Talk:Affection/Archive 1

Archive 1

Inaccurate

I haven't time to do more than amend the introduction of this article now (and as Wiki doesn't enable RSS to check page changes . . . as far as I know) I can't keep track of my inuumerable visits here. Anyway, a simple check through a couple of dictionaries confirmed my initial scepticism regarding the meaning of the word. On dictionary.com (based on Random House Unabridged) the etymology given is:

"[Origin: 1200–50; ME < OF < L affectiōn- (s. of affectiō) disposition or state of mind or body;"

I've edited accordingly, deleting the incorrect reference to facere - to make or do. If there is any help from this, I imagine, secondary and applied Latin, then it is from afficere "to do something to, act on". And just in case anyone else doesn't realise wiki's failings I've added a general tag of warning. I was looking for the pschological meaning, derivation etc. Now I've done the work the link is clear from the etymology. The "correct" definition unifies the branches of meaning that have arisen. QED I've also deleted the section, (below) as this is incorrect and seems superfluous.

"is an emotion that derives from the recognition of one's own values in the character of another."

The etymology alone seems rather stark but seems to say all that is needed. Perhaps someone with more time could expand and succinctly explain the abbreviations etc. I've added brief references to the other meanings and uses . . maybe I'll pop back later . . .

LookingGlass 12:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Love and affection

From Love: "Love is any of a number of emotions related to a sense of strong affection"

From Affection: "Affection is a "disposition or state of mind or body" that is often associated with a feeling or type of love."

So yeah. 153.42.170.64 (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

Apparently a POV tag as added to this page without discussion and then removed.

Though I did not initially apply the tag, the page very obviously ignores (with the exception of one, almost pejorative, mention) the concept of socialization. The article seems to suggest that all available reseach on the subject shows it is a fixed phenomenon with almost no relationship to upbringing.

I don't have time to go into the other problems I had with the article so I am posting this to the talk page to get some additional cleanup.

Some sources would be nice also, particularly research papers.

The article as is sounds like an (airy, if I mght add) philosophical discussion, not an encyclopedic piece.

Also, the pictures may not be entirely neutral, I'll leave that to an expert however.

Proposed merge of section

The Psychology section of this article seems to be confusing the terms "affection" and "affect". This content may be valid, but it should probably be merged into the article on "Affect (psychology)". 72.195.132.12 (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. I removed this section most of this section but will copy it unto the talk page of Affect, in case anybody there wants to use text from the section. Lova Falk talk 17:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Manchu

This info is cited to several and distinct reliable sources. Secondly, WP:UNDUE means that it does not have significant coverage (which the info clearly does have); undue does not apply just because something is "engaged in by far less than 1% of the world's population." Thirdly, this info is one sentence in this article, meaning that it has not been given extra weight either. --Cold Season (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Affection. 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/20120316162825/http://www.techsociety.com:80/articles/JMF_Lawtonetal.pdf to http://www.techsociety.com/articles/JMF_Lawtonetal.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/academic/philosophy/social/9780199646814.do#.UZuheMqmVuR
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://isipar.org/files/parenting_and_prosocial_behavior_Knafo_Plomin_JPSP.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It is especially a Chinese custom ... to calm their baby boys with fellatio ...

"Affection can be displayed in different manners in different cultural societies. For example, in some cultures, such as Cambodia, Chinese in Southeast Asia, northern Manchu tribes along Amur River[12][13][14][15][16] It is especially a Chinese custom for grandmothers, mothers, and elder sisters to calm their baby boys with fellatio.[17][18]"

This statement had several problems. For one, the cited resources are to Google Books and not readily available publication, that is, hard to fact check. Of the source text that I managed to read a little of, at least one of them states that this is not something that is common at all, just that it might have been an accepted practice. It's very hard to find the original source for these statements as it in the text that I managed to access is just mentioned.

As a whole, I think that this statement will have to have better and more verifiable resources to deserve a place here. --Freediving-beava (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

In trying to add clarification in the restrictive definition of affection i changed "senuous" and got rid of usefully from usefully distinguished to make this section a little more simple. Nicholasemmett123 (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)