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  title change 

message: From Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen:
Her partner now drew near, and said, "That gentleman would have put me out of patience, had he stayed with you half a minute longer.  He has no business to withdraw the attention of my partner from me.  We have entered into a contract of mutual agreeableness for the space of an evening, and all our agreeableness belongs solely to each other for that time.  Nobody can fasten themselves on the notice of one, without injuring the rights of the other. I consider a country-dance as an emblem of marriage. Fidelity and complaisance are the principal duties of both; and those men who do not choose to dance or marry themselves, have no business with the partners or wives of their neighbours."
"But they are such very different things!"
"--That you think they cannot be compared together."
"To be sure not.  People that marry can never part, but must go and keep house together.  People that dance only stand opposite each other in a long room for half an hour."
"And such is your definition of matrimony and dancing. Taken in that light certainly, their resemblance is not striking; but I think I could place them in such a view. You will allow, that in both, man has the advantage of choice, woman only the power of refusal; that in both, it is an engagement between man and woman, formed for the advantage of each; and that when once entered into, they belong exclusively to each other till the moment of its dissolution; that it is their duty, each to endeavour to give the other no cause for wishing that he or she had bestowed themselves elsewhere, and their best interest to keep their own imaginations from wandering
towards the perfections of their neighbours, or fancying that they should have been better off with anyone else. You will allow all this?"
"Yes, to be sure, as you state it, all this sounds very well; but still they are so very different. I cannot look upon them at all in the same light, nor think the same duties belong to them."
"In one respect, there certainly is a difference. In marriage, the man is supposed to provide for the support of the woman, the woman to make the home agreeable to the man; he is to purvey, and she is to smile. But in dancing, their duties are exactly changed; the agreeableness, the compliance are expected from him, while she furnishes the fan and the lavender water.  That, I suppose, was the
difference of duties which struck you, as rendering the conditions incapable of comparison."
"No, indeed, I never thought of that."
"Then I am quite at a loss.  One thing, however, I must observe.  This disposition on your side is rather alarming. You totally disallow any similarity in the obligations; and may I not thence infer that your notions of the duties of the dancing state are not so strict as your partner might wish? Have I not reason to fear that if the gentleman who spoke to you just now were to return, or if any other gentleman were to address you, there would be nothing to restrain you from conversing with him as long as you chose?"
"Mr. Thorpe is such a very particular friend of my brother's, that if he talks to me, I must talk to him again; but there are hardly three young men in the room besides him that I have any acquaintance with."
"And is that to be my only security? Alas, alas!"
"Nay, I am sure you cannot have a better; for if I do not know anybody, it is impossible for me to talk to them; and, besides, I do not want to talk to anybody."
"Now you have given me a security worth having; and I shall proceed with courage. . . ."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.78.144.132 (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lovefare 

message: The absence of love at least in certain human communities undermines the basic arguments of the existing theories of romantic love. Really, if the appearance of romantic love is caused by the brain chemistry (as one of the existing theories of romantic love states), then one should admit that the brains of certain nations are constructed in a different way as compared to the other people. If (in accordance to another theory) the appearance of romantic love is caused by connection of the intimacy and passion, then we should explain the fact that the savages of Trobrian and Samoa islands, as the anthropologies describe their lifestyle, had these intimacy and passions in plenty but somehow these two phenomena failed to connect with the noble purpose to generate romantic love.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boris Shipov (talk • contribs) 01:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The absence of love in primitive human communities 

message: I was looking for some small help. I created an article Valentine's Day in Pakistan. While article subject orientation is related to Romance relationships and festival, but in some parts of the world it touches serious issues like violations of women's rights & Human rights 
At this stage looking for help in better chronological order within article, and continued copy edit help in times to come.
Thanks in advance. 
Bookku (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request of Help 

message: The psychology section of this page needs some assistance, and I think that the sub-sections that are currently included don't all have to do with romantic love, and I think some of them should include pictures to better demonstrate the theories that are being explained. They also could use more current citations. There is a big emphasis on relationships and sexual desire, which I'm pretty sure does not always correlate with romantic love.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meemclem (talk • contribs) 22:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The psychology section is a total mess right now. I have removed one article by a biased Christian theologist with dated and misogynist ideas about what men and women want, but the whole section is full of faulty and biased theory by individuals and unqualified theorists. Needs some major help to be brought up to standard. Like... entirely rewritten or very large chunks removed. The claim that homosexuals can fall in love with people of the opposite gender is highly suspect. Furthermore, theories on romantic love that hinge on the relationship between a male and female constituent are not speaking appropriately neutrally to Wikipedia's standards, as romantic love can of course occur between any people regardless of gender. The neutrality really needs to be improved.Solspide (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychology Subsections and Format 

message: This section needs to be rewritten in my opinion. It focuses too much on the parable recited by Aristophanes. There are three important points that ought to be captured
1) each of the speakers presents a very different vision of love. And the presentation of each speaker is a reflection of that speaker's philosohy/values. So the symposium suggests that each person models their conception of love based on on their own values. That's a very important point to emphasize, especially since it links up with work by modern anthropologists.
2) Socrates, perhaps not unsurprisingly, links love to the philosopher. Love is always love of what one is lacking, and the philosopher operates in the space of desire, in between wisdom and ignorance.
3) The Greek word usually translated as "love" is "eros" which is perhaps better translated as "desire" or "(erotic) desire." The section should reflect the nuance of a Greek word without a clear English analogue. Geranian Nestor (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plato's Symposium Section