Talk:Love/Archive 1

message: One direction this article could go in is to quote the Jerry Reed song, "A Thing Called Love":
"You can't see it with your eyes; hold it in your hand;
But like the wind that covers our land;
Strong enough to rule the heart of any man,
This thing called love.
It can lift you up; never let you down;
Take your world and turn it all around.
Ever since time nothing's ever been found,
That's stronger than love." 
Or: "Love, love, love. Love, love, love. Love, love, love. All you need is Love. Love is all you need."
--The Beatles
-------------------------
Maybe it's because love is hard to define exactly (honestly, I look at the commitment/passion crap and think it's terrible, but I can't improved upon it), as with all emotions. It must be different for everyone. We all know what plastic is, where it comes from, how we use it, who invented it etc... etc..., but who the hell knows exactly what love is!? It's one of those mystic, cosmic, cool breeze on early fall day-dusk, Starry Night, Final Fantasy, "psychic, ESP...ESPN" things.
What is love and is not love? I mean, is there a threshold level of a factor, call it 'Caring about someone,' determining love? I mean, I care/think about this person X amount, but love is defined to be greater than or equal to Y amount, so if X>Y, you love, X<Y you don't love, and if X>>Y you love very much and if X=Y you love just a little? No! (or, at least I hope not). Amount care/thought available to be given out should be EEE, then a fraction certainly would be EEE. So, anyone you care enough to think you love recieves EEE amount of care/attention/though, while those you don't love recieves relatively less.
-tin shrimp huntin' in the sea'|12 Jul 2004
-------
Yeah it really sucks considering that articles on more banal things like Plastic are 10 times longer. Come on, this something we've been familiar with since the creation of man, and maybe even earlier.
-------
Definitions will go all out when you actually experience love....
-------
I'm sorry teo be blunt, but this article really, really sucks at prsent.  I mean, if you're going to write about love, then for chrissakes, do it right!  :-) --LMS
-------
I'd prefer the current entry to say "Cognitive Scientists" rather than "Skeptics".  We know who they are.  And I'm sure it's just an evolutionary mechanism, too. *sigh*  --MichaelTinkler
-------
I, Juuitchan, want to know how a person who feels love can identify that it is, in fact, LOVE, and not just a combination of sexual attraction and a fulfillment of one's desire for companionship, or whatever.
:I feel sexual attraction and a desire for companionship roughly every four or five minutes - but I am very rarely in love. - montréalais
To quote a recent UK telly comedy show: "is it mum love or rude love?"
-------
I agree that the article sucks.  I also agree that more deserves to be said about it, because, as a previous commenter said, it has existed since the beginning of time (or the beginning of human history at the very least).  However, the last point is the problem: People have been trying to define love for ages, and nobody can, and nobody ever will for that matter, because love is such a multifaceted and ethereal thing, and is almost pure emotion/spirit at that.  To make matters worse, every single person on Earth experiences love completely uniquely.  Words can only describe traits of love, not love itself, and to try to find those traits that most people agree on is a daunting task, to put it mildly.  Who is brave enough and thinks that he/she knows enough about love to put their definition in the public eye and subject it to scrutiny?  It must be done sometime for the good of Wikipedia, but I'm not surprised at how little has been written about it so far.
-------
I think I made the first comment on page, but I can't remember. It's been a while since I've visited this page to see how it has progressed. 
I agree with the last comment that love is a multifaceted and ethereal thing, but I am not satisfied with the excuse that because the experience varies from person to person that we may not be able to draw underlying and common traits that hint to the nature of love.   
I still think that this page deserves alot more attention than any other page out there. Love is threaded through the fabric of human existance. It is as essential and pervasive as water. It is in us and in everything we do. Our lives are carved by products of love and hate. And as impossible as it may seem to try and define it, the search for it's definition would reward us greatly towards our understanding of human nature. 
Just to get to a more in depth discussion going I'm posting a list of questions that I have pondered. I'd encourage everyone to post their own.
Why is it so hard to attempt to define it?
Love is not what? 
What might we mistake for love and why?
What do we need for love to exist?
What is love for?
Why do people want it?
Are we scared to understand it?
Love,
DaPonderer
P.S.
While I was writing this, I heard a female neighbor from across my backyard orgasm maybe three or four times. Correction: 4 or 5 times. The coincidence was very inspirational. :)
-------
I made (Oord) into a wiki link to Thomas Jay Oord, even though such an article doesn't exist yet. As it was, this just seemed out of place and was confusing, and I had to browse through the history to discover what it meant.
62.45.69.209 21:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsectioned comments

message: There is a redirect to this page from I love you - wasn't that the name of a computer virus? should be make that a diambig? Mark Richards 00:01, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Disambig is probably a good idea, Mark.  Good catch. :-) Jwrosenzweig 00:18, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Virus

message: On another note, it occurs to me that this would be a lovely article to have a digital photo of a sign language phrase inserted.  I don't think we should get too many of them (and yes, I know we could have a photo of a sign language phrase for many many articles), but in this case I think a shot of the "I love you" sign would be nice.  I don't own a digital camera or I'd do it myself.  Anyone agree/disagree/willing to take and upload such a picture? Jwrosenzweig 00:18, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: I removed section about I love you phrase in various languages as it is duplicating already linked Wiktionary entry. Besides such list would unnecessary clutter the article. Please don't reinsert it. Przepla 01:26, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: I love you in various languages

message: Surely these quotes belong on wikiquote, not here? LUDRAMAN | T 03:53, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: True, nevertheless they are adding spice to the article ;-). I'll try to select a few for preservation here, and move the rest to the wikiquote. I suggest leaving: Ambrose Bierce, Apostle Paul and Shakespeare. Any other opinions? Przepla 13:16, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: I want to insert the following but I don't feel certain enough to do so. Could somebody please verify. 
:The famous psychiatrist Sigmund Freud stated that the abiltity to trust is a necessary condition for love. Some psychiatrists believe that to love is one of the characterics of mental health.
Which psychiatrists believe this? Thanks in advance. Andries 11:53, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Trust, Mental health

message: I think God as an object of devotion should be mentioned. It differs from a deity , that is, that most, but not all, monotheist religions believe that God/Allah has and should have no form, in contrast to deities. Andries 20:22, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You're just inventing your own definitions of deity and god there.  — Chameleon 11:56, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: no, Chameleon, not an invention but I have to say that I was deeply and still am deeply influenced by several mainstream sects of Hinduism. And I know a lot of Christianity (raised as a Roman Catholic) and Islam too.  Yes, Chameleon, you were right. I looked it up in the dictionary. Andries 12:02, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I concur. Whatever I (as an atheist) can think about it I believe that God-connection in love should be mentioned. Therefore I reverted removal by User:Chameleon. Przepla 20:26, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Loving God and deities

message: *Love
Sorry, I can't understand why this link was removed...
"Love is an emotion, an emotional state of the energy of consciousness."
This is scientific-oriented article whith interesting analysing.
Really, the emotions is condition of soul (consciousness).
The Love is energy of anahata chakra (spiritual heart).
See also:
Cleansing of Chakras. Opening Up of Spiritual Heart
This knowledge is may be interesting for many people.
Another links contained only view, but here we can find a METHODS.
Yours respectfully,
Skywalker
:Skywalker, I removed the link because articles tend to grow endless lists of links. Your religion-associated book link will be joined by a link that proves love through the theory of evolution, another anthropology one and some stuff about Baha'i, Buddhism and Maya views on love. If the book presents something truly novel, you can write about it in the text body and use the book as a reference.
:Any Wikipedia user can also use Google, and there is some opposition to the use of Wikipedia as an advertising/attention seeking vehicle (see "What Wikipedia is not").
:I hope this is clear. JFW | T@lk 13:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I have removed the following statement from the article because it bothers me.
:Although humans are not sexually monogamous, we are usually emotionally monogamous and can only be in love with one person at a time.
It seems to me that we are not "usually emotionally monogamous". There are instances of people who maintain marriages and lovers simultaneously and who profess to love both their spouse and their lover. Likewise it appears to be quite common to love all of your children and to love your spouse simultaneously, albeit in slightly different ways. In societies which allow polygamous marriages, it appears quite common for the union to be happy. In fact the evidence appears to show that people are usually emotionally polygamous and that the statement would be nearer the truth if it said:
:Although humans are not emotionally monogamous, we are usually sexually monogamous and can only make love with one person at a time.
although even that statement is by no means true. Therefore I am removing the statement until it can be reworked to match reality a little more closely. -- Derek Ross |  Talk 20:22, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)
----
Hopefully people are liking my changes :)
--Johnkarp 02:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Monogamy

message: In japanese, there is another word for love, "Koi". I am not sure, but I have heard that "Koi" is more physical and impure than "Ai".
It should be noted that "ai" and "aisuru", the verb "to love" are not very commonly used in Japanese. One more often uses the the word "suki", or in extreme cases "daisuki" to express affection. "Suki" means "to like" and "daisuki" means "to like very much." Husbands and wives typically say, in the literal sense, "I like my spouse." This is based on what I've seen in Japanese culture and through studying the language. ApocalypseCow 03:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese 

message: There are way too many sections. Can't we convert most of them to bullet lists, as the text is no more than 1-2 lines in most? JFW | T@lk 22:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypersectionism 

message: I don't really know what to do with this (from the Christianity section), because other sections don't have similar quotes, and because the site linked to doesn't seem very good (multiple ads, text hard to navigate).  There must be a better free text, but that's not my specialty.
for more see the Christian New Testament
1 John 4:8
Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:16
So we have known and believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them.
Galaxiaad 23:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Testament quotes

message: It strikes me as a bit trite, and cold. I am minded to replace it with a photo of a Roman statue of the god Eros, from the Naples Archeological Museum. Any objections? Haiduc 11:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro picture 

message: I have removed the following:
:Love vs. Insanity?
:Studies have shown that mental scans of those in love show a striking resemblance to those with a mental illness. Love creates activity in the same area of the brain that hunger, thirst, and drug cravings create activity in. New love, therefore, could possibly be more physical than emotional (though drawing a clear line between physical and emotional is difficult when discussing the brain).	 
:Over time, this reaction to love mellows and different areas of the brain are activated, primarily ones involving long-term commitments.	 
:Dr. Andrew Newberg, a neuroscientist, suggests that this reaction to love is so similar to that of drugs because without love, humanity would die out.
There are several problems that (in my view) should be solved before this can go back into the article. The "studies" mentioned have not been referenced. Some of the interpretations are completely speculative. Finally, Dr Newberg's notability is not established and he redlinks, suggesting that he may not be as much an authority as his website makes out he is. JFW | T@lk 19:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange paragraph 

message: <Commenting on this phrase in Jewish Love.--Judaism employs a wide definition of love, both between people and between man and the Deity.>
:The Hebrew word translated as 'love' is a-hav-aw', Gesenius' Strong's Concordance:160—to love, delight. The root is a-hav' , Gesenius' Strong:157—to desire, to breath after, to long for. Implied in this etemology is that love is panting after something you need.
 
:All the forms of Love mentioned in the Article are of the same kind; they only vary in degree, depending on the need.
Yesselman 22:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew Definition of Love 

message: Sternberg is currently married to his third wife.
I personally don't find the above statement to be relevant to "Consummate love".  This information belongs in an article about Sternberg, not Love.  I'm going to remove it. Neutronium 19:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good ole case of WP:POINT. JFW | T@lk 14:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Neutronium is right. The statement just shows that Sternberg (like most of us) has fallen in and out of love. He may well have achieved consummate love with each of his three wives for a short time, who knows. But the fact that consummate love is a transient state should come as no surprise to anyone. In  fact it forms a part of Sternberg's theory. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant Information? 

message: A few years ago I was trying to figure out what I was really saying when I said that I loved my wife. I am a christian. I looked at what I would do if I really did what I thought it was about. What I would 'really' want a person to do who 'really' loved me. What I came up with 'worked', passed the 'nose test' and what I still use to this day. If anyone out there comes up with something better, I would like to hear it. What I came up with is this:
        Love is about Acceptance of another person, even to
        the extent that we allow their value system to affect
        the quality of our life.
In short then...Love is about Acceptance and that is all. I cannot control another person, but I can accept them. I currently believe that hatred is about non-acceptance. 
In the practical world I have arrived at this. I love my wife. I am willing to accept her and her value system even to the extent that I am willing to allow it to affect the quality of my life. I have locked this in by having stipulated that she can do no wrong. This does not mean that she is perfect. It does mean that I do not consider anything that she does to be wrong. As to how this relates to my understanding of the Bible teaching. God says that He accepts me, even to the extent that He allows my value system to affect the quality of His life, and He invites me to accept Him, even to the extent that I let His value system to affect the quality of my life.
Ken 04:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What I came up with 

message: What do people think about requesting to have this article locked?  It seems to me that people's "vandalism" and inane comments need to be reverted on a pretty much daily basis.  It sure would save lots of people lots of work...
--Sarfa 22:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it should only be locked for the period around Valentine's day, as that is probably an annual peak of vanadlaism for this article. 194.109.21.4 19:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locking the Article? 

message: Wikipedia is not censored, and I think that sexual act image would complete the article's coverage. So that's why I added the template in my past edit to this talkpage. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Qwertyxp2000, WP:Not censored does not mean that we unnecessarily add sexual images. There is no need whatsoever for a sexual act image to be in this article, especially for the lead. Read WP:GRATUITOUS. The absence of a sexual act image does not at all decrease readers' understanding of the topic of love. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

text: As for this and this image currently in the article, their inclusion is fine, in my opinion. But are they needed? I would say no. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would seriously agree with the statement that the sex image isn't at all necessary. I suppose that they aren't even necessary to make it complete so I reckon it should be removed altogether. Not that I'm saying that it should be "obscene" to put in sexual acts in the article, but I suppose it just isn't vital nor necessary to complete the article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 21:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

text: Strangely, I noticed the Indian section of the article, but it seems that it does illustrate a "love" in terms of sexual love, but I deem it unnecessary for the completeness of the article. I even think this article can still be complete if the image weren't even included. What do you reckon about the inclusion of the image? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 21:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

text: Wait... So you said their inclusion is fine but not needed. And WP:NOTCENSORED also means not add unnecessary sexual images. I don't see a necessity of applying this image if it isn't even the subject of the article. In my opinion, I think these images should be removed from this article and perhaps be put into a different more appropriate place, such as the sexual love article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 21:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Qwertyxp2000, I was simply letting you know that sexual images do not automatically get protection from exclusion. The Human sexual activity article (what you call the Sexual love article) already has enough sexual images. Furthermore, since love can also be sexual love, the "sexual love" term should redirect to this article or to the Intimate relationship article, or even to the Romance (love) article. The India section states, in part, "Kama in Indian literature means 'desire, wish or longing'. In contemporary literature, kama refers usually to sexual desire. However, the term also refers to any sensory enjoyment, emotional attraction and aesthetic pleasure such as from arts, dance, music, painting, sculpture and nature." So that seems why that image was added. The image is not off-topic in that sense. I don't care if either image stays or goes. I made my initial above comment before looking at the two images. I was under the impression that you felt that people can just come in and add sexual images to the article and that those images get to stay because of WP:NOTCENSORED. So my initial commentary was to clear that up. As for this, there is no need to ping me to this page since this article/talk page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not censored 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Loev (film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 05:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: haseeb nazar Haseeb Nazar (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2018 

message: 62.174.139.196 (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you provide some references/citations for this? The opening sentence is a ulitmate encompassing summary of the article. Love being painful, negative or source of depression is not mentioned anywhere in the article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Love is not always "positive" and can be very painful, negative and a source of depression.  

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) 04:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request of Help