Talk:Love/Archive 3

message: Why is paedophelia, incest, rape and violence listed in there? all of those are "close relationships."  That's for removal, but I'm sure there's probably some I missed that should be taken out.  I do have a suggestion for addition, however.  I think "infatuation" should be included, considering "limerence" is on the list, even though limerence is a feeling and not a relationship.  Perhaps another list should be created entirely, and be made up of the types of feelings of attraction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightskye (talk • contribs) 
:Well, incest can be considered a "close relationship" if the two consulting adults both love each other.(NOTE: I AM NO WHERE NEAR SUPPORTING OR GOING AGAINST "INCEST") rape and paedophelia should be removed. Because I doubt you'd force some child or someone else into have sex if you "love" them. Infatuation shouldn't be included (since there is no article for it, just a disambig.) Prostitution should also be removed. UnDeRsCoRe 18:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added this to the Template talk:Close Relationships. UnDeRsCoRe 18:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the template.  I am having trouble understanding the relationship between this topic and others listed.  This list of topics appears to be subjective.  If we are going to include a template of related topics, then they should be concerned with love-related topics. —Viriditas | Talk 11:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Close Relationships" List 

message: In the line where it says "Love is described as a deep, ineffable..," it should say something about the dictionary, since that's where it calls love "ineffable".  But, ineffable means "Unable to be defined," so, maybe there should be a couple words saying what ineffable means.
:Feel free to add a dictionary as a reference for this line. "Ineffable" is a common enough word that we needn't define it in this article, though we can link to the article explaining it. It does not, however, mean "unable to be defined", but rather "inexpressible, unutterable, indescribable". -Silence 04:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet, that's somewhat of a paradox, is it not?  I understand that emotions are not easy to explain, but it can be done, although it's often understood through images, metaphor, and symbols: in other words, nonverbal representations that are created in the mind.  Might it not be more accurate to emphasize the experiential nature of love, in addition to  multiple definitions, interpretations, and opinions on the topic, and that in order to understand love, one must experience it subjectively?  We can describe the taste of chocolate, the feel of an ocean breeze on the skin, the sound of a seagull - but without anything to compare it to, these words are meaningless. —Viriditas | Talk 06:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That was beautiful, Viriditas, and you made a good point.  Someone should add something about it having to be experienced first-hand in order for it to be completely understood.  
That's kind of the point that Viriditas was trying to make.  We're not using POV with our prose here, just trying to get the reader to know that their POV matters with this feeling.
--Knightskye 05:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It could just say "inexpressible" or any of the other synonyms that Silence mentioned. --65.27.237.250 04:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I wasn't signed in. Well, the above was me. --Millancad 04:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ineffable 

message: It seemed to have a slight bias toward the "eros" aspect of love as well as slightly duplicate content. Does anyone feel an intense, passionate desire to keep that single footnote in the intro? If not, I'd like to take it out and move it further down in the article. dr.ef.tymac 08:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reworked intro para 

message: "Love is a basic dimension of human experience...."
This implies that by definition, no other species are capable of love, which I do not think is fact. Is a revision in order?
*I'd say, humans are the only species that are verifiably capable of love. - Sikon 02:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. "Romantic love" is a very meaningful expression for the kind of bonding that has been occurring as long as men and women have been reproducing their kind. That has been going on far longer than Romanticism which was an art movement. Please sign your posts. You who don't sign seem to be the only one who thinks anyone has associated romanticism and the Bible, because the text you quoted certainly doesn't say that.Cuddlyable3 19:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only humans? 

message: As the original creator of the comment I suggest to remove the rather formal addition that does carry the message, but not in such a way that would stop the vandals. That's not the form you should talk to people in love. -- Kirils 23:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad you agree it is formal. This is, after all, an encyclopedia article. It is only a single sentence header, and the rest of what you put in there I left completely intact (despite many reasons suggesting why it should be changed, and even why it was removed to begin with). I left it as a courtesy to you. Here is a humble suggestion: we allow both contributions to peacibly coexist, as they have for days, and we continue to work together in other ways to keep this article improving. There are specific reasons why that was added, and it will be a win-win for all involved if we can simply drop this issue. dr.ef.tymac 01:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I just thought about that. In that case I insist the order of the two to be changed and recommend to remove one or both of the "starry" lines. People editing (vandalizing) the article will NOT read formalisms, so will just go straight ahead and write "Sasha loves Pasha". If you talk to them in a manner that might seem understanding and caring they will probably understand. It has been working for months a year ago. -- 08:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a header. Do you really insist to press this issue? How about give it a couple of days. dr.ef.tymac 12:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please check the article history. We can already see that speaking formal language to people driven by passion has failed. And any psychologist would tell you that it would, even without trying. I don't see why we need that formality, but if you wish, add it at the bottom, so that comment reaches the ones it's aimed at. -- Kirils 00:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article history is precisely what motivated this discussion and attempt at a compromise in the first place. Pursuant to WP policy: "Before adding any sort of content, ask yourself what would a reader expect to find in an encyclopedia." the relevant text has been changed. dr.ef.tymac 03:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-vandalism comment in the article 

message: I found this vandalism near the top of the article.
I tried editing it out, but for some reason, I couldent locate "max loves mia" anywhere in the article... Could anyone mind to fixing it? DiamondDragon contact 22:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing it out. Template was vandalized, it´s not that common. See Template:Love table.--Pethr 23:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  max loves mia? 

message: Can we get rid of all the "citation needed" next to comments that are stating the obvious?
"whereas in Western culture, by comparison, love is seen as a necessary prerequisite to marriage" being an example. They make the article look very scrappy.If noone places any objections I'll do it tomorrow.Schnizzle 11:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed. 

message: Let's face it love comes in all forms. 
 Ponder on this.....
Your feelings for your past relationship(you swear you were in LOVE). 
Well.....You thought you were in love until the other person came and NOW you insist your LOVE because you never felt like this in the past relationship.  But are you sure this time?
You ponder on where you were in your life then and now, and things are the same.  You also even doubt the possibility of confusion. Though you concluded confusion was/is not weighing in as a factor.
Shoud'nt defining love be simple?
And how do we define a love we feel for someone, and still want them to interpret our version of love?
We want the other person to know EXACTLY how they are loved. So as a couple they clearly understand their love for eachother.
Well love may come in all forms; different definitions, and interpretations.
BUT.....How do we narrow it down!
: How nice. --Kenneth M Burke 04:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you define "LOVE" and/or the amount of "LOVE" you have for someone. 

message: Please add  in interwiki section. Thanks! -- Givegains 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA in zh.wikipedia  

message: What thhe hell is this section on about? It sounds like the stuff you get in those quack self-help manuals that sell for like $29.95 a month for a year. This is clearly not encyclopedic - it is nothing but POV (unless someone can cite a reliable reference stating categorically that there are 10 'secrets' to love and that these are they). Needs some serious improvement. (86.138.44.17 19:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed: This section is subject to immediate removal. If someone wishes to re-instate the content, please forward the rationale here and be prepared with substantiation. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 19:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice one. Sorry if I sounded a little pushy with that ^ comment, but I'm glad you did something about it. Thanks. (86.138.44.17 16:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It looks like an interesting website, but you pretty much captured the main problem with it: not referenced. As it stands, it would be a stretch to even link to it, let alone copy content from it into any Wikipedia article. dr.ef.tymac 21:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  10 Secrets of Love 

message: I'm a wikipedia reader, but I haven't dabbled in editing at all.  Could someone who has kindly remove the word "fagtron" from the "Biology of love" section?  I'm reasonably certain it isn't supposed to be there.
Many thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.208.13.255 (talk) 06:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "fagtron" 

message: Why there is a silly "heart"-shaped image on top? Let's stay to scholar sources and avoid pushing western propaganda.--BMF81 21:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess that it's because this is a western language wikipedia and scholarly sources state that the heart-shaped image is a well known western symbol for love. It would only be silly to use it in an eastern language wikipedia -- as silly as using an eastern symbol for love in a western language wikipedia no doubt. It might be propagandistic to use a western symbol in an eastern wikipedia or an eastern symbol in a western wikipedia but it can hardly be so when the appropriate symbol appears in either type of wikipedia. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Heart" Image?!

message: How does one define love how do you know that you are in love if you have never felt it before?
Bumblebee
!!!
:You read our article on Sternberg's Triangular theory of love, of course! That demonstrates that only people who have never had friends, never had a crush on someone, and who have always hated their family have never felt love before. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Defining love

message: When operating under the belief that the definition of Love is "being in complete service of the growth of another person, while growing yourself", we can notice that sometimes we have a definite choice about loving another person and sometimes it seems we have no choice.  It will be interesting to explore whether there is "conscious love" and "unconscious love", or whether love is in fact, at some level, always a choice we make.  If love is a choice, can Love still be defined as an emotion, or something else?
Phil D Coactivator 03:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Love as a choice? 

message: Hey, a thought has struck me - why hasn't this section have "interracial love" as a catagory, I nominate and strongly reccomend that someone create an article of a suitable callibre and list it a "Known Love" if you know what I mean:  can you include variuos things such as the psychology of interracial love or probably the amative effects and drives of urges like these.  What is it a fetish or just simple human love...? (the only thing that was remotely close to this suggestion was interracial pornography!) (I am LOTRrules sorry for not signing in earliar!)89.240.251.76 19:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interracial love - anybody please help?