Talk:Colour wheel theory of love

(First comment)

I followed the suggestion at Talk:Love styles, and redirected to this more specific title. I moved malmost all the text form there to the appropriate section--there may be some duplicating or trimming needed. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a great article; it's probably a great book; but I believe the objective of the Love styles page was to collect varying views, not to redirect to one book. See also the comments on Talk:Love_styles. Wes Turner (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. If I knew how, I'd put in the template at the top, "This sites mostly from one source, etc." Or whatever the phraseology is. MatchesMalone (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Color wheel theory of 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/20141219175815/http://www.confisus.co.uk/mindlabs/blackeyedsusan/Documents/Hendrick%20and%20Hendrick%20Love%20attitudes.pdf to http://www.confisus.co.uk/mindlabs/blackeyedsusan/Documents/Hendrick%20and%20Hendrick%20Love%20attitudes.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 21:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Expert needed

I've tagged this article as needing attention from an expert in psychology, as it has (IMO) a number of issues.

• First it reads like a book review; it is unclear how widespread or how widely accepted Lee's opinions on the subject are. Do psychologists routinely categorize relationships in his way? I've found a couple of sources not related to Lee's book (here, and here) both of them seem to define the terms differently to Lee. Specifically, Ludus (a style that seems to be of Lee's devising) is very different in the journal article; playfulness, or fun-seeking, rather than Lee's competitive (and possibly quite destructive) gaming.
• Second it is unclear from this article whether Lee is talking specifically about sexual relationships or about relationships in general; terms like mania or storge, or philia (not included) have well-defined meanings unrelated to sex; is Lee using them in the same way, or imparting an overtly sexual meaning to the terms? I can't tell from this.
• Third, as these terms do already have well-defined meanings, the article needs to make clear (if it is the case) that the definitions here are Lee's and not the traditional ones. Specifically he seems to have confused (or mis-labeled) storge (affection for the familiar) with philia (friendship).
• Fourth, there's no analysis of Lee's ideas by/in comparison to other models of describing relationships or sexual behaviour.

So I've edited it a bit in line with point three, and tagged it for attention by an expert. I trust everyone is OK with that. Swanny18 (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Lee's taxonomy is widely-used, but mainly as it is associated with the Love Attitudes Scale developed by Hendrick & Hendrick. An example would be this meta-analysis by Victor Karandashev: [1].

This article is quite bad though. There is a lot of uncited info, and WP:OR. ShiveryPeaks (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Psychology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2022 and 21 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rackzbrown (article contribs).

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Psychology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 July 2022 and 25 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): FangtianyuanHu (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by FangtianyuanHu (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Mathematic

Laws of exponent 41.115.33.66 (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)